Functional outcomes and safety of focal therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review on results and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Experience Measures After Active Surveillance Versus Radiation Therapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Prospective Comparative Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Current management options for localized prostate cancer (PCa) include radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT), and active surveillance (AS). Despite comparable oncological outcomes, there is still lack of evidence on their comparative effectiveness in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). We conducted a systematic review of studies comparing PROMs and PREMs after all recommended management options for localized PCa (RP, RT, AS).

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases in accordance with recommendations from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. All prospective clinical trials reporting PROMs and/or PREMs for comparisons of RP versus RT versus AS were included. A narrative synthesis was used to summarize the review findings. No quantitative synthesis was performed because of the heterogeneity and limitations of the studies available.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Our findings reveal that RP mostly affects urinary continence and sexual function, with better results for voiding symptoms in comparison to other treatments. RT was associated with greater impairment of bowel function and voiding symptoms. None of the treatments had a significant impact on mental or physical quality of life. Only a few studies reported PREMs, with a high rate of decision regret for all modalities (up to 23%).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

All recommended treatments for localized PCa have an impact on PROMs and PREMs, but for different domains and with differing severity. We found significant heterogeneity in PROM collection, so standardization in real-world practice and clinical trials is warranted. Only a few studies have reported PREMs, highlighting an unmet need that should be explored in future studies.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed differences in patient reports of their outcomes and experiences after surgical prostate removal, radiotherapy, or active surveillance for prostate cancer. We found differences in the effects on urinary, bowel, and sexual functions among the treatments, but no difference for mental or physical quality of life. Our results can help doctors and prostate cancer patients in shared decision-making.

Health-related quality of life following salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy or focal therapy

BACKGROUND

Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) is an important treatment option for patients with recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after radiotherapy (RT) or focal therapy (FT). However, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after sRP depending on the primary treatment is understudied.

METHODS

Patients who underwent Salvage RP for recurrent PCa were analyzed. The primary outcome of this study was HRQOL assessed by the quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and its prostate specific QLQ-PR25 add-on. Secondary outcomes were functional outcome parameters (erectile function, continence) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS). Statistical analyses employed the chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Kaplan-Meier method, with a p value < 0.05 denoting significance.

RESULTS

37 patients with RT as primary treatment (RT-sRP) and 22 patients with focal therapy prior sRP (FT-sRP) were analyzed. Mean global health score was not significantly different preoperatively (71.9 vs. 67.3, p = 0.89) as well as after a median of 32 months follow-up (54.9 vs. 50.6, p = 0.63) with impaired HRQOL after sRP in both groups. Baseline erectile dysfunction was more prevalent in the RT-sRP group (mean IIEF-5: 5.0) than in the FT-sRP group (mean IIEF-5: 8.5, p = 0.037). No differences were observed at follow-up for erectile function (IIEF-5-Score: 0.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.199) and continence (continence rate: 48.4% vs 52.9% (p = 0.763) between the RT-sRP and FT-sRP group. 5-year-BRFS was 60% (RT-sRP) and 68% (FT-sRP, p = 0.849).

CONCLUSIONS

sRP impacts HRQOL in patients with PCa after RT and FT with no significant differences. Comparison with HRQOL and BRFS of treatment alternatives is paramount to counsel patients for appropriate treatments.