Few studies have compared long-term patient reported AEs of men with Prostate Cancer (PCa) treated with dose-escalation by means of BT/RT to RT (70-78 Gy) alone. In this study, we compare AEs and quality of life (QoL) between these two treatment modalities.
259 eligible men from the BT/RT cohort (2004-2011) and 123 patients (2009-2010) from a RT cohort assessed their AEs and QoL by questionnaires a minimum of 5 years after treatment. Hormonal therapy was given for 1-2 years. EPIC-26 covered urinary, sexual and bowel function and bother. The hormone domain was excluded. The SF-12 questionnaire covered QoL. The scores ranged from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Clinical significance was set to a score difference > 10 points. Statistical significance was evaluated by Student t-test with significance level p < 0.05. Chronic fatigue was reported as percentage.
Median age at survey was 74 years for both cohorts. The EPIC-26 and SF12 scores for the above domains were similar in the two cohorts with no clinical or statistical significance (Table). Chronic fatigue was higher after treatment with RT compared BT/RT, although not significantly.Table: 853P
|Measure||BT/RT Mean (SD)||RT Mean (SD)||P value|
|Sexual function||27.9 (29.5) n = 255||20.8 (24.3) n = 120||0.06|
|Sexual bother||48.2 (37.5) n = 254||45.9 (34.7) n = 121||0.56|
|Urinary function||83.6 (18.0) n = 258||80.1 (20.5) n = 123||0.10|
|Urinary irritation/obstruction||81.3 (19.6) n = 249||81.8 (16.8) n = 113||0.80|
|Urinary incontinence||88.7 (18.1) n = 258||85.0 (22.5) n = 123||0.11|
|Urinary bother||79.9 (26.5) n = 257||77.6 (30.0) n = 123||0.47|
|Bowel function||86.7 (20.6) n = 254||83.1 (21.7) n = 121||0.12|
|Bowel bother||83.0 (25.1) n = 258||80.4 (26.7) n = 121||0.34|
|PCS12 (SF12)||46.4 (10.5) n = 224||45.1 (10.1) n = 101||0.30|
|MCS12 (SF12)||53.6 (8.0) n = 224||52.7 (9.2) n = 101||0.38|
|Chronic fatigue||22.0% n = 199||27.1% n = 86||0.28|
Dose-escalation by means of BT/RT does not increase the AEs reported for the urinary, bowel and sexual domains of EPIC-26 or health-related QoL. Hence, BT/RT is a good treatment option for eligible patients.
Clinical trial identification
Legal entity responsible for the study
Raagholt Foundation, Bergersen Foundation, Eckbo Foundation.
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.