4.7 Article

A comparative study of quality of life in patients with localized prostate cancer treated at a single institution: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy or external beam plus high dose rate brachytherapy boost

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 113, 期 3, 页码 404-409

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.10.013

关键词

Prostate cancer; Quality of life; Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy; High dose rate brachytherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare the quality of life (QOL) in patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) alone or high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy + hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Methods and materials: Patient self-reported QOL was prospectively measured among patients from two sequential phase 2 clinical trials: 1-SABR 35 Gy/5 fractions/5 weeks, 2-15 Gy HDR 1 fraction, followed by EBRT 37.5 Gy/15 fractions/3 weeks. The expanded prostate cancer index composite was assessed at baseline and q6 monthly up to 5 years. Urinary, bowel and sexual domains were analyzed. A minimally clinical important change (MCIC) was defined as 0.5*standard deviation of the baseline for each domain. Fisher exact test and general linear mixed model were used (p < 0.05). Results: 84 and 123 patients were treated on the SABR and HDR boost studies, with a median follow up of 51 and 61 months respectively. There was a significant difference in MCIC between treatments in the urinary function and bother (p < 0.0001), the bowel function (p = 0.0216) and the sexual function (p = 0.0419) and bother (p = 0.0290) domains in favor of the SABR group. Of patients who reported no problem with their sexual function at baseline, 7% and 23% respectively considered it to be a moderate to big problem on follow up (p = 0.0077). Conclusion: Patients treated with HDR-boost reported deterioration of QOL particularly in sexual domains in comparison with SABR. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据