Association Between Choice of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy, or Active Surveillance and Patient-Reported Quality of Life Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have to decide among treatment strategies that may differ in their likelihood of adverse effects. Objective: To compare quality of life (QOL) after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, and brachytherapy vs active surveillance. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based prospective cohort of 1141 men (57% participation among eligible men) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were enrolled from January 2011 through June 2013 in collaboration with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Median time from diagnosis to enrollment was 5 weeks, and all men were enrolled with written informed consent prior to treatment. Final follow-up date for current analysis was September 9, 2015. Exposures: Treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of life using the validated instrument Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices was assessed at baseline (pretreatment) and 3, 12, and 24 months after treatment. The instrument contains 4 domains-sexual dysfunction, urinary obstruction and irritation, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems-each scored from 0 (no dysfunction) to 100 (maximum dysfunction). Propensity-weighted mean domain scores were compared between each treatment group vs active surveillance at each time point. Results: Of 1141 enrolled men, 314 pursued active surveillance (27.5%), 469 radical prostatectomy (41.1%), 249 external beam radiotherapy (21.8%), and 109 brachytherapy (9.6%). After propensity weighting, median age was 66 to 67 years across groups, and 77% to 80% of participants were white. Across groups, propensity-weighted mean baseline scores were 41.8 to 46.4 for sexual dysfunction, 20.8 to 22.8 for urinary obstruction and irritation, 9.7 to 10.5 for urinary incontinence, and 5.7 to 6.1 for bowel problems. Compared with active surveillance, mean sexual dysfunction scores worsened by 3 months for patients who received radical prostatectomy (36.2 [95% CI, 30.4-42.0]), external beam radiotherapy (13.9 [95% CI, 6.7-21.2]), and brachytherapy (17.1 [95% CI, 7.8-26.6]). Compared with active surveillance at 3 months, worsened urinary incontinence was associated with radical prostatectomy (33.6 [95% CI, 27.8-39.2]); acute worsening of urinary obstruction and irritation with external beam radiotherapy (11.7 [95% CI, 8.7-14.8]) and brachytherapy (20.5 [95% CI, 15.1-25.9]); and worsened bowel symptoms with external beam radiotherapy (4.9 [95% CI, 2.4-7.4]). By 24 months, mean scores between treatment groups vs active surveillance were not significantly different in most domains. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, each treatment strategy was associated with distinct patterns of adverse effects over 2 years. These findings can be used to promote treatment decisions that incorporate individual preferences.

Prostate Cancer Patient Characteristics Associated With a Strong Preference to Preserve Sexual Function and Receipt of Active Surveillance.

Background: Men with early-stage prostate cancer have multiple options that have similar oncologic efficacy but vary in terms of their impact on quality of life. In low-risk cancer, active surveillance is the option that best preserves patients' sexual function, but it is unknown if patient preference affects treatment selection. Our objectives were to identify patient characteristics associated with a strong preference to preserve sexual function and to determine whether patient preference and baseline sexual function level are associated with receipt of active surveillance in low-risk cancer. Methods: In this population-based cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, baseline patient-reported sexual function was assessed using a validated instrument. Patients were also asked whether preservation of sexual function was very, somewhat, or not important. Prostate cancer disease characteristics and treatments received were abstracted from medical records. A modified Poisson regression model with robust standard errors was used to compute adjusted risk ratio (aRR) estimates. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Among 1194 men, 52.6% indicated a strong preference for preserving sexual function. Older men were less likely to have a strong preference (aRR = 0.98 per year, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97 to 0.99), while men with normal sexual function were more likely (vs poor function, aRR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.39 to 1.82). Among 568 men with low-risk cancer, there was no clear association between baseline sexual function or strong preference to preserve function with receipt of active surveillance. However, strong preference may differnetially impact those with intermediate baseline function vs poor function (Pinteraction = .02). Conclusions: Treatment choice may not always align with patients' preferences. These findings demonstrate opportunities to improve delivery of patient-centered care in early prostate cancer.

Comparison of Patient Report and Medical Records of Comorbidities: Results From a Population-Based Cohort of Patients With Prostate Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: The comorbid conditions of patients with cancer affect treatment decisions, which in turn affect survival and health-related quality-of-life outcomes. Comparative effectiveness research studies must account for these conditions via medical record abstraction or patient report. OBJECTIVE: To examine the agreement between medical records and patient reports in assessing comorbidities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-reported information and medical records were prospectively collected as part of the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness & Survivorship Study, a population-based cohort of 881 patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer enrolled in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry from January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2013. The presence or absence of 20 medical conditions was compared based on patient report vs abstraction of medical records. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Agreement between patient reports and medical records for each condition was assessed using the κ statistic. Subgroup analyses examined differences in κ statistics based on age, race, marital status, educational level, and income. Logistic regression models for each condition examined factors associated with higher agreement. RESULTS: A total of 881 patients participated in the study (median age, 65 years; age range, 41-80 years; 633 white [71.9%]). In 16 of 20 conditions, there was agreement between patient reports and medical records for more than 90% of patients; agreement was lowest for hyperlipidemia (68%; κ = 0.36) and arthritis (66%; κ = 0.14). On multivariable analysis, older age (≥70 years old) was significantly associated with lower agreement for myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.80), cerebrovascular disease (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.78), coronary artery disease (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.67), arrhythmia (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25-0.79), and kidney disease (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.52). Race and educational level were not significantly associated with κ in 18 of 19 modeled conditions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Overall, patient reporting provides information similar to medical record abstraction without significant differences by patient race or educational level. Use of patient reports, which are less costly than medical record audits, is a reasonable approach for observational comparative effectiveness research.