Health-related quality of life in Japanese patients with prostate cancer following proton beam therapy: an institutional cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Many treatment options have guaranteed long-term survival in patients with localized prostate cancer and health-related quality of life has become a greater concern for those patients. The purpose of this study was to reveal the health-related quality of life after proton beam therapy and to clarify the differences from other treatment modalities for prostate cancer. METHODS: Between January 2011 and April 2016, 583 patients were enrolled in the study and health-related quality of life outcomes using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire were evaluated and compared with previous research targeted at Japanese patients. RESULTS: We found a significant decrease in the least square mean scores for urinary and bowel domains excluding the incontinence subscale after proton beam therapy (P < 0.0001) and recovery at a year following treatment. The scores for sexual function in patients without androgen deprivation therapy decreased each year after proton beam therapy (P < 0.0001). The scores for hormones in patients without androgen deprivation therapy remained high and those of patients with androgen deprivation therapy were lower before treatment but were comparable to those of non-androgen deprivation therapy patients at 2 years post-treatment. We found that the impact of radiotherapy including proton beam therapy on urinary condition and sexual function was lower than that of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time in Japan, we investigated health-related quality of life using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires in patients with prostate cancer after proton beam therapy and compared it with other treatment modalities.

Effect of Film Dressing on Acute Radiation Dermatitis Secondary to Proton Beam Therapy.

PURPOSE: Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) is one of the most common adverse events of proton beam therapy (PBT), and there is currently no effective method to manage ARD. The purpose of this study was to examine the prophylactic effect of a film dressing using Airwall on PBT-induced ARD compared with standard skin managements. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 271 patients with prostate cancer who were scheduled for PBT at our center were divided into 2 groups based on their own requests: 145 patients (53%) chose Airwall (group A) and 126 patients (47%) received standard treatments (group B). We evaluated irradiated skin every other day during PBT and followed up once a week for a month after completion of PBT. RESULTS: Grade 0, 1, 2, and 3 dermatitis were seen in 2, 122, 21, and 0 and 0, 65, 57, and 4 patients in groups A and B, respectively (P<.001). Numbers of days to grades 1 and 2 ARD development were 34.9 ± 14.3 and 54.7 ± 10.3 and 31.8 ± 11.3 and 54.4 ± 11.6 in groups A and B, respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups. Eighteen patients (12%) in group A who experienced problems in the region covered with Airwall switched to standard skin care after peeling the film off. CONCLUSIONS: Film dressing using Airwall reduced the severity of ARD without delaying the response time of the skin to proton beam irradiation compared with standard skin management. Hence, film dressing is considered a promising measure for preventing ARD secondary to PBT.