Agreement between patient reported outcomes and clinical reports after radical prostatectomy - a prospective longitudinal study

The Europa Uomo Patient Reported Outcome Study 2.0-Prostate Cancer Patient-reported Outcomes to Support Treatment Decision-making

BACKGROUND

To further strengthen the voice of patients, Europa Uomo initiated the Europa Uomo Patient Reported Outcome Study 2.0 (EUPROMS 2.0) in October 2021.

OBJECTIVE

To collect the self-reported perspective of prostate cancer (PCa) patients on physical and mental well-being after PCa treatment outside a clinical trial setting to inform future fellow patients about the impact of PCa treatment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Europa Uomo invited PCa patients to complete a cross-sectional survey including the validated EQ-5D-5L, EORTC-QLQ-C30, and the EPIC-26 questionnaires. Furthermore, the nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and diagnostic clinical scenarios were included.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics was used to assess the demographic and clinical characteristics and to analyze the patient-reported outcome data.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Between October 25, 2021 and January 17, 2022, 3571 men from 30 countries completed the EUPROMS 2.0 survey. The median age of respondents was 70 yr (interquartile range 65-75 yr). Half of the respondents underwent one treatment, most often radical prostatectomy. Men who are treated actively experience lower health-related quality of life than men on active surveillance, mainly regarding sexual function, fatigue, and insomnia. Lower urinary incontinence levels were seen for men who underwent radical prostatectomy (single treatment or in combination with other treatments). Of the respondents, 42% indicated that the determination of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value was part of a routine blood test; 25% wanted to undergo screening/early detection for PCa, and 20% indicated that the determination of the PSA value had a clinical reason.

CONCLUSIONS

A large sample of 3571 international patients has contributed patient experience after PCa treatment in the EUPROMS 2.0 study, confirming that treatment for PCa mainly affects urinary incontinence, sexual function, fatigue, and insomnia. Such information can be used to direct toward a better patient-doctor relationship, to offer patients ready access to responsible information and a better understanding of their disease and treatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Through the EUPROMS 2.0 survey, Europa Uomo has strengthened the voice of the patient. Such information can be used to inform future prostate cancer (PCa) patients about the impact of PCa treatment and to engage them in informed and shared decision-making.

An implementation study of electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes in inpatient radiation oncology

Purpose

Despite evidence for clinical benefits, recommendations in guidelines, and options for electronic data collection, routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is mostly not implemented in clinical practice. This study aimed to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic PRO (e-PRO) assessment in the clinical routine of an inpatient radiation oncology clinic.

Methods

The guideline- and evidence-based, stepwise approach of this single-center implementation study comprised preparatory analyses of current practice, selection of assessment instruments and times, development of staff training, and evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of the e-PRO assessment, as well as on-site support of the implementation. Process evaluation focused on potential clinical benefit (number of documented symptoms and supportive measures), feasibility and acceptance (patient contacts resulting in completion/non-completion of the e-PRO assessment, reasons for non-completion, preconditions, facilitators and barriers of implementation), and required resources (duration of patient contacts to explain/support the completion).

Results

Selection of instruments and assessment times resulted in initial assessment at admission (EORTC QLQ-C30, QSR 10), daily symptom monitoring (EORTC single items), and assessment at discharge (EORTC QLQ-C30). Recommendations for PRO-based clinical action and self-management advice for patients concerning nine core symptoms were developed. Staff training comprised group and face-to-face meetings and an additional e-learning course was developed. Analyses of clinical records showed that e-PRO assessment identified more symptoms followed by a higher number of supportive measures compared to records of patients without e-PRO assessment. Analysis of n = 1597 patient contacts resulted in n = 1355 (84.9%) completed e-PROs (initial assessment: n = 355, monitoring: n = 967, final assessment: n = 44) and n = 242 (15.2%) non-completions. Instructions or support to complete e-PROs took on average 5.5 ± 5.3 min per patient contact. The most challenging issue was the integration of the results in clinical practice.

Conclusion

E-PRO assessment in oncologic inpatient settings is acceptable for patients and can support symptom identification and the initiation of supportive measures. The challenge of making the “data actionable” within the clinical workflow and motivating clinical staff to use the results became evident.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00478-3.

