Prostate cancer quality of life following surgery: an insight into outcomes from a range of secondary treatments
BAUS ePoster online library. Good D. 11/10/20; 304184; P10-10 Disclosure(s): Prostate Scotland / The Urology Foundation Robotic Urology
Mr. Daniel Good
Mr. Daniel Good
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.

You may also access this content "anytime, anywhere" with the Free MULTILEARNING App for iOS and Android
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Prostate cancer quality of life following surgery: an insight into outcomes from a range of secondary treatments

Good D1, Thompson L3, Stewart J2, Law A2, McLaren D2, Malik J2, Alhasso A1, McNeill A1
1Department of Urology, Western General Hospital, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 2Department of Oncology, Western General Hospital, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 3University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Introduction:
There is increasing interest in patient reported outcome measures (PROM) following treatments for prostate cancer. Little has been published about comparisons for patients who need secondary treatments (artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and salvage radiotherapy).

Objective:
To assess the PROM for patients with prostate cancer undergoing primary surgery including those requiring AUS and salvage radiotherapy.

Methods:
We compared 2 differently collected datasets; a prospectively collected pre-op and 1yr post-surgery (LRP) group and also postal PROM questionnaires for patients who underwent AUS or salvage radiotherapy from 2011 – 18. ICIQ-UI SF, EPIC-26, Decision regret and EQ5D5L were used.
SPSS was used to assess for distribution of data before appropriate statistical testing used to assess for statistical significance. Mean clinical identifiable differences (MCID) for EPIC-26 were used for 'clinical' differences.

Results:
429 patients (169 pre-op, 168 1yr post-op, 45 post AUS, 47 post salvage RT) completed questionnaires. Table 1 shows that patients in the AUS group had the lowest PROM outcomes, however, there was no clinical difference in incontinence between the AUS group and post LRP group. The continence PROMs for patients receiving salvage radiotherapy were good with no statistical differences between this group and post-LRP group. There was a significantly and clinically lower bowel quality of life.

Conclusion:
Patients requiring secondary treatments following surgery for prostate cancer do not suffer worse incontinence quality of life, however, do have a significantly higher decision regret and lower quality of life for bowel and obstructive symptoms in comparison to those not requiring secondary treatments.
Prostate cancer quality of life following surgery: an insight into outcomes from a range of secondary treatments

Good D1, Thompson L3, Stewart J2, Law A2, McLaren D2, Malik J2, Alhasso A1, McNeill A1
1Department of Urology, Western General Hospital, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 2Department of Oncology, Western General Hospital, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 3University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Introduction:
There is increasing interest in patient reported outcome measures (PROM) following treatments for prostate cancer. Little has been published about comparisons for patients who need secondary treatments (artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and salvage radiotherapy).

Objective:
To assess the PROM for patients with prostate cancer undergoing primary surgery including those requiring AUS and salvage radiotherapy.

Methods:
We compared 2 differently collected datasets; a prospectively collected pre-op and 1yr post-surgery (LRP) group and also postal PROM questionnaires for patients who underwent AUS or salvage radiotherapy from 2011 – 18. ICIQ-UI SF, EPIC-26, Decision regret and EQ5D5L were used.
SPSS was used to assess for distribution of data before appropriate statistical testing used to assess for statistical significance. Mean clinical identifiable differences (MCID) for EPIC-26 were used for 'clinical' differences.

Results:
429 patients (169 pre-op, 168 1yr post-op, 45 post AUS, 47 post salvage RT) completed questionnaires. Table 1 shows that patients in the AUS group had the lowest PROM outcomes, however, there was no clinical difference in incontinence between the AUS group and post LRP group. The continence PROMs for patients receiving salvage radiotherapy were good with no statistical differences between this group and post-LRP group. There was a significantly and clinically lower bowel quality of life.

Conclusion:
Patients requiring secondary treatments following surgery for prostate cancer do not suffer worse incontinence quality of life, however, do have a significantly higher decision regret and lower quality of life for bowel and obstructive symptoms in comparison to those not requiring secondary treatments.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies