4.4 Article

Fatigue in Prostate Cancer Survivors Treated With Definitive Radiotherapy and LHRH Analogs

Journal

PROSTATE
Volume 70, Issue 13, Pages 1480-1489

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pros.21183

Keywords

adjuvant therapy; fatigue; androgen deprivation; quality of life

Funding

  1. Norwegian Cancer Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND. Few studies have dealt with chronic fatigue (CF) in definitive radiotherapy (RAD) patients during and after (neo-)adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer. METHODS. CF was the primary outcome in this population-based cross-sectional study as evaluated by the Fatigue Questionnaire. We compared the post-RAD levels of fatigue in two groups of >= 1 year prostate cancer survivors; those with ongoing medical castration (HTcont) and those who had used a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog (LHRHa), but had discontinued the therapy at the time of the survey (HTdis). The prevalence of CF and the levels of total fatigue were compared to comparable parameters in men with prostatic RAD who never had had ADT (Control group) and to men >60 years old from the general population. RESULTS. After an observation time of median 18 months since start of radiotherapy about 40% of our >= 1 year prostate cancer survivors from the HTcont group reported CF, as compared to approximately a quarter of men from the HTdis group and, the prevalence of CF in the latter group being similar to that of hormone-naive RAD controls and males from the general population. After discontinuation of ADT, age 65 years or below was associated with increased risk of CF. CONCLUSIONS. Pre-counseling of prostate cancer patients starting (neo-)adjuvant LHRHa therapy must include fatigue, mainly physical fatigue, in particular in men aged 65 years or younger. Future studies of testosterone recovery after ADT discontinuation should also include measures of CF. Prostate 70: 1480-1489, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available