Background: To report health-related quality of life outcomes as assessed by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: This study analyzed patients treated with RP within The PROState cancer monitoring in Italy, from the National Research Council (Pros-IT CNR). Italian versions of Short-Form Heath Survey and university of California los Angelesprostate cancer index questionnaires were administered. PROMs were physical composite scores, mental composite scores and urinary, bowel, sexual functions and bothers (UF/B, BF/B, SF/B). Baseline unbalances were controlled with propensity scores and stabilized inverse weights; differences in PROMs between different RP approaches were estimated by mixed models. Results: Of 541 patients treated with RP, 115 (21%) received open RP (ORP), 90 (17%) laparoscopic RP (LRP) and 336 (61%) robot-assisted RP (RARP). At head-to-head comparisons, RARP showed higher 12-month UF vs. LRP (interaction treatment * time p = 0.03) and 6-month SF vs. ORP (p < 0.001). At 12-month from surgery, 67, 73 and 79% of patients used no pad for urinary loss in ORP, LRP and RARP respectively (no differences for each comparison). Conversely, 16, 27 and 40% of patients declared erections firm enough for sexual intercourse in ORP, LRP and RARP respectively (only significant difference for ORP vs. RARP, p = 0.0004). Conclusions: Different RP approaches lead to significant variations in urinary and sexual PROMs, with a general trend in favour of RARP. However, their clinical significance seems limited. (C) 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel

Impact of Surgical Approach on Patient-Reported Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis from a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study (The Pros-IT CNR Study)

Noale M;Maggi S;
2019

Abstract

Background: To report health-related quality of life outcomes as assessed by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: This study analyzed patients treated with RP within The PROState cancer monitoring in Italy, from the National Research Council (Pros-IT CNR). Italian versions of Short-Form Heath Survey and university of California los Angelesprostate cancer index questionnaires were administered. PROMs were physical composite scores, mental composite scores and urinary, bowel, sexual functions and bothers (UF/B, BF/B, SF/B). Baseline unbalances were controlled with propensity scores and stabilized inverse weights; differences in PROMs between different RP approaches were estimated by mixed models. Results: Of 541 patients treated with RP, 115 (21%) received open RP (ORP), 90 (17%) laparoscopic RP (LRP) and 336 (61%) robot-assisted RP (RARP). At head-to-head comparisons, RARP showed higher 12-month UF vs. LRP (interaction treatment * time p = 0.03) and 6-month SF vs. ORP (p < 0.001). At 12-month from surgery, 67, 73 and 79% of patients used no pad for urinary loss in ORP, LRP and RARP respectively (no differences for each comparison). Conversely, 16, 27 and 40% of patients declared erections firm enough for sexual intercourse in ORP, LRP and RARP respectively (only significant difference for ORP vs. RARP, p = 0.0004). Conclusions: Different RP approaches lead to significant variations in urinary and sexual PROMs, with a general trend in favour of RARP. However, their clinical significance seems limited. (C) 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Istituto di Neuroscienze - IN -
Inglese
103
1
8
18
11
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30731456
Sì, ma tipo non specificato
Patient-reported outcome measures
Prostate cancer
Quality of life
Radical prostatectomy
Sexual function
Urinary function
18
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
262
Antonelli, A; Palumbo, C; Noale, M; Porreca, A; Maggi, S; Simeone, C; Bassi, P; Bertoni, F; Bracarda, S; Buglione, M; Conti, G N; Corvo, R; Gacci, M; ...espandi
01 Contributo su Rivista::01.01 Articolo in rivista
none
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/392319
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 23
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 24
social impact