Reply to Steven MacLennan, Paula R. Williamson, and Thomas B. Lam's Letter to the Editor re: Neil E. Martin, Laura Massey, Caleb Stowell, et al. Defining a Standard Set of Patient-centered Outcomes for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2015;67:460–7

Reduction of lower urinary tract symptoms in prostate cancer patients treated with robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

PROBLEM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in LUTS in patients treated with RALP and to assess factors that may predict an improvement of LUTS.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

In our institutional prospective research registry, 1935 patients operated in the period between 2009 and 2021 with complete baseline- and 12-month EPIC-26 questionnaire were eligible for the study. Also SF-12 data estimating general quality of life (QoL) were analyzed. A LUTS summary score was constructed from the two questions concerning voiding stream/residual and frequency, and transformed linearly to a 0-100 scale with higher scores representing less symptoms  A change of 6 points or more were considered Meaningful Clinical Differences (MCD). Two summary scores were calculated from the SF-12 - a mental component score (MCS-12) and a physical component score (PCS-12). Multivariate regression was used to estimate covariates associated with postoperative MCD, MCS-12 and PCS-12.

RESULTS

Mean change of LUTS-score showed an increase of 10 points 12-months post-RALP.  52% of patients achieved MCD. In multivariate logistic regression, preoperative LUTS was statistically significant associated with MCD. Reduction of LUTS was associated improved mean score of MCS-12 and PCS-12.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Along with information about risk for urinary incontinence after RALP, patients with LUTS at baseline must be informed that these symptoms may be reduced after RALP. In our study, this LUTS reduction was associated with better general QoL.

A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set (COS) applicable for effectiveness trials of all interventions for localised prostate cancer. Many treatments exist for localised prostate cancer, although it is unclear which offers the optimal therapeutic ratio; which is confounded by inconsistencies in the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials.

PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A list of 79 outcomes was derived from a systematic review of published localised prostate cancer effectiveness studies and semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with prostate cancer patients. A two-stage consensus process involving 118 patients and 56 international healthcare professionals (HCPs; cancer specialist nurses, urological surgeons and oncologists) was undertaken, consisting of a three-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face consensus panel meeting of 13 HCPs and eight patients.

RESULTS

The final COS included 19 outcomes. In all, 12 apply to all interventions: death from prostate cancer, death from any cause, local disease recurrence, distant disease recurrence/metastases, disease progression, need for salvage therapy, overall quality of life, stress urinary incontinence, urinary function, bowel function, faecal incontinence, and sexual function. Seven were intervention-specific: perioperative deaths (surgery), positive surgical margin (surgery), thromboembolic disease (surgery), bothersome or symptomatic urethral or anastomotic stricture (surgery), need for curative treatment (active surveillance), treatment failure (ablative therapy), and side-effects of hormonal therapy (hormone therapy). The UK-centric participants may limit the generalisability to other countries, but trialists should reason why the COS would not be applicable. The default position should not be that a COS developed in one country will automatically not be applicable elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

We have established a COS for trials of effectiveness in localised prostate cancer, applicable across all interventions that should be measured in all localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials.

Quality of Life after post-prostatectomy intensity modulated radiation therapy to the prostate bed with or without the use of gold fiducial markers for image guidance or higher total radiotherapy doses

Purpose

To evaluate quality of life (QoL) after post-prostatectomy intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the “adjuvant” setting starting within 4 months of radical prostatectomy for adverse features; and “salvage” setting for a PSA≥0.2ng/mL.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent IMRT to the prostate bed±gold fiducial marker placement for image guidance to 64.8-72.0Gy (median, 70.2Gy) between 2004 and 2013. Higher doses were defined as 70.2-72.0Gy and lower doses were defined as 64.8-68.4Gy. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was given to 4/48 (8%) adjuvant patients and 9/82 (11%) salvage patients. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26-bowel (EPIC-26-bowel) questionnaires were used to assess urinary, sexual, and bowel QoL, respectively.

Results

Median follow-up was 46 months. There were better urinary (p=0.03) and sexual (p=0.002) QoL scores with adjuvant IMRT relative to salvage IMRT. The use of prostate bed fiducial markers did not significantly affect urinary, sexual, or bowel QoL (p=0.39, p=0.49, and p=0.40, respectively). Higher total radiotherapy doses did not significantly affect urinary, sexual, or bowel QoL (p=0.21, p=0.61, and p=0.36, respectively).

Conclusions

There was no significant change in urinary, sexual, and bowel sexual QoL with post-prostatectomy IMRT regardless of whether prostate bed fiducial markers or higher total radiotherapy doses were used. QoL with IMRT in the present study compares favorably with prior reports for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy.