4.6 Review

Quality of Life Outcomes after Primary Treatment for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Journal

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Volume 72, Issue 6, Pages 869-885

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.035

Keywords

Localised prostate cancer; Quality of life; Patient-reported outcome measures; Radical prostatectomy; Radiotherapy; Active surveillance; Brachytherapy; Systematic review

Funding

  1. Bayer
  2. Novartis
  3. Ferring
  4. Astellas
  5. Sanofi Aventis
  6. Janssen
  7. Pierre Fabre
  8. Takeda
  9. Sanofi
  10. Pfizer
  11. European Association of Urology
  12. Amgen
  13. Ipsen
  14. Takeda Pharmaceutical
  15. Millenium
  16. Pasteur
  17. BMS
  18. Nucletron
  19. Zeneca

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context: Current evidence-based management for clinically localised prostate cancer includes active surveillance, surgery, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachy-therapy. The impact of these treatment modalities on quality of life (QoL) is uncertain. Objective: To systematically review comparative studies investigating disease-specific QoL outcomes as assessed by validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures with at least 1 yr of follow-up after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer. Evidence acquisition: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. Studies were critically appraised for the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Evidence synthesis: Of 11 486 articles identified, 18 studies were eligible for inclusion, including three randomised controlled trials (RCTs; follow-up range: 60-72 mo) and 15 nonrandomised comparative studies (follow-up range: 12-180 mo) recruiting a total of 13 604 patients. Two RCTs recruited small cohorts and only one was judged to have a low risk of bias. The quality of evidence from observational studies was low to moderate. For a follow-up of up to 6 yr, active surveillance was found to have the lowest impact on cancer-specific QoL, surgery had a negative impact on urinary and sexual function when compared with active surveillance and EBRT, and EBRT had a negative impact on bowel function when compared with active surveillance and surgery. Data from one small RCT reported that brachytherapy has a negative impact on urinary function 1 yr post-treatment, but no significant urinary toxicity was reported at 5 yr. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review comparing the impact of different primary treatments on cancer-specific QoL for men with clinically localised prostate cancer, using validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures only. There is robust evidence that choice of primary treatment for localised prostate cancer has distinct impacts on patients' QoL. This should be discussed in detail with patients during pretreatment counselling. (C) 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available