Relief of Urinary Symptom Burden after Primary Prostate Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Harms of prostate cancer treatment on urinary health related quality of life have been thoroughly studied. In this study we evaluated not only the harms but also the potential benefits of prostate cancer treatment in relieving the pretreatment urinary symptom burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In American (1,021) and Spanish (539) multicenter prospective cohorts of men with localized prostate cancer we evaluated the effects of radical prostatectomy, external radiotherapy or brachytherapy in relieving pretreatment urinary symptoms and in inducing urinary symptoms de novo, measured by changes in urinary medication use and patient reported urinary bother. RESULTS: Urinary symptom burden improved in 23% and worsened in 28% of subjects after prostate cancer treatment in the American cohort. Urinary medication use rates before treatment and 2 years after treatment were 15% and 6% with radical prostatectomy, 22% and 26% with external radiotherapy, and 19% and 46% with brachytherapy, respectively. Pretreatment urinary medication use (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-2.0, p = 0.04) and pretreatment moderate lower urinary tract symptoms (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.2-3.6) predicted prostate cancer treatment associated relief of baseline urinary symptom burden. Subjects with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent radical prostatectomy experienced the greatest relief of pretreatment symptoms (OR 4.3, 95% CI 3.0-6.1), despite the development of deleterious de novo urinary incontinence in some men. The magnitude of pretreatment urinary symptom burden and beneficial effect of cancer treatment on those symptoms were verified in the Spanish cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Men with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms may experience benefit rather than harm in overall urinary outcome from primary prostate cancer treatment. Practitioners should consider the full spectrum of urinary symptom burden evident before prostate cancer treatment in treatment decisions.

Estimating preferences for treatments in patients with localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Studies of patients' preferences for localized prostate cancer treatments have assessed radical prostatectomy and external radiation therapy, but none of them has evaluated brachytherapy. The aim of our study was to assess the preferences and willingness to pay of patients with localized prostate cancer who had been treated with radical prostatectomy, external radiation therapy, or brachytherapy, and their related urinary, sexual, and bowel side effects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was an observational, prospective cohort study with follow-up until 5 years after treatment. A total of 704 patients with low or intermediate risk localized prostate cancer were consecutively recruited from 2003 to 2005. The estimation of preferences was conducted using time trade-off, standard gamble, and willingness-to-pay methods. Side effects were measured with the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC), a prostate cancer-specific questionnaire. Tobit models were constructed to assess the impact of treatment and side effects on patients' preferences. Propensity score was applied to adjust for treatment selection bias. RESULTS: Of the 580 patients reporting preferences, 165 were treated with radical prostatectomy, 152 with external radiation therapy, and 263 with brachytherapy. Both time trade-off and standard gamble results indicated that the preferences of patients treated with brachytherapy were 0.06 utilities higher than those treated with radical prostatectomy (P=.01). Similarly, willingness-to-pay responses showed a difference of €57/month (P=.004) between these 2 treatments. Severe urinary incontinence presented an independent impact on the preferences elicited (P<.05), whereas no significant differences were found by bowel and sexual side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that urinary incontinence is the side effect with the highest impact on preferences and that brachytherapy and external radiation therapy are more valued than radical prostatectomy. These time trade-off and standard gamble preference assessments as well as the willingness-to-pay estimation could be useful to perform respectively cost-utility or cost-benefit analyses, which can guide health policy decisions.

[Cost comparison of three treatments for localized prostate cancer in Spain: radical prostatectomy, prostate brachytherapy and external 3D conformal radiotherapy]. / Comparación de costes de tres tratamientos del cáncer de próstata localizado en España: prostatectomía radical, braquiterapia prostática y radioterapia conformacional externa 3D.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the initial costs of the three most established treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer according to risk, age and comorbidity groups, from the healthcare provider's perspective. METHODS: We carried out a cost comparison study in a sample of patients consecutively recruited between 2003 and 2005 from a functional unit for prostate cancer treatment in Catalonia (Spain). The use of services up to 6 months after the treatment start date was obtained from hospital databases and direct costs were estimated by micro-cost calculation. Information on the clinical characteristics of patients and treatments was collected prospectively. Costs were compared by using nonparametric tests comparing medians (Kruskall-Wallis) and a semi-logarithmic multiple regression model. RESULTS: Among the 398 patients included, the cost difference among treatments was statistically significant: medians were € 3,229.10, € 5,369.00 and € 6,265.60, respectively, for the groups of patients treated with external 3D conformal radiotherapy, brachytherapy and radical retropublic prostatectomy, (p<0.001). In the multivariate analysis (adjusted R(2)=0.8), the average costs of brachytherapy and external radiotherapy were significantly lower than that of prostatectomy (coefficient -0.212 and -0.729, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Radical prostatectomy proved to be the most expensive treatment option. Overall, the estimated costs in our study were lower than those published elsewhere. Most of the costs were explained by the therapeutic option and neither comorbidity nor risk groups showed an effect on total costs independent of treatment.

Patterns of care for brachytherapy in Europe: facilities and resources in brachytherapy in the European area.

PURPOSE: The objective of the survey was to obtain detailed information on the use of brachytherapy through a web-based questionnaire. The present article describes the resources available in 2002. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The European area was divided into three groups: Group I included the 15 original member countries of the European Union plus 4 others according to economic wealth; Group II included the 10 most recent members of the European Union; and Group III included 14 other European countries. A national coordinator was designated for each country with a general coordinator to oversee the project to encourage the participation of every radiotherapy center. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-eight (47.2%) of the responding centers provided brachytherapy services and, compared to data from 1997, most showed a significant increase in the mean number of brachytherapy patients per center. The average number of radiation oncologists involved in brachytherapy was similar in the three groups. The average workload estimated in hours per week at the cancer centers was, however, higher in Groups II and III. Most centers had at least one treatment planning system, although in Group I 7.7% of the centers had three or more treatment planning systems. CONCLUSIONS: Notable differences in brachytherapy treatment were observed, especially in the workload of radiation oncologists and physicists in Groups II and III, the two groups with largest number of patients. New surveys can provide a detailed analysis of changes over time, a potentially useful tool to eliminate the differences observed.