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
. 2020 Mar 9;10(3):e032914.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032914.

Duration of sick leave after active surveillance, surgery or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: a nationwide cohort study

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Duration of sick leave after active surveillance, surgery or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: a nationwide cohort study

Anna Plym et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the loss of working time due to sick leave by treatment strategy for localised prostate cancer.

Design: Nationwide cohort study.

Setting: Sweden.

Participants: A total of 15 902 working-aged men with localised low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed during 2007-2016 from the Prostate Cancer Data Base Sweden, together with 63 464 prostate cancer-free men. Men were followed until 2016.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Using multistate Markov models, we calculated the proportion of men on work, sick leave, disability pension and death, together with the amount of time spent in each state. All-cause and cause-specific estimates were calculated.

Results: During the first 5 years after diagnosis, men with active surveillance as their primary treatment strategy spent a mean of 17 days (95% CI 15 to 19) on prostate cancer-specific sick leave, as compared with 46 days (95% CI 44 to 48) after radical prostatectomy and 44 days (95% CI 38 to 50) after radiotherapy. The pattern was similar after adjustment for cancer and sociodemographic characteristics. There were no differences between the treatment strategies in terms of days spent on sick leave due to depression, anxiety or stress. Five years after diagnosis, over 90% of men in all treatment strategies were free from sick leave, disability pension receipt and death from any cause.

Conclusions: Men on active surveillance experienced less impact on working life compared with men who received radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. From a long-term perspective, there were no major differences between treatment strategies. Our findings can inform men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer on how different treatment strategies may affect their working lives.

Keywords: prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms; radiotherapy; sick leave; watchful waiting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: ML owns Pfizer and AstraZeneca shares.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Probabilities of work, sick leave, disability pension receipt and death by initial treatment strategy and time since diagnosis in men with localised low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer and matched prostate cancer-free men. AS, active surveillance; PCa, prostate cancer; RP, radical prostatectomy; RT, radiotherapy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Proportion of sick leave spent by men remaining in initial treatment group and by men with secondary treatment by time since diagnosis. ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; AS, active surveillance; RP, radical prostatectomy; RT, radiotherapy.

Similar articles

Cited by

  • Human exposome assessment platform.
    Merino Martinez R, Müller H, Negru S, Ormenisan A, Arroyo Mühr LS, Zhang X, Trier Møller F, Clements MS, Kozlakidis Z, Pimenoff VN, Wilkowski B, Boeckhout M, Öhman H, Chong S, Holzinger A, Lehtinen M, van Veen EB, Bała P, Widschwendter M, Dowling J, Törnroos J, Snyder MP, Dillner J. Merino Martinez R, et al. Environ Epidemiol. 2021 Dec 3;5(6):e182. doi: 10.1097/EE9.0000000000000182. eCollection 2021 Dec. Environ Epidemiol. 2021. PMID: 34909561 Free PMC article.
  • Ten-year work burden after prostate cancer treatment.
    Washington SL 3rd, Lonergan PE, Cowan JE, Zhao S, Broering JM, Palmer NR, Hicks C, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Washington SL 3rd, et al. Cancer Med. 2023 Sep;12(18):19234-19244. doi: 10.1002/cam4.6530. Epub 2023 Sep 19. Cancer Med. 2023. PMID: 37724617 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Pettersson A, Robinson D, Garmo H, et al. . Age at diagnosis and prostate cancer treatment and prognosis: a population-based cohort study. Ann Oncol 2018;29:377 10.1093/annonc/mdx742 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pompe RS, Smith A, Bandini M, et al. . Tumor characteristics, treatments, and oncological outcomes of prostate cancer in men aged ≤50 years: a population-based study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018;21:71–7. 10.1038/s41391-017-0006-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carlsson S, Drevin L, Loeb S, et al. . Population-Based study of long-term functional outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. BJU Int 2016;117:E36–45. 10.1111/bju.13179 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, et al. . Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (cancer care Ontario guideline): American Society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2182–90. 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bul M, Zhu X, Rannikko A, et al. . Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. Eur Urol 2012;62:195 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.002 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances