Causes of Death After Radical Prostatectomy at a Large Tertiary Center

Diabetes and Prostate Cancer Outcomes in Obese and Nonobese Men After Radical Prostatectomy

Background

The link between diabetes and prostate cancer progression is poorly understood and complicated by obesity. We investigated associations between diabetes and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastases in obese and nonobese men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

We included 4688 men from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital cohort of men undergoing RP from 1988 to 2017. Diabetes prior to RP, anthropometric, and clinical data were abstracted from 6 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers electronic medical records. Primary and secondary outcomes were PCSM and metastases and CRPC, respectively. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (adj-HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for diabetes and PCSM, CRPC, and metastases. Adjusted hazard ratios were also estimated in analyses stratified by obesity (body mass index: nonobese <30 kg/m²; obese ≥30 kg/m²). All statistical tests were 2-sided.

Results

Diabetes was not associated with PCSM (adj-HR = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.86 to 2.24), CRPC (adj-HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.64), or metastases (adj-HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.46), among all men. Interaction terms for diabetes and obesity were statistically significant in multivariable models for PCSM, CRPC, and metastases (P ≤ .04). In stratified analyses, in obese men, diabetes was associated with PCSM (adj-HR = 3.06, 95% CI = 1.40 to 6.69), CRPC (adj-HR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.11 to 4.15), and metastases (adj-HR = 1.57, 95% CI = 0.88 to 2.78), though not statistically significant for metastases. In nonobese men, inverse associations were suggested for diabetes and prostate cancer outcomes without reaching statistical significance.

Conclusions

Diabetes was associated with increased risks of prostate cancer progression and mortality among obese men but not among nonobese men, highlighting the importance of aggressively curtailing the increasing prevalence of obesity in prostate cancer survivors.

Assessment of Secondary Sarcomas Among Patients With Cancer of the Abdomen or Pelvis Who Received Combinations of Surgery, Radiation, and Chemotherapy vs Surgery Alone

IMPORTANCE

The association of radiation and chemotherapy with the development of secondary sarcoma is known, but the contemporary risk has not been well characterized for patients with cancers of the abdomen and pelvis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of secondary sarcoma among patients treated with combinations of surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy with patients treated with surgery alone and the general population.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This population-based cohort study included 173 580 patients in Ontario, Canada, with nonmetastatic cancer of the prostate, bladder, colon, rectum or anus, cervix, uterus, or testis. Patients were enrolled from January 1, 2002, to January 31, 2017. Data analysis was conducted from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Treatment combinations of radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Diagnosis of sarcoma based on histologic codes from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Time to sarcoma was compared using a cause-specific proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

Of 173 580 patients, most were men (125 080 [72.1%]), and the largest group was aged between 60 and 69 years (58 346 [33.6%]). Most patients had genitourinary cancer (86 235 [51.4%]) or colorectal cancer (69 241 [39.9%]). Overall, 64 301 (37.1%) received surgery alone, 51 220 (29.5%) received radiation alone, 15 624 (9.0%) were treated with radiation and chemotherapy, 15 252 (8.8%) received radiation with surgery, and 11 822 (6.8%) received all 3 treatments. A total of 332 patients (0.2%) had sarcomas develop during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 5.7 (2.2-8.9) years. The incidence of sarcoma was 0.3% among those who underwent radiation alone (138 of 51 220) and radiation with chemotherapy (40 of 15 624), 0.2% among those who received radiation and surgery (36 of 15 252) and all 3 modalities (25 of 11 822), and 0.1% among those who received surgery with chemotherapy (13 of 14 861) and surgery alone (80 of 64 801). Compared with a reference group of patients who had surgery alone, the greatest risk of sarcoma was found among patients who underwent a combination of radiation and chemotherapy (cause-specific relative hazard [csRH], 4.07; 95% CI, 2.75-6.01; P < .001), followed by patients who had radiation alone (csRH, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.77-3.12; P < .001), radiation with surgery (csRH, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.57-3.46; P < .001), and all 3 modalities (csRH, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.44-3.58; P < .001). In the general population, 7987 events occurred during 46 554 803 person-years (17.2 events per 100 000 person-years). The standardized incidence ratio for sarcoma among patients treated with radiation compared with the general population was 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69; 41.3 events per 100 000 person-years). The annual number of cases of sarcoma increased from 2009 (15 per 100 000 persons) to 2016 (32 per 100 000 persons), but the annual rate did not change during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, patients treated with radiation or chemotherapy for abdominopelvic cancers had an increased rate of sarcoma. Although the absolute rate is low, patients and physicians should be aware of this increased risk of developing sarcoma.

Superior survival benefits of Radical Prostatectomy than External Beam Radiotherapy in aging 75 and older men with high-risk or very high-risk Prostate Cancer: a population-matched study

Objective: To evaluate the survival difference of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in elderly men (75 years and older) with high-risk (HR) or very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Elderly men diagnosed with HR/VHR PCa from 2004-2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database were identified. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance the covariates; Kaplan-Meier and Cox analysis were performed to evaluate the overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS). Results: 11698 patients with HR PCa and 4415 patients with VHR PCa were identified and divided into RP and EBRT group. After PSM, 964 patients with HR PCa and 538 patients with VHR PCa were included in each group. The 10-year OS and PCSS of men with HR PCa were 60.1% vs 40.9% and 90.6% vs 83.4%, respectively. The 10-year rate of OS and PCSS in men with VHR PCa were 55.9% vs 33.3% and 82.4% vs 75.6%, respectively. The OS curve of patients with HR PCa revealed that RP was significantly better than EBRT in both overall cohort [HR: 0.533, 95%CI (0.485~0.586), p<0.001] and the matched cohort [HR: 0.703, 95%CI (0.595~0.832), p<0.001]. However, the PCSS curve of patients with HR PCa showed that RP was significantly better than EBRT in overall cohort [HR: 0.453, 95%CI (0.368~0.559), p<0.001] but was similar to EBRT in matched cohort [HR: 0.820, 95%CI (0.552~1.218), p=0.327]. As for patients with VHR PCa, RP was associated with better OS than EBRT whether in overall cohort [HR: 0.520, 95%CI (0.457~0.592), p<0.001] or matched cohort [0.695, 95%CI (0.551~0.876), p=0.002]. The PCSS of RP was significantly better than that of EBRT in overall cohort [HR: 0.538, 95%CI (0.422~ 0.685), p<0.001], but was similar in matched cohort [HR: 0.787, 95%CI (0.510 ~1.214), p=0.281]. Conclusions: RP has more survival benefits than EBRT in men aged 75 years and older with HR or VHR PCa.

Risk of subsequent primary cancers after carbon ion radiotherapy, photon radiotherapy, or surgery for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score-weighted, retrospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

The risk of subsequent primary cancers in patients with prostate cancer after treatment with photon radiotherapy is small in absolute numbers, but it is higher than that after surgical treatment. Carbon ion radiotherapy has a theoretically lower risk of inducing secondary malignancies than photon radiotherapy, but this risk has not been investigated in practice because of the low number of facilities offering such therapy worldwide and the limited data on long-term follow-up because the therapy has only been available since 1994. We aimed to analyse the risk of subsequent primary cancers after treatment with carbon ion radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer and to compare it with that after photon radiotherapy or surgery in this setting.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed records of patients who received carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer between June 27, 1995, and July 10, 2012, at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) in Japan. We also retrieved the records of patients diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer between Jan 1, 1994, and Dec 31, 2012, from the Osaka Cancer Registry. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed localised prostate cancer and a minimum follow-up of at least 3 months; no age restrictions were applied. We excluded patients with metastasis, node-positive disease, or locally invasive (T4 stage) prostate cancer, those with previous or synchronous malignancies, and those who received previous radiotherapy or chemotherapy. We did a multivariable analysis to estimate predictors of subsequent cancers after carbon ion radiotherapy treatment. We also used propensity score inverse probability weighting to retrospectively compare the incidence of subsequent cancers in patients with localised prostate cancer treated with carbon beams, photon radiotherapy, or surgery.

FINDINGS

Of 1580 patients who received carbon radiotherapy for prostate cancer at the NIRS, 1455 (92%) patients met the eligibility criteria. Of 38 594 patients with prostate cancer identified in the Osaka registry, 1983 (5%) patients treated with photon radiotherapy and 5948 (15%) treated with surgery were included. Median follow-up durations were 7·9 years (IQR 5·9-10·0) for patients who received carbon ion radiotherapy (after limiting the database to 10-year maximum follow-up), 5·7 years (4·5-6·4) for patients who received photon radiotherapy, and 6·0 years (5·0-8·6) for those who received surgery. 234 subsequent primary cancers were diagnosed in the carbon ion radiotherapy cohort; some patients developed several tumours. On multivariable analysis, age (p=0·0021 for 71-75 years vs ≤60 years; p=0·012 for >75 years vs ≤60 years) and smoking (p=0·0005) were associated with a higher risk of subsequent primary cancers in patients treated with carbon ion radiotherapy. In the propensity score-weighted analyses, carbon ion radiotherapy was associated with a lower risk of subsequent primary cancers than photon radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·81 [95% CI 0·66-0·99]; p=0·038) or surgery (HR 0·80 [0·68-0·95]; p=0·0088), whereas photon radiotherapy was associated with a higher risk of subsequent primary cancers than surgery (HR 1·18 [1·02-1·36]; p=0·029).

INTERPRETATION

Our analysis suggests that patients with localised prostate cancer treated with carbon ion radiotherapy appear to have a lower risk of subsequent primary cancers than those treated with photon radiotherapy. Although prospective evaluation with longer follow-up is warranted to support these results, our data supports a wider adoption of carbon ion radiotherapy for patients with expected long-term overall survival or those with poor outcomes after receiving conventional treatments.

FUNDING

Research Project for Heavy Ions at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences (Japan).

Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment.

METHODS

The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial.

FINDINGS

Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07-13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18-17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3-33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7-28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9-24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0-35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group.

INTERPRETATION

In this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute.

Discerning the survival advantage among patients with prostate cancer who undergo radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy: The limitations of cancer registry data

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the overall survival of patients who undergo radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy versus noncancer controls to discern whether there is a survival advantage according to prostate cancer treatment and the impact of selection bias on these results.

METHODS

A matched cohort study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database. In total, 34,473 patients ages 66 to 75 years were identified who were without significant comorbidity, were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, and received treatment treated with surgery or radiotherapy between 2004 and 2011. These patients were matched to a noncancer control cohort. The rates of all-cause mortality that occurred within the study period were compared. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify determinants associated with overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 34,473 patients who were included in the analysis, 21,740 (63%) received radiation therapy, and 12,733 (37%) underwent surgery. There was improved survival in patients who underwent surgery (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.38) and in those who received radiotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.75) compared with noncancer controls. Overall survival improved significantly in both treatment groups, with the greatest benefit observed among patients who underwent surgery (log rank P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based data indicated that patients with prostate cancer who received treatment with either surgery or radiotherapy had improved overall survival compared with a cohort of matched noncancer controls. Surgery produce longer survival compared with radiation therapy. These results suggest an inherent selection-bias because of unmeasured confounding variables. Cancer 2017;123:1617-1624. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Adjuvant and Salvage Radiotherapy after Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Patients

CONTEXT

Prostate cancer (PCa) patients found to have adverse pathologic features following radical prostatectomy (RP) are less likely to be cured with surgery alone.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the role of postoperative radiotherapy (RT) in patients with aggressive PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic literature review of the Medline and EMBASE databases. The search strategy included the terms radical prostatectomy, adjuvant radiotherapy, and salvage radiotherapy, alone or in combination. We limited our search to studies published between January 2009 and August 2016.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Three randomized trials demonstrated that immediate RT after RP reduces the risk of recurrence in patients with aggressive PCa. However, immediate postoperative RT is associated with an increased risk of acute and late side effects ranging from 15% to 35% and 2% to 8%, respectively. Retrospective studies support the oncologic efficacy of initial observation followed by salvage RT administered at the first sign of recurrence; however, the impact of this delay on long-term control remains uncertain. Hopefully, ongoing randomized trials will shed light on the role of adjuvant RT versus observation±salvage RT in individuals with adverse features at RP. Accurate patient selection based on clinical characteristics and molecular profile is crucial. Dose escalation, whole-pelvis RT, novel techniques, and the use of hormonal therapy might improve the outcomes of postoperative RT.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate RT reduces the risk of recurrence after RP in patients with aggressive disease. However, this approach is associated with an increase in the incidence of short- and long-term side effects. Observation followed by salvage RT administered at the first sign of recurrence might be associated with durable cancer control, but prospective randomized comparison with adjuvant RT is still awaited. Dose escalation, refinements in the technique, and the concomitant use of hormonal therapies might improve outcomes of patients undergoing postoperative RT.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Postoperative radiotherapy has an impact on oncologic outcomes in patients with aggressive disease characteristics. Salvage radiotherapy administered at the first sign of recurrence might be associated with durable cancer control in selected patients but might compromise cure in others.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: What Do Clinicians Have to Know?

Radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PC) has steadily evolved over the last decades, with improving biochemical disease-free survival. Recently population based research also revealed an association between overall survival and doses ≥ 75.6 Gray (Gy) in men with intermediate- and high-risk PC. Examples of improved RT techniques are image-guided RT, intensity-modulated RT, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and stereotactic ablative body RT, which could facilitate further dose escalation. Brachytherapy is an internal form of RT that also developed substantially. New devices such as rectum spacers and balloons have been developed to spare rectal structures. Newer techniques like protons and carbon ions have the intrinsic characteristics maximising the dose on the tumour while minimising the effect on the surrounding healthy tissue, but clinical data are needed for confirmation in randomised phase III trials. Furthermore, it provides an overview of an important discussion issue in PC treatment between urologists and radiation oncologists: the comparison between radical prostatectomy and RT. Current literature reveals that all possible treatment modalities have the same cure rate, but a different toxicity pattern. We recommend proposing the possible different treatment modalities with their own advantages and side-effects to the individual patient. Clinicians and patients should make treatment decisions together (shared decision-making) while using patient decision aids.

Causes of death in men with localized prostate cancer: a nationwide, population-based study

OBJECTIVE

To detail the distribution of causes of death from localized prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The database PCBase Sweden links the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register with other nationwide population-based healthcare registers. We selected all 57 187 men diagnosed with localized PCa between 1997 and 2009 and their 114 374 PCa-free control subjects, matched according to age and county of residence. Mortality was calculated using competing risk regression analyses, taking into account PCa risk category, age and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI).

RESULTS

In men with low-risk PCa, all-cause mortality was lower compared with that in corresponding PCa-free men: 10-year all-cause mortality was 18% for men diagnosed at age 70 years, with a CCI score of 0, and 21% among corresponding control subjects. Of these cases, 31% died from cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with 37% of the corresponding control subjects. For men with low-risk PCa, 10-year PCa-mortality was 0.4, 1 and 3% when diagnosed at age 50, 60 and 70 years, respectively. PCa was the third most common cause of death (18%), after CVD (31%) and other cancers (30%). By contrast, PCa was the most common cause of death in men with intermediate- and high-risk localized PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with low-risk PCa had lower all-cause mortality than PCa-free men because of lower CVD mortality, driven by early detection selection; however, for men with intermediate- or high-risk disease, the rate of PCa death was substantial, irrespective of CCI score, and this was even more pronounced for those diagnosed at age 50 or 60 years.

Incidence of second malignancies for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

There is a need to assess risk of second primary cancers in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, especially since PCa treatment may be associated with increased risk of second primary tumours.

METHODS

We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for second primary tumours comparing men diagnosed with PCa between 1980 and 2010 in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (n = 20,559), and the general male population in the Canton.

RESULTS

A total of 1,718 men developed a second primary tumour after PCa diagnosis, with lung and colon cancer being the most common (15 and 13% respectively). The SIR for overall second primary cancer was 1.11 (95%CI: 1.06-1.17). Site-specific SIRs varied from 1.19 (1.05-1.34) to 2.89 (2.62-4.77) for lung and thyroid cancer, respectively. When stratified by treatment, the highest SIR was observed for thyroid cancer (3.57 (1.30-7.76)) when undergoing surgery, whereas liver cancer was common when treated with radiotherapy (3.21 (1.54-5.90)) and kidney bladder was most prevalent for those on hormonal treatment (3.15 (1.93-4.87)). Stratification by time since PCa diagnosis showed a lower risk of cancer for men with PCa compared to the general population for the first four years, but then a steep increase in risk was observed.

CONCLUSION

In the Canton of Zurich, there was an increased risk of second primary cancers among men with PCa compared to the general population. Increased diagnostic activity after PCa diagnosis may partly explain increased risks within the first years of diagnosis, but time-stratified analyses indicated that increased risks remained and even increased over time.

High-risk prostate cancer-classification and therapy

Approximately 15% of patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with high-risk disease. However, the current definitions of high-risk prostate cancer include a heterogeneous group of patients with a range of prognoses. Some have the potential to progress to a lethal phenotype that can be fatal, while others can be cured with treatment of the primary tumour alone. The optimal management of this patient subgroup is evolving. A refined classification scheme is needed to enable the early and accurate identification of high-risk disease so that more-effective treatment paradigms can be developed. We discuss several principles established from clinical trials, and highlight other questions that remain unanswered. This Review critically evaluates the existing literature focused on defining the high-risk population, the management of patients with high-risk prostate cancer, and future directions to optimize care.

Relationships between perioperative physical activity and urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: an observational study

Background

Higher physical activity levels are continence-protective in non-prostate cancer populations. Primary aims of this study were to investigate changes in physical activity levels over the perioperative period in patients having radical prostatectomy, and relationships between perioperative physical activity levels and post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence.

Methods

A prospective analysis of patients having radical prostatectomy and receiving perioperative physiotherapy including pelvic floor muscle training and physical activity prescription (n = 33). Physical activity levels were measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and/or the SenseWear Pro3 Armband at four timepoints: before preoperative physiotherapy, the week before surgery, and 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively. Urinary incontinence was measured at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively using a 24-hour pad test and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire – Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ).

Results

Physical activity levels changed significantly over the perioperative period (p < 0.001). At 6 weeks postoperatively, physical activity levels did not differ significantly from baseline (p = 0.181), but remained significantly lower than the week before surgery (p = 0.002). There was no significant interaction effect between preoperative physical activity category and time on the 24-hour pad test (p = 0.726) or ICIQ (p = 0.608). Nor were there any significant correlations between physical activity levels and the 24-hour pad test and ICIQ at 3 or 6 weeks postoperatively.

Conclusions

This study provides novel data on perioperative physical activity levels for patients having radical prostatectomy. There was no relationship between perioperative physical activity levels and post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, although participants had high overall preoperative physical activity levels and low overall urinary incontinence.