Measuring prostate-specific quality of life in prostate cancer patients scheduled for radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy and reference men in Germany and Canada using the Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scale-Psychometric (PORPUS-P)

Cancer Rehabilitation Publications (2008-2018) With a Focus on Physical Function: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Cancer rehabilitation research has accelerated over the last decade. However, closer examination of the published literature reveals that the majority of this work has focused on psychological interventions and cognitive and behavioral therapies. Recent initiatives have aggregated expert consensus around research priorities, highlighting a dearth in research regarding measurement of and interventions for physical function. Increasingly loud calls for the need to address the myriad of physical functional impairments that develop in people living with and beyond cancer have been published in the literature. A detailed survey of the landscape of published research has not been reported to our knowledge.

PURPOSE

This scoping review systematically identified literature published between 2008 and 2018 related to the screening, assessment, and interventions associated with physical function in people living with and beyond cancer.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and CINAHL were searched up to September 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Study selection included articles of all levels of evidence on any disease stage and population. A total of 11,483 articles were screened for eligibility, 2507 full-text articles were reviewed, and 1055 articles were selected for final inclusion and extraction.

DATA EXTRACTION

Seven reviewers recorded type of cancer, disease stage, age of participants, phase of treatment, time since diagnosis, application to physical function, study design, impairments related to physical function, and measurement instruments used.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Approximately one-third of the articles included patients with various cancer diagnoses (30.3%), whereas the rest focused on a single cancer, most commonly breast (24.8%). Most articles (77%) measured physical function following the completion of active cancer treatment with 64% representing the assessment domain. The most commonly used measures of physical function were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Health Survey Questionnaire (29%) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (21.5%).

LIMITATIONS

Studies not written in English, study protocols, conference abstracts, and unpublished data were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

This review elucidated significant inconsistencies in the literature regarding language used to define physical function, measurement tools used to characterize function, and the use of those tools across the cancer treatment and survivorship trajectory. The findings suggested that physical function in cancer research is predominantly measured using general health-related quality-of-life tools rather than more precise functional assessment tools. Interdisciplinary and clinician-researcher collaborative efforts should be directed toward a unified definition and assessment of physical function.

Oncology Section EDGE Task Force on Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures for Health-Related Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is multidimensional and subjective, encompassing occupational and physical function, psychological state, social interaction, and somatic sensation. Because of the wide scope of HRQOL and its implications for the medical management of prostate cancer survivors, clinicians and researchers need to know the most reliable and valid measures currently available for addressing this clinical construct in men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE

To identify and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures used to assess HRQOL in men diagnosed with prostate cancer and make recommendations for the use of these patient-reported outcome measures in both the research and clinic settings.

METHODS

The literature was systematically reviewed for patient-reported outcome measures used in peer-reviewed, published research to assess HRQOL in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. The goals were to examine the psychometric properties of commonly used HRQOL measures in order to determine their clinical utility.

RESULTS

The following patient-reported outcome measures are highly recommended by the Task Force to assess HRQOL in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: EORTC QLQ-P25 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Prostate 25), EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite), FACT-P (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate), UCLA-PCI (UCLA-Prostate Cancer Index), EORTC QLQ-C30 (EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30), FACT-G (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General), and SF (Short-Form) 36, 12, and 8.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of patient-reported outcome measures have been reported in the literature to assess HRQOL in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Seven measures were found to have satisfactory psychometric properties, as well as good clinical utility, and are recommended for use by the researchers on this Task Force.

[Prostate cancer in routine healthcare: health-related quality of life after inpatient treatment]

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCA) is the most common form of neoplasm in men and various treatment options are available. Knowledge of health-related quality of life (HRQL) can provide information to support informed decision-making. In addition, information on factors influencing HRQL can provide indications for the further development of medical treatment. The aim of the study was to obtain data on HRQL after inpatient treatment of PCA and the identification of determinants of HRQL after PCA in routine healthcare.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study a total of 1165 beneficiaries of a German health insurance with a hospital stay due to prostate cancer (ICD C61) were surveyed on their health-related quality of life using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire version 3 (EORTC QLQ-C30 V3.0) and disease-specific symptoms using the perceived sensitivity to medicine (PSM) scale 14 months after discharge. Survey data were linked with pseudonymous claims data of the health insurance provider. Determinants of HRQL were examined by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Responses from 825 men (mean age 67.6 years and 80% treated with radical prostatectomy) were available for analysis (response 70.8%). Compared to the reference population impairments in HRQL were reported especially in terms of the roles and social functionality. The prostate-specific symptoms varied depending on the treatment strategy. A nerve-sparing surgical technique reduced the likelihood of erectile dysfunction. Other protective factors were no pre-existing comorbidities and younger age.

DISCUSSION

The effects of PCA on the HRQOL varied by age, comorbidities and treatment modality which should be considered in healthcare information and counseling of patients.

The ProCaSP study: quality of life outcomes of prostate cancer patients after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy in a cohort study

Background

This study describes and compares health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of prostate cancer patients who received either radical prostatectomy (nerve-sparing, nsRP, or non-nerve-sparing, nnsRP) or radiotherapy (external RT, brachytherapy, or both combined) for treatment of localised prostate cancer.

Methods

The prospective, multicenter cohort study included 529 patients. Questionnaires included the IIEF, QLQ-C30, and PORPUS-P. Data were collected before (baseline), three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months after treatment. Differences between groups’ baseline characteristics were assessed; changes over time were analysed with generalised estimating equations (GEE). Missing values were treated with multiple imputation. Further, scores at baseline and end of follow-up were compared to German reference data.

Results

The typical time trend was a decrease of average HRQOL three months after treatment followed by (partial) recovery. RP patients experienced considerable impairment in sexual functioning. The covariate-adjusted GEE identified a significant - but not clinically relevant - treatment effect for diarrhoea (b = 7.0 for RT, p = 0.006) and PORPUS-P (b = 2.3 for nsRP, b = 2.2 for RT, p = 0.045) compared to the reference nnsRP. Most of the HRQOL scores were comparable to German norm values.

Conclusions

Findings from previous research were reproduced in a specific setting of a patient cohort in the German health care system. According to the principle of evidence-based medicine, this strengthens the messages regarding treatment in prostate cancer and its impacts on patients’ health-related quality of life. After adjustment for baseline HRQOL and other covariates, RT patients reported increased symptoms of diarrhoea, and nnsRP patients decreased prostate-specific HRQOL. RP patients experienced considerable impairment in sexual functioning. These differences should be taken into account by physicians when choosing the best therapy for a patient.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12894-015-0025-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments

Purpose

The objective was to obtain a standardized evaluation of available prostate cancer-specific quality of life instruments used in patients with early-stage disease.

Methods

We carried out systematic literature reviews in the PubMed database to identify manuscripts which contained information regarding either the development process or metric properties of prostate cancer-specific quality of life instruments. Each instrument was evaluated by two experts, independently, using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. An overall and seven attribute-specific EMPRO scores were calculated (range 0–100, worst to best): measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden and alternative forms.

Results

Eight instruments and 57 manuscripts (2–15 per instrument) were identified. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) was the best rated (overall EMPRO score 83.1 points). Good results were also obtained by University of California Los Angeles-Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS) and Prostate Cancer Quality of Life Instrument (PC-QoL) with 77.3, 70.5 and 64.8 points, respectively. These four instruments passed with distinction the validity and responsiveness evaluation. Insufficient reliability results were observed for UCLA-PCI and PORPUS.

Conclusions

Current evidence supports the choice of EPIC, PORPUS or PC-QoL. Attribute-specific EMPRO results facilitate selecting the adequate instrument for every purpose. For longitudinal studies or clinical trials, where responsiveness is the priority, EPIC or PC-QoL should be considered. We recommend the PORPUS for economic evaluations because it allows cost-utility analysis, and EPIC short versions to minimize administration burden.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0678-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Measuring symptoms in localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of assessment instruments

It is critical for prostate cancer researchers and clinicians to have access to comprehensive, sensitive and simple-to-use symptom measures that allow them to understand and quantify the subjective patient experience. The purpose of the current review is to provide a comprehensive review, detailed tool descriptions and objectively defined quality criteria to facilitate tool choices for patients with localized prostate cancer. Using a systematic web-based literature search, we found n=29 prostate symptom measures described in n=35 validation studies. To be recommended, tools needed to meet four criteria: broad domain coverage, ability to differentiate objective and subjective experience, good internal consistency and validation in at least two populations and/or having achieved two types of validations. Of the 29 tools reviewed, n=7 meet our criteria for recommendation, and three in particular (the EPIC-26 (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite)-26, PC-QOL (Prostate Cancer-Quality of Life) and the UCLA-PCI (UCLA Prostate Cancer Index)) showed the strongest psychometrics. There is a reasonable number of measures to choose from that meet criteria for good psychometrics.

