A prospective study of health-related quality of life outcomes among men treated for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: the impact of primary and secondary therapies.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the impact of primary and secondary therapies for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was initiated in 2007 at Center for Prostate Disease Research Multicenter National Database sites. Longitudinal patterns in HRQoL from baseline (pre-treatment) to 5 years post-diagnosis were examined for patients with high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Change in HRQoL was modeled using linear regression models fit with generalized estimating equations. The probability of maintaining HRQoL was compared between patients receiving RP only versus RP with secondary treatment. RESULTS: Of 445 men with high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 228 underwent RP and 143 had EBRT± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Fifty received secondary therapy (EBRT and/or ADT or chemotherapy) after RP. RP patients showed a greater decline over time in sexual function and bother and urinary function compared to EBRT±ADT patients. Patients who had secondary therapy after RP were less likely to maintain their HRQoL compared to those who had RP alone. These differences were most pronounced for sexual and hormonal function. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer patients experience significant declines in HRQoL after primary therapy. Additional secondary therapy after RP, in the form of EBRT and/or ADT, appears to be responsible for further deterioration in HRQoL outcomes.

Impact of Subsequent Biopsies on Comprehensive Health Related Quality of Life in Patients with and without Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify the effects of subsequent prostate needle biopsies after the baseline biopsy on health related quality of life with time. We compared men with and without prostate cancer, and men who did and did not undergo followup prostate needle biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included in analysis were patients enrolled in the Center for Prostate Disease Research Multicenter National Database between 2007 and 2015 who had low or favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer, were on active surveillance and underwent prostate needle biopsy for suspicion of prostate cancer. Patients completed the EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) and the RAND SF-36 (36-Item Short Form Health Survey) after baseline biopsy and at regular followup intervals. Mean health related quality of life was compared with time between patients who did and did not undergo subsequent prostate needle biopsies following baseline. RESULTS: Of the 637 patients included in study 129 (20.3%) with prostate cancer were on active surveillance and 508 (79.7%) were in the noncancer group. In the cancer and noncancer groups mean ± SD followup was 34.7 ± 16.9 and 31.6 ± 14.6 months, respectively. Of the patients with prostate cancer 54 (60.7%) underwent subsequent prostate needle biopsies compared with 114 (27.1%) without cancer. No significant impact on health related quality of life was observed in men who underwent subsequent prostate needle biopsies during a 5-year period. CONCLUSIONS: A subsequent prostate needle biopsy is required in most active surveillance protocols and in men with persistent suspicion of prostate cancer. Our analysis shows that subsequent prostate needle biopsies do not significantly impact health related quality of life.