Erectile function after radical prostatectomy: Do patients return to baseline?

Patient- and Surgeon-Level Variation in Patient-Reported Sexual Function Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy Over 2 Years: Results From a Statewide Surgical Improvement Collaborativep

Importance

Of patient-reported outcomes for individuals undergoing radical prostatectomy, sexual function outcomes are among the most reported and the most detrimental to quality of life. Understanding variations at the patient and surgeon level may inform collaborative quality improvement.

Objective

To describe patient- and surgeon-level sexual function outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) and to examine the correlation between surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a prospective cohort study using the MUSIC registry and patient-reported sexual function outcome data. Patient- and surgeon-level variation in sexual function outcomes were examined among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy from May 2014 to August 2019. Sexual function outcome data were collected using validated questionnaires, which were completed before surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months' follow-up following surgery. All participants were male. Race and ethnicity data were self-reported and were included to examine potential variation in outcomes by race and/or ethnicity. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

There were 4 outcomes in this study, including the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) sexual function scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months' follow-up; patient-level sexual function recovery at 12- and 24-month follow-up; surgeon-level variation in sexual function outcomes at 12- and 24-month follow-up; and correlation between surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes.

Results

A total of 1426 male patients met inclusion criteria for this study. The median (IQR) age was 64 (58-68) years. A total of 115 participants (8%) were Black, 1197 (84%) were White, 25 (2%) were of another race or ethnicity (consolidated owing to low numbers), and 89 (6%) were of unknown race or ethnicity. Among patients undergoing bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, mean (SD) EPIC-26 sexual function scores at 12- and 24-month follow-up (12 months, 39 [28]; 24 months, 63 [29]) did not return to baseline levels. There was wide variation in EPIC-26 sexual function scores at both 12-month follow-up (range, 23-69; P < .001) and 24-month follow-up (range, 27-64; P < .001). Similar variations were found in EPIC-26 sexual function scores and recovery of sexual function by surgeon. Recovery rates ranged from 0% to 40% of patients at 12-month follow-up (18 surgeons; P < .001) and 3% to 44% of patients at 24-month follow-up (12 surgeons; P < .001). Surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes were not significantly correlated. On multivariable analysis, the following variables were associated with better recovery at 24-month follow-up: younger age (P < .001), lower baseline EPIC-26 sexual function score (P < .001), lower Gleason score (P = .05), and nonobesity (P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, there was significant patient- and surgeon-level variation in sexual function recovery over 2 years following radical prostatectomy. Variation in surgeon-level sexual function outcomes presents an opportunity and model for surgical collaborative quality improvement.

Width of spared neurovascular bundle after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer: is it a reliable factor for predicting postoperative sexual outcome?

Purpose

To investigate the relationship between the width of spared neurovascular bundle (NVB) measured during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and postoperative sexual outcomes.

Methods

Patients with localized prostate cancer with erectile hardness score ≥2 (N = 105) who underwent NVB-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy were included. Patients were divided into three groups [first (Q1) vs. second and third (Q2-3) vs. fourth (Q4) quartile] according to width of spared NVB measured with a flexible ruler after prostate removal. Preoperative and postoperative sexual function was evaluated according to erectile hardness score and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires.

Results

The proportion of patients with postoperative erectile hardness score ≥2 at postoperative 6 months was as follows: 38.9% (Q1), 48.6% (Q2–3), and 83.3% (Q4) (P = 0.016). The preoperative/postoperative 6-month sexual function score was 40.7/16.9 (Q1), 48.1/19.0 (Q2–3), and 51.2/28.1 (Q4). Postoperative sexual function was significantly associated with preoperative sexual function in Q4 (P = 0.006) and Q2–3 (P = 0.030) but not in Q1. On multivariate analysis, the width of spared NVB was a significant predictor for postoperative 6-month erectile hardness score ≥2. Limitation includes selection bias and short follow-up duration.

Conclusions

Not only the performance but also the degree and quality of NVB sparing thought to be important for postoperative sexual function. Measurement of the width of NVB during surgery could be an easy intraoperative method for assessing the quality of NVB sparing.

Prevalence of erectile dysfunction in male survivors of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies

Background

Prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) in male survivors of cancer across cancer types has not been systematically analysed.

Aim

To estimate the prevalence of ED in all types of cancer and identify characteristics associated with ED in survivors of cancer.

Design and setting

Systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) of cross-sectional studies.

Method

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched, targeting reports published from inception to 1 February 2020. All retrospective or prospective studies reporting prevalence of ED in male patients with cancer and using a validated tool for detection of ED were included. A random-effects MA model was used to pool prevalence of ED as absolute estimates at three different stages, that is, ‘healthy’, ‘at diagnosis’, and ‘after treatment’. A univariate MA regression including the three-level group variable as the only independent variable was used to assess the difference in ED prevalence across the three groups. Further MAs were conducted for studies involving patients at diagnosis and after treatment, and statistical inferences were made with setting for multiple testing controlling for a false discovery rate (FDR) <0.05.

Results

In total, 1301 studies were assessed for inclusion. Of these, 141 were potentially eligible and subsequently scrutinised in full text. Finally, 43 studies were included with a total of 13 148 participants. Overall, pooled data of the included studies showed an ED prevalence of 40.72% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 31.80 to 50.29) in patients with cancer, with prevalences of 28.60% (95% CI = 12.10 to 53.83) at time of diagnosis and 42.70% (95% CI = 32.97 to 53.03) after treatment, with significant difference between these two stages and across cancer locations, controlling for an FDR <0.05.

Conclusion

Erectile dysfunction was particularly high in male survivors of cancer and was associated with cancer treatment, cancer site, and age.

Sildenafil in postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction (perspective)

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common side effect to radical prostatectomies, even with nerve-sparing procedures. To ameliorate the problem so-called "penile rehabilitation" programs have been developed. The most widely used method of this is subscribing sildenafil or other PDE5-inhibitors to patients following surgery. This is based on a theory that these drugs may increase penile oxygenation and provide antiapoptotic factors (primarily NO and cGMP), thus protecting the penile tissue in a period with reduced nerve function following the surgery. Preclinical studies have confirmed the potential of sildenafil in this context and early human trials have suggested that a steady ingestion of sildenafil might protect the structural integrity of the penis. However, subsequent well-designed trials have not been able to confirm the initial findings. This fits well with sildenafil's mechanism of action because it does not actually induce erections or the production of either nitric oxide or cGMP. Rather, the drug enhances effects of an erectile response induced by neurotransmitters from the cavernous nerves. Therefore, sildenafil should no longer be offered as a sole means of penile rehabilitation. Rather, more research is needed, and clinicians need to apply a broader concept of sexual rehabilitation in postprostatectomy ED.