Cancer patients’ perceptions regarding their symptoms and functioning are important as they can differ from a professional assessment. Patients’ perceptions and self-assessment can be collected via electronic devices. Thus, the clinical staff can see a graphic overview of individual disease-related burden. Despite studies indicating the benefit of this assessment for care and symptom management, it is not integrated into routine care so far. The aim of our study was, to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic patient-reported assessment in a radio-oncology inpatient clinic under “real-life” clinical conditions instead of study conditions. Patients could complete an electronic assessment at the beginning/end and during their treatment. Results indicate that electronic self-assessment can identify more symptoms than the assessment of physicians and nurses. Patients completing a self-assessment are more likely to receive supportive measures. The majority of 80–90% of patients were willing to complete a self-assessment. On average 5–6 min were needed to explain or support the completion. While the intervention was feasible and acceptable for patients, motivating clinical staff using its results was most challenging. The importance of technical support became evident.

Patient-reported functional outcome measures and treatment choice for prostate cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to describe changes in patient-reported functional outcome measures (PROMs) comparing pre-treatment and 12 months after radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy and active surveillance (AS).

Methods

Men enrolled from 2010 to 2019 in the South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative registry a prospective clinical registry were studied. Urinary, bowel, and sexual functions were measured using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) at baseline and 12 months post-treatment. Higher scores on the EPIC-26 indicate better function. Multivariable regression models were applied to compare differences in function and extent of bother by treatment.

Results

Of the 4926 eligible men, 57.0% underwent RP, 20.5% EBRT, 7.0% brachytherapy and 15.5% AS. While baseline urinary and bowel function varied little across treatment groups, sexual function differed greatly (adjusted mean scores: RP = 56.3, EBRT = 45.8, brachytherapy = 61.4, AS = 52.8; p < 0.001). Post-treatment urinary continence and sexual function declined in all treatment groups, with the greatest decline for sexual function after RP (adjusted mean score change − 28.9). After adjustment for baseline differences, post-treatment sexual function scores after EBRT (6.4; 95%CI, 0.9–12.0) and brachytherapy (17.4; 95%CI, 9.4–25.5) were higher than after RP. Likewise, urinary continence after EBRT (13.6; 95%CI, 9.0-18.2), brachytherapy (10.6; 95%CI, 3.9–17.3) and AS (10.6; 95%CI, 5.9–15.3) were higher than after RP. Conversely, EBRT was associated with lower bowel function (− 7.9; 95%CI, − 12.4 to − 3.5) than RP. EBRT and AS were associated with lower odds of sexual bother (OR 0.51; 95%CI, 0.29–0.89 and OR 0.60; 95%CI, 0.38–0.96, respectively), and EBRT with higher odds of bowel bother (OR 2.01; 95%CI, 1.23–3.29) compared with RP.

Conclusion

The four common treatment approaches for prostate cancer were associated with different patterns of patient-reported functional outcomes, both pre- and 12 months post-treatment. However, after adjustment, RP was associated with a greater decline in urinary continence and sexual function than other treatments. This study underscores the importance of collecting baseline PROMs to interpret post-treatment functional outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12894-022-01117-1.

Experience Measures after Radical Prostatectomy: A Register-Based Study Evaluating the Association between Patient-Reported Symptoms and Quality of Information

Patient-reported data are important for quality assurance and improvement. Our main aim was to investigate the association between patient-reported symptoms among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and their perceived quality of information before treatment. In this single-centre study, 235 men treated with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) between August 2017 and June 2019, responded to a follow-up questionnaire 20−42 months after surgery. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between patient-reported symptoms, measured with Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP), and the perceived quality of information. Adverse effects were defined as a higher EPIC score at follow-up than at baseline. The majority (77%) rated the general information as good. Higher EPIC-CP at follow-up was significantly associated with lower perceived quality of information, also after adjustment for age and level of education (bivariate model OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07; 1.16, p < 0.001 and multiple model OR 1.12 95% CI 1.08; 1.17, p < 0.001). The share who rated information as good was almost identical among those who reported more symptoms after treatment and those who reported less symptoms (78.3% and 79.2%). Consequently, adverse effects could not explain the results. Our findings suggest a need for improvement of preoperative communication.

Prospective comparative trial on nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy using a robot-assisted versus laparoscopic technique: expectation versus satisfaction and impact on surgical margins

Introduction

The aim of this study was to analyze whether differences exist in a population selected for a nerve-sparing (NS) procedure between robot-assisted (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and whether they can have an impact on surgical margins (SM) status.

