Urethral pain among prostate cancer survivors 1 to 14 years after radiation therapy

Pain, fatigue and depression symptom cluster in survivors of prostate cancer

Purpose

Pain, fatigue and depression are common sequelae of a cancer diagnosis. The extent to which these occur together in prostate cancer survivors is unknown. We (i) investigated prevalence of the pain-fatigue-depression symptom cluster and (ii) identified factors associated with experiencing the symptom cluster among prostate cancer survivors.

Methods

Men in Ireland diagnosed with prostate cancer 2–18 years previously were identified from population-based cancer registries and sent postal questionnaires. Cancer-related pain and fatigue were measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and depression using the DASS-21. Cut-offs to define ‘caseness’ were pain ≥ 25, fatigue ≥ 39 and depression ≥ 10. Associations between survivor-related factors, clinical variables and specific prostate cancer physical symptoms and the symptom cluster were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.

Results

A total of 3348 men participated (response rate = 54%). Twenty-four percent had clinically significant pain, 19.7% had clinically significant fatigue, and 14.4% had depression; 7.3% had all three symptoms. In multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with the symptom cluster were living in Northern Ireland, experiencing back pain at diagnosis and being affected by incontinence, loss of sexual desire, bowel problems, gynecomastia and hot flashes post-treatment. There was a strong association between the cluster and health-related quality of life.

Conclusions

The pain-fatigue-depression symptom cluster is present in 1 in 13 prostate cancer survivors. Physical after-effects of prostate cancer treatment are associated with this cluster. More attention should be paid to identifying and supporting survivors who experience multiple symptoms; this may help health-related quality of life improve among the growing population of prostate cancer survivors.

A Systematic Post-QUANTEC Review of Tolerance Doses for Late Toxicity After Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to systematically review tolerance doses for late distinct gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), and sexual dysfunction (SD) symptoms after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone and treatments involving brachytherapy (BT) for prostate cancer after Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) and ultimately to perform quantitative syntheses of identified dose/volume tolerances represented by dose-volume histogram (DVH) thresholds, that is, statistically significant (P ≤ .05) cutoff points between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients in a certain study.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

PubMed was scrutinized for full-text articles in English after QUANTEC (January 1, 2010). The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, or cohort studies with tolerance doses for late distinct symptoms ≥3 months after primary radiation therapy for prostate cancer (N > 30). All DVH thresholds were converted into equivalent doses in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2α/β) and were fitted with a linear or linear-quadratic function (goodness of fit, R2). The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016042464).

RESULTS

From 33 identified studies, which included 36 to 746 patients per symptom domain, the majority of dose/volume tolerances were derived for GI toxicity after EBRT alone (GI, 97 thresholds; GU, 8 thresholds; SD, 1 threshold). For 5 symptoms (defecation urgency, diarrhea, fecal incontinence, proctitis, and rectal bleeding), relationships between dose/volume tolerances across studies (R2 = 0.93 [0.82-1.00]), and across symptoms, leading to a curve for overall GI toxicity (R2 = 0.98), could be determined. For these symptoms, mainly rectal thresholds were found throughout low and high doses (10 Gy ≤ equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions using α/β = 3Gy (EQD23) ≤ 50 Gy and 55 Gy ≤ EQD23 ≤ 78 Gy, respectively). For BT with or without EBRT, dose/volume tolerances were also mainly identified for GI toxicity (GI, 14 thresholds; GU, 4 thresholds; SD, 2 thresholds) with the largest number of DVH thresholds concerning rectal bleeding (5 thresholds).

CONCLUSIONS

Updated dose/volume tolerances after QUANTEC were found for 17 GI, GU, or SD symptoms. A DVH curve described the relationship between dose/volume tolerances across 5 GI symptoms after EBRT alone. Restricting treatments for EBRT alone using the lower boundaries of this curve is likely to limit overall GI toxicity, but this should be explored prospectively. Dose/volume tolerances for GU and SD toxicity after EBRT alone and after BT with or without EBRT were scarce and support further research including data-sharing initiatives to untangle the dose/volume relationships for these symptoms.

Update on Prevalence of Pain in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Cancer pain has a severe impact on quality of life and is associated with numerous psychosocial responses. Recent studies suggest that treatment of cancer pain has improved during the last decade.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to examine the present status of pain prevalence and pain severity in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature published between September 2005 and January 2014 was performed using the databases PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Articles in English or Dutch that reported on the prevalence of cancer pain in an adult population were included. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors independently, after which full texts were evaluated and assessed on methodological quality. Study details and pain characteristics were extracted from the articles with adequate study quality. Prevalence rates were pooled with meta-analysis; meta-regression was performed to explore determinants of pain prevalence.

RESULTS

Of 4117 titles, 122 studies were selected for the meta-analyses on pain (117 studies, n = 63,533) and pain severity (52 studies, n = 32,261). Pain prevalence rates were 39.3% after curative treatment; 55.0% during anticancer treatment; and 66.4% in advanced, metastatic, or terminal disease. Moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale score ≥5) was reported by 38.0% of all patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased attention on assessment and management, pain continues to be a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer. In the upcoming decade, we need to overcome barriers toward effective pain treatment and develop and implement interventions to optimally manage pain in patients with cancer.

