Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

Association between adherence to radiation therapy quality metrics and patient reported outcomes in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown significant variability in the quality of prostate cancer care in the US with questionable associations between quality measures and patient reported outcomes. We evaluated the impact of compliance with nationally recognized radiation therapy (RT) quality measures on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) cohort. METHODS: CEASAR is a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer from which we identified 649 who received primary RT and completed HRQOL surveys for inclusion. Eight quality measures were identified based on national guidelines. We analyzed the impact of compliance with these measures on HRQOL assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years after treatment. Multivariable analysis was performed controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS: Among eligible participants, 566 (87%) patients received external beam radiation therapy and 83 (13%) received brachytherapy. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range: 64-73), 33% had low-, 43% intermediate-, and 23% high-risk disease. 28% received care non-compliant with at least one measure. In multivariable analyses, while some statistically significant associations were identified, there were no clinically significant associations between compliance with evaluated RT quality measures and patient reported urinary irritative, urinary incontinence, bowel, sexual or hormonal function. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with RT quality measures was not meaningfully associated with patient-reported outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. Further work is needed to identify patient-centered quality measures of prostate cancer care.

Association between Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer and Mental Health Outcomes.

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare patient-reported mental health outcomes for men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective population-based analysis using the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study. Patient-reported depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression [CES-D]) and domains of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form survey evaluating emotional well-being and energy/fatigue were assessed through 5 years after treatment with surgery, radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) and active surveillance. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, and treatment approach. RESULTS: A total of 2,742 men (median [quartiles] age 64 [59-70]) met inclusion criteria. Baseline depressive symptoms, as measured by the CES-D, were low (median 4, quartiles 1-8) without differences between groups. We found no effect of treatment modality on depressive symptoms (p=0.78), though older age, poorer health, being unmarried and baseline CES-D score were associated with declines in mental health. There was no clinically meaningful association between treatment modality and scores for either emotional well-being (p=0.81) or energy/fatigue (p=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer showed no clinically important differences in mental health outcomes including depressive symptoms, emotional well-being, and energy/fatigue according to the treatment received (surgery, radiotherapy, or surveillance). However, we identified a number of characteristics associated with worse mental health outcomes including: older age, poorer health, being unmarried, and baseline CES-D score which may allow for early identification of patients most at risk of these outcomes following treatment.

Association between pelvic nodal radiotherapy and patient-reported functional outcomes through 5 years among men undergoing external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: An assessment of the comparative effectiveness analysis of surgery and radiation (CEASAR) cohort.

BACKGROUND: The role of pelvic irradiation in men receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer is unclear, in part due to a lack of data on patient-reported outcomes. We sought to compare functional outcomes for men receiving prostate and pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy, longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with clinically-localized prostate cancer undergoing EBRT. We examined the effect of prostate and pelvic (n = 102) versus prostate-only (n = 485) radiotherapy on patient-reported disease-specific (using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite[EPIC]-26) and general health-related (using the SF-36) function, over 5 years. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, clinicopathologic characteristics, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). RESULTS: 587 men (median [quartiles] age 69 [64-73] years) met inclusion criteria and completed ≥1 post-treatment survey. More men treated with prostate and pelvic radiotherapy had high-risk disease (58% vs. 18%, P < 0.01) and received ADT (75% vs. 41%, P < 0.01). These men reported worse sexual (6 months-5 years), hormonal (at 6 months), and physical (6 months-5 years) function. Accounting for baseline function, patient and tumor characteristics, and use of ADT, pelvic irradiation was not associated with statistically or clinically significant differences in bowel function, urinary incontinence, irritative voiding symptoms or sexual function through 5-years (all P > 0.05). Marginally clinically important differences were noted in hormonal function at 3-years (adjusted mean difference 4.7, 95% confidence interval [1.2-8.3]; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) 4 to 6) and 5-years (4.2, [0.4-8.0]) following treatment. After adjustment, there was a transient statistically significant, but not clinically important, difference in emotional well-being at 6 months (3.0, [0.19-5.8]; MCID 6) that resolved by 1 year and no differences in physical functioning or energy and fatigue. CONCLUSION: This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT, showed no clinically important differences in disease-specific or general health-related quality of life with the addition of pelvic irradiation to prostate radiotherapy, supporting the use of pelvic radiotherapy when it may be of clinical benefit, such as men with increased risk of nodal involvement.

Sexual function outcomes of radiation and androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer in men with good baseline function.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction, including erectile dysfunction and loss of libido, are common among men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer. Both local treatments and systemic androgen deprivation therapy may contribute to these outcomes and are differentially indicated based on disease characteristics. We sought to compare sexual function through 5 years after radiation treatment with and without androgen deprivation therapy in men with good baseline sexual function to better understand long-term effects in this understudied subset of patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively assembled population-based cohort of men who underwent radiation with and without androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate or high-risk localized prostate cancer. Sexual function was assessed longitudinally over 5 years. Men with erections sufficient for intercourse at baseline were selected for inclusion. RESULTS: Out of 167 patients included, 73 underwent radiation alone and 94 received androgen deprivation therapy plus radiation (51 with intermediate and 43 with high-risk disease). Androgen deprivation therapy use was associated with worse sexual function through 1 year regardless of disease risk. This difference was no longer statistically significant at 3 years in the intermediate-risk group. Compared to radiation alone, androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk disease was associated with worse sexual function at 3 years (effect: -20.3 points, CI [-31.8, -8.8], p < 0.001) but not at 5 years (effect: -3.4, CI [-17.2, 10.5], p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Androgen deprivation therapy plus radiation is associated with worse sexual function through 3-years follow-up in men with high-risk prostate cancer compared to radiation alone. The addition of androgen deprivation therapy in the treatment of intermediate-risk disease does not appear to result in worse sexual function at 3 or 5-year follow-up compared to radiation alone.

Association of Treatment Modality, Functional Outcomes, and Baseline Characteristics With Treatment-Related Regret Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Treatment-related regret is an integrative, patient-centered measure that accounts for morbidity, oncologic outcomes, and anxiety associated with prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between treatment approach, functional outcomes, and patient expectations and treatment-related regret among patients with localized prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This population-based, prospective cohort study used 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-based registries in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation cohort. Participants included men with clinically localized prostate cancer from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012. Data were analyzed from August 2, 2020, to March 1, 2021. EXPOSURES: Prostate cancer treatments included surgery, radiotherapy, and active surveillance. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient-reported treatment-related regret using validated metrics. Regression models were adjusted for demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment approach, and patient-reported functional outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 2072 men included in the analysis (median age, 64 [IQR, 59-69] years), treatment-related regret at 5 years after diagnosis was reported in 183 patients (16%) undergoing surgery, 76 (11%) undergoing radiotherapy, and 20 (7%) undergoing active surveillance. Compared with active surveillance and adjusting for baseline differences, active treatment was associated with an increased likelihood of regret for those undergoing surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.40 [95% CI, 1.44-4.01]) but not radiotherapy (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.88-2.66]). When mediation by patient-reported functional outcomes was considered, treatment modality was not independently associated with regret. Sexual dysfunction, but not other patient-reported functional outcomes, was significantly associated with regret (aOR for change in sexual function from baseline, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.81]). Subjective patient-perceived treatment efficacy (aOR, 5.40 [95% CI, 2.15-13.56]) and adverse effects (aOR, 5.83 [95% CI, 3.97-8.58]), compared with patient expectations before treatment, were associated with treatment-related regret. Other patient characteristics at the time of treatment decision-making, including participatory decision-making tool scores (aOR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.69-0.92]), social support (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.90]), and age (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.97]), were significantly associated with regret. Results were comparable when assessing regret at 3 years rather than 5 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this cohort study suggest that more than 1 in 10 patients with localized prostate cancer experience treatment-related regret. The rates of regret appear to differ between treatment approaches in a manner that is mediated by functional outcomes and patient expectations. Treatment preparedness that focuses on expectations and treatment toxicity and is delivered in the context of shared decision-making should be the subject of future research to examine whether it can reduce regret.

Five-year outcomes from a prospective comparative effectiveness study evaluating external-beam radiotherapy with or without low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To inform patients who are in the process of selecting prostate cancer treatment, the authors compared disease-specific function after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone versus EBRT plus a low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR). METHODS: For this prospective study, men who had localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012 were enrolled. Assessments at baseline, 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 years included the patient-reported Expanded Prostate Index Composite, the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey, and treatment-related regret. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and for patient and treatment characteristics. The minimum clinically important difference in scores on the Expanded Prostate Index Composite 26-item instrument was from 5 to 7 for urinary irritation and from 4 to 6 for bowel function. RESULTS: Six-hundred ninety-five men met inclusion criteria and received either EBRT (n = 583) or EBRT-LDR (n = 112). Patients in the EBRT-LDR group were younger (median age, 66 years [interquartile range [IQR], 60-71 years] vs 69 years [IQR, 64-74 years]; P < .001), were less likely to receive pelvic radiotherapy (10% vs 18%; P = .040), and had higher baseline 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey physical function scores (median score, 95 [IQR, 86-100] vs 90 [IQR, 70-100]; P < .001). Over a 3-year period, compared with EBRT, EBRT-LDR was associated with worse urinary irritative scores (adjusted mean difference at 3 years, -5.4; 95% CI, -9.3, -1.6) and bowel function scores (-4.1; 95% CI, -7.6, -0.5). The differences were no longer clinically meaningful at 5 years (difference in urinary irritative scores: -4.5; 95% CI, -8.4, -0.5; difference in bowel function scores: -2.1; 95% CI, -5.7, -1.4). However, men who received EBRT-LDR were more likely to report moderate or big problems with urinary function bother (adjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.2) and frequent urination (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.6) through 5 years. There were no differences in survival or treatment-related regret between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EBRT alone, EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative and bowel function over 3 years after treatment and more urinary bother at 5 years. LAY SUMMARY: In men with prostate cancer who received external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR), EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically worse urinary irritation and bowel function through 3 years but resolved after 5 years. Men who received EBRT-LDR continued to report moderate-to-big problems with urinary function bother and frequent urination through 5 years. There was no difference in treatment-related regret or survival between patients who received EBRT and those who received EBRT-LDR. These intermediate-term estimates of function may facilitate counseling for men who are selecting treatment.

Patient-Reported Financial Toxicity Associated with Contemporary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Contemporary treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer provide comparable overall and cancer-specific survival. However, the degree of financial burden imposed by treatment, the factors contributing to that burden, and how different treatments compare with regard to financial toxicity remain poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer from 2011 to 2012. Questionnaires were collected at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Differences in patient-reported financial burden were compared between active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 2,121 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 15% reported large or very large burden of treatment costs within 6 months, declining to 3% by year 5. When controlling for age, education, income and other covariates, external beam radiotherapy was associated with greater financial burden than active surveillance and radical prostatectomy at 1 year (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.3, respectively) and 3 years (OR 3.1 95% CI 1.1-8.8 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.7, respectively). Radical prostatectomy and active surveillance had similar rates of financial burden at all time points. Age, race, education, and D'Amico risk group were associated with financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: External beam radiotherapy was associated with the highest financial burden, even when controlling for age, education and income. Prospective studies that directly measure out-of-pocket and indirect costs and account more thoroughly for baseline socioeconomic differences are warranted in order to identify those most at risk.

Radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: Effect of timing of postprostatectomy radiation on functional outcomes.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The timing of radiotherapy (RT) after prostatectomy is controversial, and its effect on sexual, urinary, and bowel function is unknown. This study seeks to compare patient-reported functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) and postprostatectomy radiation as well as elucidate the timing of radiation to allow optimal recovery of function. METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, observational study of men with localized prostate cancer. Patient-reported sexual, urinary, and bowel functional outcomes were measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at baseline and at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Functional outcomes were compared among men undergoing RP alone, post-RP adjuvant radiation (RP + aRT), and post-RP salvage radiation (RP + sRT) using multivariable models controlling for baseline clinical, demographic, and functional characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1,482 CEASAR participants initially treated with RP for clinically localized prostate cancer, 11.5% (N = 170) received adjuvant (aRT, N = 57) or salvage (sRT, N = 113) radiation. Men who received post-RP RT had worse scores in all domains (sexual function [-9.0, 95% confidence interval {-14.5, -3.6}, P < 0.001], incontinence [-8.8, {-14.0, -3.6}, P < 0.001], irritative voiding [-5.9, {-9.0, -2.8}, P < 0.001], bowel irritative [-3.5, {-5.8, -1.2}, P = 0.002], and hormonal function [-4.5, {-7.2, -1.7}, P = 0.001]) compared to RP alone at 5 years of follow-up. Compared to men treated with RP alone in an adjusted linear model, sRT was associated with significantly worse scores in all functional domains. aRT was associated with significantly worse incontinence, urinary irritation, and hormonal function domain scores compared to RP alone at 5 years of follow-up. On multivariable modeling, RT administered approximately 24 months after RP was associated with the smallest decline in sexual domain score, with an adjusted mean decrease of 8.85 points (95% confidence interval [-19.8, 2.1]) from post-RP, pre-RT baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In men with localized prostate cancer, post-RP RT was associated with significantly worse sexual, urinary, and bowel function domain scores at 5 years compared to RP alone. Radiation delayed for approximately 24 months after RP may be optimal for preserving erectile function compared to radiation administered closer to the time of RP.

Assessing the Quality of Surgical Care for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from the CEASAR Study.

PURPOSE: Prior studies suggest that nationally endorsed quality measures for prostate cancer care are not linked closely with outcomes. Using a prospective, population based cohort we measured clinically relevant variation in structure, process and outcome measures in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) Study enrolled men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2011 to 2012 with 1,069 meeting the final inclusion criteria. Quality of life was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) and clinical data by chart review. Six quality measures were assessed, including pelvic lymphadenectomy with risk of lymph node involvement 2% or greater, appropriate nerve sparing, negative surgical margins, urinary and sexual function, treatment by high volume surgeon, and 30-day and 1-year complications. Receipt of high quality care was compared across categories of race, age, surgeon volume and surgical approach via multivariable analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in quality across race, age or surgeon volume strata, except for worse urinary incontinence in Black men. However, robotic surgery patients experienced fewer complications (3% vs 9.3% short-term and 11% vs 16% long-term), were more likely to be treated by a high volume surgeon (47% vs 25%) and demonstrated better sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort we did not identify meaningful variation in quality of care across racial groups, age groups and surgeon volume strata, suggesting that men are receiving comparable quality of care across these strata. However, we did find variation between open and robotic surgery with fewer complications, improved sexual function and increased use of high volume surgeons in the robotic group, possibly reflecting differences in quality between approaches, differences in practice patterns and/or biases in patient selection.

Development and Internal Validation of a Web-based Tool to Predict Sexual, Urinary, and Bowel Function Longitudinally After Radiation Therapy, Surgery, or Observation.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making to guide treatment of localized prostate cancer requires delivery of the anticipated quality of life (QOL) outcomes of contemporary treatment options (including radical prostatectomy [RP], intensity-modulated radiation therapy [RT], and active surveillance [AS]). Predicting these QOL outcomes based on personalized features is necessary. OBJECTIVE: To create an easy-to-use tool to predict personalized sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormonal function outcomes after RP, RT, and AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, population-based cohort study was conducted utilizing US cancer registries of 2563 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 2011-2012. INTERVENTION: Patient-reported urinary, sexual, and bowel function up to 5 yr after treatment. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patient-reported urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal function through 5 yr after treatment were collected using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire. Comprehensive models to predict domain scores were fit, which included age, race, D'Amico classification, body mass index, EPIC-26 baseline function, treatment, and standardized scores measuring comorbidity, general QOL, and psychosocial health. We reduced these models by removing the instrument scores and replacing D'Amico classification with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Gleason score. For the final model, we performed bootstrap internal validation to assess model calibration from which an easy-to-use web-based tool was developed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The prediction models achieved bias-corrected R-squared values of 0.386, 0.232, 0.183, 0.214, and 0.309 for sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritative, bowel, and hormonal domains, respectively. Differences in R-squared values between the comprehensive and parsimonious models were small in magnitude. Calibration was excellent. The web-based tool is available at https://statez.shinyapps.io/PCDSPred/. CONCLUSIONS: Functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer can be predicted at the time of diagnosis based on age, race, PSA, biopsy grade, baseline function, and a general question regarding overall health. Providers and patients can use this prediction tool to inform shared decision making. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we studied patient-reported sexual, urinary, hormonal, and bowel function through 5 yr after treatment with radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. We developed a web-based predictive tool that can be used to predict one's outcomes after treatment based on age, race, prostate-specific antigen, biopsy grade, pretreatment baseline function, and a general question regarding overall health. We hope both patients and providers can use this tool to better understand expected outcomes after treatment, further enhancing shared decision making between providers and patients.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Through 5 Years for Active Surveillance, Surgery, Brachytherapy, or External Beam Radiation With or Without Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Understanding adverse effects of contemporary treatment approaches for men with favorable-risk and unfavorable-risk localized prostate cancer could inform treatment selection. Objective: To compare functional outcomes associated with prostate cancer treatments over 5 years after treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, population-based cohort study of 1386 men with favorable-risk (clinical stage cT1 to cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤20 ng/mL, and Grade Group 1-2) prostate cancer and 619 men with unfavorable-risk (clinical stage cT2cN0M0, PSA of 20-50 ng/mL, or Grade Group 3-5) prostate cancer diagnosed in 2011 through 2012, accrued from 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program sites and a US prostate cancer registry, with surveys through September 2017. Exposures: Treatment with active surveillance (n = 363), nerve-sparing prostatectomy (n = 675), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT; n = 261), or low-dose-rate brachytherapy (n = 87) for men with favorable-risk disease and treatment with prostatectomy (n = 402) or EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 217) for men with unfavorable-risk disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-reported function, based on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (range, 0-100), 5 years after treatment. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important difference was 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritative symptoms, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormonal function. Results: A total of 2005 men met inclusion criteria and completed the baseline and at least 1 postbaseline survey (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [59-70] years; 1529 of 1993 participants [77%] were non-Hispanic white). For men with favorable-risk prostate cancer, nerve-sparing prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence at 5 years (adjusted mean difference, -10.9 [95% CI, -14.2 to -7.6]) and sexual function at 3 years (adjusted mean difference, -15.2 [95% CI, -18.8 to -11.5]) compared with active surveillance. Low-dose-rate brachytherapy was associated with worse urinary irritative (adjusted mean difference, -7.0 [95% CI, -10.1 to -3.9]), sexual (adjusted mean difference, -10.1 [95% CI, -14.6 to -5.7]), and bowel (adjusted mean difference, -5.0 [95% CI, -7.6 to -2.4]) function at 1 year compared with active surveillance. EBRT was associated with urinary, sexual, and bowel function changes not clinically different from active surveillance at any time point through 5 years. For men with unfavorable-risk disease, EBRT with ADT was associated with lower hormonal function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference, -5.3 [95% CI, -8.2 to -2.4]) and bowel function at 1 year (adjusted mean difference, -4.1 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.9]), but better sexual function at 5 years (adjusted mean difference, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.2-18.7]) and incontinence at each time point through 5 years (adjusted mean difference, 23.2 [95% CI, 17.7-28.7]), than prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, most functional differences associated with contemporary management options attenuated by 5 years. However, men undergoing prostatectomy reported clinically meaningful worse incontinence through 5 years compared with all other options, and men undergoing prostatectomy for unfavorable-risk disease reported worse sexual function at 5 years compared with men who underwent EBRT with ADT.

Interpretation of Domain Scores on the EPIC-How Does the Domain Score Translate into Functional Outcomes?

PURPOSE: The EPIC-26 (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-Short Form) is a validated questionnaire for measuring health related quality of life. However, the relationship between domain scores and functional outcomes remains unclear, leading to potential confusion about expectations after treatment. For instance, does a sexual function domain score of 80 mean that a patient can achieve erection sufficient for intercourse? Consequently we sought to determine the relationship between the domain score and the response to obtaining the best possible outcome for each question. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from the CEASAR (Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation) study, a multicenter, prospective study of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, we analyzed 11,464 EPIC-26 questionnaires from a total of 2,563 men at baseline through 60 months of followup who were treated with robotic prostatectomy, radiotherapy or active surveillance. We dichotomized every item into its best possible outcome and assessed the percent of men at each domain score who achieved the best result. RESULTS: For every EPIC-26 item the frequency of the best possible outcome was reported by domain score category. For example, a score of 80 to 100 on sexual function corresponded to 97% of men reporting erections sufficient for intercourse while at a score of 40 to 60 only 28% reported adequate erections. Also, at a score of 80 to 100 on the urinary incontinence domain 93% of men reported rarely or never leaking vs 6% at a score of 61 to 80. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate a novel way to interpret EPIC-26 domain scores, demonstrating large variations in the percent of respondents reporting the best possible outcomes over narrow domain score differences. This information may be valuable when counseling men on treatment options.

Contemporary prostate cancer radiation therapy in the United States: Patterns of care and compliance with quality measures.

PURPOSE: Quality measures represent the standards of appropriate treatment agreed upon by experts in the field and often supported by data. The extent to which providers in the community adhere to quality measures in radiation therapy (RT) is unknown. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with clinically localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012. Patients completed surveys and medical records were reviewed. Patients were risk-stratified according to D'Amico classification criteria. Patterns of care and compliance with 8 quality measures as endorsed by national consortia as of 2011 were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 926 men underwent definitive RT (69% external beam radiation therapy [EBRT]), 17% brachytherapy (BT), and 14% combined EBRT and BT with considerable variation in radiation techniques across risk groups. Most men who received EBRT had dose-escalated EBRT (>75 Gy; 93%) delivered with conventional fractionation (<2 Gy; 95%), intensity modulated RT (76%), and image guided RT (85%). Most men treated with BT received I125 (77%). Overall, 73% of the men received EBRT that was compliant with the quality measures (dose-escalation, image-guidance, appropriate use of androgen deprivation therapy, and appropriate treatment target) but only 60% of men received BT that was compliant with quality measures (postimplant dosimetry and appropriate dose). African-American men (64%) and other minorities (62%) were less likely than white men (77%) to receive EBRT that was compliant with quality measures. CONCLUSIONS: Most men who received RT for localized prostate cancer were treated with an appropriately high dose and received image guidance and intensity modulated RT. However, compliance with some nationally recognized quality measures was relatively low and varied by race. There are significant opportunities to improve the delivery of RT and especially for men of a minority race.

Comparison of Patient-reported Outcomes After External Beam Radiation Therapy and Combined External Beam With Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Five-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P < .001) and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .001). Baseline urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function was similar between treatment groups (P > .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P < .001), 12 months (AMD -12.9, P < .001), and 36 months (AMD -4.7, P = .034) than men receiving EBRT. At 12 months, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse bowel function (AMD -5.8, P = .002), but these differences were not seen at 36 months. There were no significant differences in sexual or hormone function between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Men treated with EB-LDR report worse bowel function at 1 year and worse urinary irritative function through 3 years compared with men treated with EBRT alone. These side effect profiles should be discussed with patients when considering EB-LDR versus EBRT treatment.

Effect of Prostate Cancer Severity on Functional Outcomes After Localized Treatment: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation Study Results.

BACKGROUND: Whether prostate cancer severity modifies patient-reported functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences in predicted function over time between RP and EBRT varied by risk group. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, observational study that enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011-2012. Among 2117 CEASAR participants who underwent RP or EBRT, 817 had low-risk, 902 intermediate-risk, and 398 high-risk disease. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patient-reported, disease-specific function was measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (at baseline and 6, 12, and 36 mo). Predicted function was estimated using regression models and compared by disease risk. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Low-risk EBRT patients reported 3-yr sexual function scores 12 points higher than those of low-risk RP patients (RP, 39 points [95% confidence interval {CI}, 37-42] vs EBRT, 52 points [95% CI, 47-56]; p<0.001). The difference in 3-yr scores for high-risk patients was not clinically significant (RP, 32 points [95% CI, 28-35] vs EBRT, 38 points [95% CI, 33-42]; p=0.03). However, when using a commonly used binary definition of sexual function (erections firm enough for intercourse), no major differences were noted between RP and EBRT at 3 yr across low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease strata. No clinically significant interactive effects between treatment and cancer severity were observed for incontinence, bowel, irritative voiding, and hormone domains. The primary limitation is the lack of firmly established thresholds for clinically significant differences in Expanded Prostate Index Composite domain scores. CONCLUSIONS: For men with low-risk prostate cancer, EBRT was associated with higher sexual function scores at 3 yr than RP; however, for men with high-risk prostate cancer, no clinically significant difference was noted. Men with high-risk prostate cancer should be counseled that EBRT and RP carry similar sexual function outcomes at 3 yr. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we studied the urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal functions of patients 3 yr after undergoing prostate cancer surgery or radiation. We found that for patients with high-risk disease, sexual function was similar between surgery and radiation. We conclude that high-risk patients undergoing radiation therapy should be counseled that sexual function may not be as good as low-risk patients undergoing radiation.

