Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A prospective quality-of-life study in men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or interstitial brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and changes in HRQOL during the first year after 3 different treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ninety men with T1-T2 adenocarcinoma of the prostate were treated with curative intent between May 1998 and June 1999 and completed a quality-of-life Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire before treatment (T0) and 1 month (T1), 3 months (T3), and 12 months (T12) after treatment. Forty-four men were treated with permanent source interstitial brachytherapy (IB), 23 received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and 23 men were treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). The mean age of the entire study population was 65.9 years (median 67, range 42-79). The mean pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level of the entire study population was 6.81 ng/mL (median 6.25, range 1.33-19.6). The Gleason score was
RESULTS: A comparison of the demographic characteristics of the 3 treatment groups demonstrated significant differences. The men treated with RP were significantly younger than the men in either the IB or EBRT group (median age 61.0 RP, 67.1 IB, 68.8 EBRT; p = 0.0006). The men in the IB group were more likely to have a Gleason score of
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis suggest that significant decreases in HRQOL, as measured by the FACT-P instrument, are evident in the first month after IB or RP, but not after EBRT. One year after treatment, however, the FACT-P scores were not statistically different from the baseline measures for any group. For all treatment groups, most of the HRQOL decreases were observed in the physical, functional, and prostate cancer-specific domains. These results suggest that the HRQOL changes are likely to be treatment-specific, further emphasizing the importance of a randomized trial comparing the different treatment options in this population of men.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app