Patient-reported sexual toxicity after radiation therapy in long-term prostate cancer survivors

Background:

To present an overview of patient-reported sexual toxicity in sexually active long-term prostate cancer survivors treated with radiation therapy.

Methods:

We used patient-reported outcomes from a study-specific questionnaire surveying symptoms after prostate cancer radiation therapy. Data from 518 men treated at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Sweden from 1993 to 2006 were analysed. The men had undergone primary or salvage external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or EBRT combined with high-dose rate brachytherapy (BT). We also used information from 155 non-treated reference men from the general population with no history of prostate cancer, matched for age and residency.

Results:

Median time from treatment to follow-up was 5 years (range: 1–14 years). Among the 16 investigated symptoms on erectile function, libido, orgasm, and seminal fluid, 9 symptoms in the primary EBRT group and 10 in both the salvage EBRT and the EBRT+BT groups were statistically significantly more prevalent in survivors than in reference men. Erectile dysfunction was influenced by both age and time to follow-up, whereas symptoms relating to orgasm and seminal fluid were influenced by time to follow-up only. Not being sexually active was almost one and a half times as common in survivors as in reference men.

Conclusions:

The presented symptom profiles can help to develop personalized therapy for prostate cancer through a better understanding of which radiation-induced toxicities to be addressed in the clinic and can also assist in identifying suitable interventions for existing symptoms.

Complications after artificial urinary sphincter implantation in patients with or without prior radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To compare complications after implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in patients with or without prior radiotherapy (RT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2000 and December 2011, 160 patients underwent AMS 800 AUS implantation in our institution. We excluded neurological and traumatic causes, implantation on ileal conduit diversion, penoscrotal urethral cuff position and those lost to follow-up. In all, 122 patients were included in the study, 61 with prior RT and 61 without prior RT. All patients underwent the same surgical technique by two different surgeons. All AUS were implanted with a bulbar urethral cuff position. The mean (range) follow-up was 37.25 (1-126) months.

RESULTS

In the patients without prior RT and those with prior RT, revision rates were 32.8% vs 29.5%, respectively (P = 0.59). The median time to first revision was 11.7 months. Early complications were similar in the two groups (4.9% vs 6.5%, P = 1). Erosion rates were not significantly different (4.9% vs 13.1%, P = 0.13). However, infection and explantation were more prevalent in patients with prior RT [two (3.2%) vs 10 (16.3%), P = 0.018 and three (4.9%) vs 12 (19.6%), P = 0.016, respectively]. Finally, continence rates were not significantly different [75.4% (without prior RT) vs 63.9% (with prior RT), P = 0.23].

CONCLUSION

AUS is the 'gold standard' treatment of male urinary incontinence after re-education failure in patients with or without prior RT. Our experience showed similar functional outcomes in both groups but a higher rate of major complications in the group with prior RT.

Pain and other symptoms in cancer survivors

Pain is common in cancer survivors. Long-term pain, often of neuropathic origin, is common after operations, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Pain and other concomitant symptoms and side effects should be assessed with validated and reliable scales and questionnaires. Cancer survivors with severe pain should be seen by a pain specialist. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation and individualized pain management may improve quality of life in cancer survivors. Four case reports are presented to illustrate this.

Pain related to cancer treatments and diagnostic procedures: a no man's land?

BACKGROUND

While guidelines are available for the management of cancer-related pain, little attention is given to the assessment and treatment of pain caused by treatments and diagnostic procedures in cancer patients.

METHODS

We evaluated the literature on pain related to cancer treatment and diagnostic procedures within a critical analysis.

RESULTS

The data available are sparse, suggesting that little attention has been directed at this important aspect of oncology. This points to potentially suboptimal patient management.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate studies are necessary in order to understand the incidence and appropriate management of pain, both during and/or after oncological treatments and diagnostic procedures. At the same time, Health Care Professionals should have heightened awareness of the causes and treatment of pain with the aim of anticipating and managing pain most appropriately for each individual patient. This is clearly an important component of holistic patient care before, during, and after oncological treatment.

Perception of body odor-an overlooked consequence of long-term gastrointestinal and urinary symptoms after radiation therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to investigate the association of long-term gastrointestinal and urinary symptoms with perceived fecal or urine body odor after radiation therapy for prostate cancer and its effect on survivors' quality of life.

METHODS

We used a study-specific questionnaire to measure the occurrence of long-term gastrointestinal and urinary symptoms, the perception of fecal or urine body odor, and quality of life (QoL) 2 to 14 years after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The questionnaire was sent to 895 eligible survivors who assessed symptom occurrence and QoL in the previous 6 months.

RESULTS

We received a filled-in questionnaire from 874 (89 %) men. For the long-term gastrointestinal symptoms, 11/13 were associated with the perception of fecal body odor. For the long-term urinary symptoms, 11/11 were associated with the perception of urine body odor. Men who perceived fecal or urine body odor had a lower quality of life, a lower physical health, and more frequent feelings of depression compared with those who did perceive such body odor.

CONCLUSION

Long-term gastrointestinal and urinary symptoms after prostate irradiation are associated with the perception of fecal or urine body odor leading to a reduced quality of life.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Disabling body odor after pelvic irradiation needs to be acknowledged in the clinic. Interventions to prevent long-term symptoms may serve the benefit of avoiding fecal or urine body odor after radiation therapy for prostate cancer.