Patient Reported Comparative Effectiveness of Contemporary Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus External Beam Radiation Therapy of the Mid 1990s for Localized Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about differences in patient reported outcomes between contemporary external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer that delivers higher doses of conformal radiation and older techniques. We examined sexual, urinary and bowel function between men undergoing contemporary intensity modulated radiation therapy vs those undergoing external beam radiation therapy in the mid 1990s. METHODS: Subjects were selected from 2 large population based prospective cohort studies. Main outcomes were between-group differences in adjusted mean scores at 6 and 12 months. Secondary analyses examined odds ratios comparing groups reporting a clinically significant decline in function. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 943 men, 467 diagnosed in 2011 to 2012 and 476 diagnosed in 1994 to 1995. Men undergoing contemporary intensity modulated radiation therapy reported better bowel function at 6 months (mean difference 4.3 points, 95% CI 1.6-7.0) but not at 12 months. Patients receiving contemporary intensity modulated radiation therapy reported statistically worse but probably not clinically meaningful different urinary function at 12 months (2.7, 0.5 to 4.8 points), and no difference at 6 months. No differences in sexual function at 6 or 12 months were found. Secondary analyses demonstrated lower odds of reporting clinically meaningful declines in bowel function at 6 and 12 months and sexual function at 12 months for contemporary intensity modulated radiation therapy. However, patients receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy had higher odds of reporting clinically meaningful declines in urinary continence at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the delivery of higher doses of radiation, men treated with contemporary intensity modulated radiation therapy reported fewer gastrointestinal and possibly fewer sexual side effects than those treated with external beam radiation therapy in the mid 1990s. However, delivery of dose escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy may cause more urinary side effects.

The Effect of Nerve Sparing Status on Sexual and Urinary Function: 3-Year Results from the CEASAR Study.

PURPOSE: Nerve sparing contributes to the recovery of sexual and urinary function after radical prostatectomy but it may be ineffective in some patients or carry the risk of a positive surgical margin. We evaluated sexual and urinary function outcomes according to the degree of nerve sparing in patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CEASAR (Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation) study is a prospective, population based, observational study of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. Patient reported sexual and urinary functions were measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at baseline within 6 months after diagnosis, and 6, 12 and 36 months after enrollment. Study inclusion criteria included radical prostatectomy as primary treatment, documentation of nerve sparing status and absent androgen deprivation therapy. Nerve sparing status was defined as none, unilateral or bilateral according to the operative report. RESULTS: The final analytical cohort included 991 men. The 11 men treated with unilateral nerve sparing and the 75 treated with a nonnerve sparing procedure were grouped together. In the multivariable model there was a significant difference in the sexual function score 3 years after radical prostatectomy in the bilateral nerve sparing group compared with the unilateral and nonnerve sparing group (6.1 points, 95% CI 2.0-10.3, p = 0.004). This was more pronounced in men with high baseline sexual function (8.23 points, 95% CI 1.6-14.8, p = 0.014) but not in those with low baseline function (4.0 points, 95% CI -0.6-8.7, p = 0.090). Similar effects were demonstrated on urinary incontinence scores. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral nerve sparing resulted in better sexual and urinary function outcomes than unilateral or nonnerve sparing but the difference was not significant in men with low baseline sexual function.

Patient engagement in the design and execution of urologic oncology research.

INTRODUCTION: There have been significant effort and financial support to engage patients in the design and execution of medical research. However, little is known about the relative benefits or potential impact of involving patients in research, most efficient practices and systems to enhance their involvement, and potential barriers and challenges that are involved with engaging patients. In this review, we will discuss the value of patient centered research, review the challenges that many of these studies faced, and highlight potential future opportunities to enhance patient involvement in urologic research. METHODS: An English-language literature search was performed in the electronic databases of Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and on the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) website. Search items included "patient-centered research," "patient-reported outcomes" and "patient engagement" in various combinations. Although PCORI has funded almost 600 projects with $1.6 billion to improve patient centered research, the search revealed 3 studies of patient engagement in the development, management, and execution of urologic oncology research. RESULTS: Patient engagement in the design and execution of medical research can help align research topics to match patient priorities, improve survey and data collection tools, increase patient recruitment and participation in studies, and improve accessibility and dissemination of clinically relevant results from medical research. However, engagement patients in research requires significant investment of time, financial support, and energy from the patients, stakeholders, and researchers to provide mutual benefit. In the three studies in urologic oncology that involved patients, the patients provided a significant impact on the structure of the studies and helped improve the ability of patients to apply the results from the research studies. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits to involving patients in research to improve the access, understanding, and application of clinical evidence can be significant. Patient engagement in urologic oncology research is limited currently, but is expected to grow as the funding agencies incentivize the practice and the culture shifts toward a greater emphasis on patient centered outcomes.