Material and methods

This is a single center prospective comparative trial on prostate cancer patients submitted to a RARP-NS or LRP-NS. A self-administered questionnaire on expectations before surgery, and level of satisfaction after surgery was used.

Results

A total of 134 cases were included in our analysis. A higher percentage of capsular bulging was found in the RARP group, compared to the LRP group (p = 0.077). At biopsy, the percentage of positive cores and multifocality were higher in the RARP group (p = 0.005). Positive SM (SM+) rate was higher in the RARP, than in LRP group (p = 0.046). On univariable analysis, the risk of SM+ increased 1.95 times using RARP when compared with LRP. On multivariable analysis, the surgical approach did not maintain a significant predictive role in terms of risk for SM+. Expectations before surgery were mainly focused on oncological radicality, however in the RARP group a higher percentage of cases focused on sexual function recovery. Satisfaction after surgery was lower in the RARP than in the LRP group.

Conclusions

Comparing LRP-NS with RARP-NS in a high-volume single center, the expectation/satisfaction ratio is in favor of LRP. Worse oncologic preoperative characteristics in the RARP group may influence the higher incidence of SM+. However, the surgical approach does not result as a significant and independent factor able to influence SM positivity.

Stoma-related complications: a report from the Stoma-Const randomized controlled trial

AIM

The impact of construction techniques on the development of stoma complications is partly undiscovered. The aim of this paper was to report and analyse the impact of the three surgical techniques in a randomized controlled trial Stoma-Const on stoma-related complications as well as identifying risk factors and patient-reported stoma function as a planned secondary analysis.

METHODS

This was a randomized, multicenter trial where all patients scheduled to receive an end colostomy were invited to participate. Patients were randomized to one of three techniques for stoma construction; cruciate fascial incision, circular incision or prophylactic mesh. Stoma complications were assessed by a surgeon and stoma care nurses within 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine patients were randomized. Patient demographics were similar in all three groups. Data on stoma-related complications were available for analysis in 201 patients. A total of 127 patients (63%) developed some type of stoma complication within 1 year after surgery. The risk ratio (95% CI) for stoma complications was 0.93 (0.73; 1.2) between cruciate vs. circular incision groups and 1.02 (0.78; 1.34) between cruciate vs. mesh groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding parastomal hernia rate and no risk factors could be identified.

CONCLUSION

This randomized trial confirmed a high prevalence of stoma-related complications but could not identify an impact of surgical technique or identify modifiable risk factors for stoma-related complications.

Risk of Recurrent Disease 6 Years After Open or Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the Prospective Controlled Trial LAPPRO

Background

Conclusive evidence of superiority in oncological outcome for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) over retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is lacking.

Objective

To compare RALP and RRP regarding recurrent disease and to report the mortality rate 6 yr after surgery.

Design, setting, and participants

A total of 4003 men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled between 2008 and 2011 in Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open (LAPPRO)— a prospective, controlled, nonrandomized trial performed at 14 Swedish centers.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Data were collected at visits and by patient questionnaires at 3, 12, and 24 mo, and through a structured telephone interview at 6 yr. Cause of death was retrieved from the National Cause of Death Register in Sweden. The modified Poisson regression approach was used for analyses.

Results and limitations

After adjustment for patient-, tumor-, and surgeon-related confounders, no statistically significant difference was observed between RALP and RRP in biochemical recurrence rate (14 vs 16%, relative risk [RR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–1.06) or in not cured endpoint (22% vs 23%, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.6–1.11). Stratified by D’Amico risk group, a significant benefit for RALP existed for recurrent disease in high-risk patients (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26–0.86, p = 0.02). All-cause mortality was 3% (n = 96). Prostate cancer–specific mortality was 0.6% (n = 21) overall, 0.3% (n = 8) after RALP, and 1.5% (n = 13) after RRP. The nonrandomized design is a limitation.

Conclusions

No significant difference was observed for cancer recurrence rate between RALP and RRP 6 yr after surgery. However, in a subgroup analysis, we found a significant benefit for RALP regarding recurrence rate in the high-risk group. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to make a firm conclusion and to evaluate a possible survival benefit.

Patient summary

In general, the oncological outcome is comparable between robotic and open radical prostatectomy 6 yr after surgery. For high-risk patients, our findings indicate that there is an advantage for robotics, but further studies with longer follow-up time is needed to make a firm conclusion.