4.4 Article

Quality of life 2 years after salvage cryosurgery for the treatment of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radiotherapy

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2006.03.007

Keywords

radiotherapy; cryosurgery; cryoablation; cryotherapy; prostate cancer; salvage treatment; health-related quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Previous research has raised concerns that although salvage cryosurgery may be an effective treatment to prevent the progression of prostate cancer after radiotherapy failure, the quality of life cost many be so severe as to prevent its acceptance as a viable treatment. The present study's purpose was to further the understanding of the quality of life outcomes of salvage cryosurgery. Materials and Methods: A total of 46 men with locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy were recruited to participate in a prospective Phase II clinical trial using salvage cryosurgery. There were 2 questionnaires (i.e., the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ C30 and the Prostate Cancer Index) administered before cryosurgery, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. Results: Quality of life returned to preoperative levels by 24 months after cryosurgery in all domains, with the exception of urinary and sexual functioning. At 24 months, 29% of men reported urinary bother as a moderate-to-big problem, and 56% reported sexual bother as a moderate-to-big problem. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate prospectively men's quality of life for 2 years after salvage cryosurgery for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Long-term impairments in quality of life appear to be limited to the sexual and urinary function domains. Overall quality of life appears to be high. These results support salvage cryosurgery as a viable treatment option. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available