[Temporal changes in quality of life after prostate carcinoma]

INTRODUCTION

Each year more than 60,000 German men are diagnosed with prostate cancer. The incidence nearly doubled in the last 10 years due to intensified use of PSA testing for early detection. To date, either radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy is recommended for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Both strategies have similar survival chances (83-94%), but show different side effects. In view of the good prognosis implications for health-related quality of life (QoL) may play an important role in the therapy decision-making process and should be discussed with patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prostate cancer patients were asked twice about oncological health care and QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30, Version 2) as part of the OVIS study conducted in Schleswig-Holstein. The first questioning took place 16 months after the initial diagnosis and the second one at month 42. QoL was compared with German reference data. Logistic regression identified predictors for (a) low QoL at baseline (as indicated by global health status/QoL below the group median) and (b) clinically relevant detriments, defined as a difference of ≥10 points, in the chronological sequence.

RESULTS

Prostate cancer patients (n=1,345; median age at diagnosis 66 years) report a mean global QoL score that is higher than that of a healthy German reference sample (difference 6.3). In the temporal course, 56% of patients did not experience a clinically relevant change in QoL (<10 points difference). However, 20% reported a clinically relevant decrease and 24% a clinically relevant increase (≥ 10 points difference) regarding global health status/QoL. Higher age, lower social class, chemotherapy, undesired side effects and long-term complications as well as rehabilitative care predict low QoL at baseline, while progression of the disease and living in an urban surrounding as well as young age at diagnosis predict a decrease of QoL in the chronological sequence.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported QoL of prostate cancer patients depends on various personal and medical factors. Physicians should be aware of these factors and include them in the discussion about the appropriate therapy method with their patients. In general, therapists and family members have problems describing the QoL of their patients and relatives. Assessing the QoL and QoL-influencing factors with a short questionnaire seems to be feasible and may be helpful in the therapy decision-making process.

Measuring quality of life after radical prostatectomy from the patient's perspective

Collapse

Different aspects of self-reported quality of life in 450 german melanoma survivors

The present study was aimed at assessing quality of life (QoL) in a total of 450 melanoma patients who filled out the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Q1; 15 months post diagnosis) as part of the OVIS Study. Follow-up questionnaires (Q2) were administered two years after Q1. The analyses presented herein were based on the following assumptions: QoL of melanoma patients is worse than that of a German reference population. Further, both tumor location and tumor stage have an influence on self-reported QoL, with patients with tumors located on face, head, neck, and advanced tumor stage (T3/T4) reporting the worst QoL levels. Finally, patients' QoL improves over time based on the theory of disease adaptation. In contrast to the above assumptions, with the exception of global health/QoL scores, differences between OVIS and the reference population were below the minimal clinical important difference of ten points. Furthermore, no clinically meaningful differences were found between patients after stratifying our data by tumor location and tumor stage. Finally, no clinically relevant changes were seen between Q1 and Q2 across all scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30. However, when data were stratified by patients with stable disease versus those with progression, clinically relevant differences were found between Q1 and Q2 predominantly in women in the latter group regarding emotional function, insomnia, dyspnoea, and fatigue. The lack of clinically meaningful differences across strata (tumor location; tumor stage), time, and patients compared to a reference population is surprising. However, it is possible that the instrument used, a generic QoL instrument, is generally not sensitive enough to detect differences in melanoma patients. Our findings may further be explained by the fact that all patients included in our sample had been diagnosed well before Q1, i.e., main illness adaptation processes may have occurred before study entry.

Predictors of the trajectories of self-reported sleep disturbance in men with prostate cancer during and following radiation therapy

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To examine how self-reported ratings of sleep disturbance changed from the time of the simulation visit to four months after the completion of radiation therapy (RT) and to investigate whether specific patient, disease, and symptom characteristics predicted the initial levels of sleep disturbance and/or characteristics of the trajectories of sleep disturbance.

DESIGN

Prospective longitudinal study.

SETTING

Two radiation therapy centers.

PATIENTS

Patients (n = 82) who underwent primary or adjuvant RT for prostate cancer.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Changes in self-reported sleep disturbance were measured using the General Sleep Disturbance Scale (GSDS). Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale. Trait and state anxiety were measured using the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to answer the study aims. Self-reported sleep disturbance increased during the course of RT and then decreased following the completion of RT. Predictors of higher levels of sleep disturbance included younger age, higher levels of trait anxiety, higher levels of depressive symptoms, and higher levels of sleep disturbance at the initiation of RT.

CONCLUSIONS

Sleep disturbance is a significant problem in patients with prostate cancer who undergo RT. Younger men with co-occurring depression and anxiety may be at greatest risk for sleep disturbance during RT.