Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Jun;23(5):1641-50.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0603-6. Epub 2013 Dec 13.

Longitudinal change in health-related quality of life after intensity-modulated radiation monotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Longitudinal change in health-related quality of life after intensity-modulated radiation monotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Shinya Yamamoto et al. Qual Life Res. 2014 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to assess longitudinal changes in general and disease-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) indices after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) monotherapy for patients with localized prostate cancer (PCA).

Methods: Between 2006 and 2010, 91 patients with localized PCA underwent IMRT monotherapy and were enrolled into this prospective study. At baseline, and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after IMRT, the general and prostate-specific HRQOL were estimated using physical (PCS) and mental component summaries (MCS) calculated using the Medical Outcomes Study 8-Item Short Form Health Survey and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC).

Results: For 2 years, there were no significant changes in EPIC scores in all subscales of urinary domain, hormonal function, and bother. Bowel and sexual function scores decreased after IMRT and did not return to those at baseline (p = 0.006 and < 0.001, respectively). PCS began to decrease at 3 months after IMRT and then returned to the baseline score at 24 months. In contrast, the MCS score began to significantly increase after IMRT, and thereafter the score remained constant until 24 months (p < 0.001). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, urinary (p = 0.003) and sexual functions (p = 0.0005) at baseline were identified as significant predictors of EPIC urinary irritative/obstructive score and sexual function at 24 months after IMRT.

Conclusion: Urinary function, including irritative/obstruction symptoms and hormonal function, was not affected by IMRT. However, bowel and sexual function decreased after IMRT. These findings will provide important information for PCA patients considering IMRT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Longitudinal changes in domain and subdomain scores of the EPIC and scores of SF-8 (PCS and MCS) in patients treated with IMRT. High scores indicate better outcomes. a Urinary function, b urinary bother, c incontinence, d irritative/obstructive, e bowel function, f bowel bother, g sexual function, h sexual bother, i hormonal function, j hormonal bother, k PCS, and MCS
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Longitudinal changes in domain and subdomain scores of the EPIC and scores of SF-8 (PCS and MCS) in patients treated with IMRT. High scores indicate better outcomes. a Urinary function, b urinary bother, c incontinence, d irritative/obstructive, e bowel function, f bowel bother, g sexual function, h sexual bother, i hormonal function, j hormonal bother, k PCS, and MCS
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Longitudinal changes in urinary subscales of the EPIC according to pretreatment urinary function. High scores indicate better functional outcomes. Baseline means pretreatment state. Good and poor urinary functions are defined as < 8 points and 8 or more points of pretreatment IPSS score, respectively. a urinary function, b urinary bother, c incontinence, and d irritative/obstructive
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Longitudinal changes in sexual function and bother scores of the EPIC in patients with potency at baseline. High scores indicate better outcomes (sexual function: solid line; sexual bother: dotted line)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Shinohara N, Maruyama S, Shimizu S, Nishioka K, Abe T, C-Hatanaka K, et al. Longitudinal comparison of quality of life real-time tumor-tracking intensity-modulated radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer. Journal of Radiation Research. 2013 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goineau A, Marchand V, Rigaud J, Bourdin S, Rio E, Campion L, et al. Prospective evaluation of quality of life 54 months after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Radiation Oncology. 2013 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alicikus ZA, Yamada Y, Zhang Z, Pei X, Hunt M, Kokkmeier M, et al. Ten-year outcomes of high-dose, intensity modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(7):1429–1437. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25467. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, Yamada Y, Marion C, Ling CC, et al. High-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: Early toxicity and biochemical outcome in 772 patients. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2002;53(5):1111–1116. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02857-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Manger SA, Huddart RA, Parker CC, Dearnaley DP, Khoo VS, Horwich A, et al. Technological advances in radiotherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. European Journal of Cancer. 2005;41(6):908–921. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.12.028. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources