Cognitive factors influencing treatment decision-making in patients with localised prostate cancer: development of a standardised questionnaire

Decrease in Intercourse Satisfaction in Men Who Recover Erections After Radical Prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Recovery of erections after radical prostatectomy (RP) is assumed to lead to recovery in sexual satisfaction. Although data suggest a relationship between sexual function and sexual satisfaction, it is unclear whether presurgical levels of sexual satisfaction are attained for men who "recover" erections post-RP.

AIM

The goal of this analysis is to determine whether the recovery of erectile function restores presurgical levels of sexual satisfaction.

METHODS

We assessed 229 men pre-RP and 24-months post-RP. At both time points, participants completed the Erectile Function Domain (EFD) and the Intercourse Satisfaction Domain (ISD) of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Erectile function recovery at 24 months was defined as (1) (EFD≥24) or (2) EFD back to baseline (BTB). One hundred sixty-six men with penetration hardness erections (PHEs) at baseline (EFD >24) were included in the analyses. Repeated measure t-tests were used to compare changes in ISD scores and effect size (Cohen's d) was calculated to determine the clinical significance of these changes. Multivariable analyses (MVA) were used to test the relationship between EFD and ISD.

RESULTS

The mean age of men was 58 (SD = 7) years. The mean EFD score at baseline was 29 (SD = 2), which declined significantly to 20 (SD = 10) at 24 months. ISD also decreased significantly between baseline and 24 months (12 to 8.3, P < .001, d = 0.87), even among men with PHEs at 24 months (12.3 to 11.3, P < .001, d = 0.50) and men who achieved BTB erections at 24 months (12.4 to 11.7, P = .02, d = 0.35). For men with PHEs at 24 months, MVAs identified baseline ISD (beta = 0.46) and 24-month EFD (beta = 0.23) as the only significant predictors of 24-month ISD. However, among men who achieved BTB erections at 24 months, baseline ISD (beta = 0.49) was the only significant predictor of 24-month ISD.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

These findings underscore the importance of the integration of psychological support and medical care to best meet the needs of patients. Furthermore, these results can be used to facilitate pre-RP communication and counseling with patients to improve understanding and manage post-RP expectations.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

The study methodology, specifically the use of BTB as a means of defining erectile function and the longitudinal, prospective study design are relative strengths. Despite the longitudinal design, the study did not include a control group of healthy, age-matched men.

CONCLUSION

Results highlight the enduring impact of sexual dysfunction, namely erectile dysfunction, on intercourse satisfaction following RP and suggest that restoration of function in and of itself does not ensure the restoration of satisfaction. Terrier JE, Masterson M, Mulhall JP, et al. Decrease in intercourse satisfaction in men who recover erections after radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 2018;15:1133-1139.

Canadian Men's perspectives about active surveillance in prostate cancer: need for guidance and resources

Background

In prostate cancer, men diagnosed with low risk disease may be monitored through an active surveillance. This research explored the perspectives of men with prostate cancer regarding their decision-making process for active surveillance to identify factors that influence their decision and assist health professionals in having conversations about this option.

Methods

Focus group interviews (n = 7) were held in several Canadian cities with men (N = 52) diagnosed with prostate cancer and eligible for active surveillance. The men’s viewpoints were captured regarding their understanding of active surveillance, the factors that influenced their decision, and their experience with the approach. A content and theme analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts from the sessions.

Results

Patients described their concerns of living with their disease without intervention, but were reassured by the close monitoring under AS while avoiding harmful side effects associated with treatments. Conversations with their doctor and how AS was described were cited as key influences in their decision, in addition to availability of information on treatment options, distrust in the health system, personality, experiences and opinions of others, and personal perspectives on quality of life.

Conclusions

Men require a thorough explanation on AS as a safe and valid option, as well as guidance towards supportive resources in their decision-making.

Does Travel Time to a Radiation Facility Impact Patient Decision-Making Regarding Treatment for Prostate Cancer? A Study of the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry

PURPOSE

We sought to determine whether further distance from a radiation center is associated with lower utilization of external beam radiation therapy (XRT).

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with a new diagnosis of localized prostate cancer (CaP) within the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry from 2004 to 2011. Patients were categorized by age, D'Amico risk category, year of treatment, marital status, season of diagnosis, urban/rural residence, and driving time to the nearest radiation facility. Treatment decisions were stratified into those requiring multiple trips (XRT) or a single trip (surgery or brachytherapy). Multivariable regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 4,731 patients underwent treatment for newly diagnosed CaP during the study period, including 1,575 multitrip (XRT) and 3,156 single-trip treatments. Of these, 87.6% lived within a 30-minute drive to a radiation facility. In multivariable analysis, time to the nearest radiation facility was not associated with treatment decisions (P = .26). However, higher risk category, older age, married status, and winter diagnosis were associated with XRT (P < .05). More recent year of diagnosis and urban residence were associated with single-trip therapy (primarily surgery) (P < .05). There was a significant interaction between travel time and season of diagnosis (P = .03), as well as a marginally significant interaction with urban/rural status (P = .07).

CONCLUSION

Overall, further travel time to a radiation facility was not associated with lower utilization of XRT. These data are encouraging regarding access to care for CaP in New Hampshire.