Background: To report health-related quality of life outcomes as assessed by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: This study analyzed patients treated with RP within The PROState cancer monitoring in Italy, from the National Research Council (Pros-IT CNR). Italian versions of Short-Form Heath Survey and university of California los Angelesprostate cancer index questionnaires were administered. PROMs were physical composite scores, mental composite scores and urinary, bowel, sexual functions and bothers (UF/B, BF/B, SF/B). Baseline unbalances were controlled with propensity scores and stabilized inverse weights; differences in PROMs between different RP approaches were estimated by mixed models. Results: Of 541 patients treated with RP, 115 (21%) received open RP (ORP), 90 (17%) laparoscopic RP (LRP) and 336 (61%) robot-assisted RP (RARP). At head-to-head comparisons, RARP showed higher 12-month UF vs. LRP (interaction treatment * time p = 0.03) and 6-month SF vs. ORP (p < 0.001). At 12-month from surgery, 67, 73 and 79% of patients used no pad for urinary loss in ORP, LRP and RARP respectively (no differences for each comparison). Conversely, 16, 27 and 40% of patients declared erections firm enough for sexual intercourse in ORP, LRP and RARP respectively (only significant difference for ORP vs. RARP, p = 0.0004). Conclusions: Different RP approaches lead to significant variations in urinary and sexual PROMs, with a general trend in favour of RARP. However, their clinical significance seems limited.

Impact of Surgical Approach on Patient-Reported Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis from a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study (The Pros-IT CNR Study) / A. Antonelli, C. Palumbo, M. Noale, A. Porreca, S. Maggi, C. Simeone, P. Bassi, F. Bertoni, S. Bracarda, M. Buglione, G.N. Conti, R. Corvo, M. Gacci, V. Mirone, R. Montironi, L. Triggiani, A. Tubaro, W. Artibani, G. Crepaldi, P. Graziotti, E. Russi, M. Magrini Stefano, G. Muto, S. Pecoraro, U. Ricardi, V. Zagonel, R. Alitto Anna, E. Ambrosi, C. Aristei, M. Barbieri, F. Bardari, L. Bardoscia, S. Barra, S. Bartoncini, U. Basso, C. Becherini, R. Bellavita, F. Bergamaschi, S. Berlingheri, A. Berruti, M. Borghesi, R. Bortolus, V. Borzillo, D. Bosetti, G. Bove, P. Bove, M. Brausi, A. Bruni, G. Bruno, E. Brunocilla, A. Buffoli, C. Buttigliero, G. Cacciamani, M. Caldiroli, G. Cardo, G. Carmignani, G. Carrieri, E. Castelli, E. Castrezzati, G. Catalano, S. Cattarino, F. Catucci, F.D. Cavallini, O. Ceccarini, A. Celia, F. Chiancone, T. Chini, C. Cianci, A. Cisternino, D. Collura, F. Corbella, M. Corinti, P. Corsi, F. Cortese, L. Corti, N. de Cosimo, O. Cristiano, R. D'Angelillo, L. Da Pozzo, D. D'agostino, C. D'Elia, M. Dandrea, M. De Angelis, P. De Angelis, O. De Cobelli, B. De Concilio, A. De Lisa, S. De Luca, A. De Stefani, C.L. Deantoni, C. Degli Esposti, A. Destito, B. Detti, N. Di Muzio, A. Di Stasio, C. Di Stefano, D. Di Trapani, G. Difino, S. Falivene, G. Farullo, P. Fedelini, I. Ferrari, F. Ferrau, M. Ferro, A. Fodor, F. Fontana, F. Francesca, G. Francolini, P. Frata, G. Frezza, P. Gabriele, M. Galeandro, E. Garibaldi, G. Gennari Pietro, A. Gentilucci, A. Giacobbe, L. Giussani, G. Giusti, P. Gontero, A. Guarneri, C. Guida, A. Gurioli, D. Huqi, C. Imbimbo, G. Ingrosso, C. Iotti, C. Italia, P. La Mattina, E. Lamanna, L. Lastrucci, G. Lazzari, F. Liberale, G. Liguori, R. Lisi, F. Lohr, R. Lombardo, J.A.J. Lovisolo, M. Ludovico Giuseppe, N. Macchione, F. Maggio, M. Malizia, G. Manasse, G. Mandoliti, G. Mantini, L. Marafioti, L. Marciello, M. Marconi Alberto, A. Martilotta, S. Marzano, S. Masciullo, G. Maso, A. Massenzo, E. Mazzeo, L. Mearini, S. Medoro, R. Mole, G. Monesi, E. Montanari, F. Montefiore, G. Montesi, G. Morgia, G. Moro, G. Muscas, D. Musio, P. Muto, G. Muzzonigro, G. Napodano, C.L.A. Negro, M. Nidini, M. Ntreta, M. Orsatti, C. Palazzolo, I. Palumbo, A. Parisi, P. Parma, N. Pavan, M. Pericolini, F. Pinto, A. Pistone, V. Pizzuti, A. Platania, C. Polli, G. Pomara, E. Ponti, A.B. Porcaro, F. Porpiglia, D. Pugliese, A. Pycha, G. Raguso, A. Rampini, F. Randone Donato, V. Roboldi, M. Roscigno, M.P. Ruggieri, G. Ruoppo, R. Sanseverino, A. Santacaterina, M. Santarsieri, R. Santoni, S. Scagliarini, V. Scagliotti Giorgio, M. Scanzi, M. Scarcia, R. Schiavina, A. Sciarra, C. Sciorio, T. Scolaro, S. Scuzzarella, O. Selvaggio, A. Serao, S. Serni, M.A. Signor, M. Silvani, G. Silvano, F. Silvestris, V. Simone, G. Spagnoletti, G. Spinelli Matteo, L. Squillace, V. Tombolini, M. Toninelli, A. Trinchieri, L.E. Trodella, L. Trodella, C. Trombetta, L. Tronnolone, M. Tucci, D. Urzi, R. Valdagni, M. Valeriani, M. Vanoli, E. Vitali, A. Volpe, S. Zaramella, G. Zeccolini, G. Zini. - In: UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS. - ISSN 0042-1138. - 103:1(2019 Jul 01), pp. 8-18. [10.1159/000496980]

Impact of Surgical Approach on Patient-Reported Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis from a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study (The Pros-IT CNR Study)

S. Pecoraro;C. Becherini;G. Carrieri;C. Cianci;M. Corinti;M. Dandrea;O. De Cobelli;S. De Luca;A. Destito;A. Fodor;A. Guarneri;N. Macchione;S. Marzano;E. Mazzeo;E. Montanari;C. Palazzolo;F. Pinto;A. Pistone;E. Ponti;D. Pugliese;G. Silvano;G. Spagnoletti;G. Spinelli Matteo;R. Valdagni;
2019-07-01

Abstract

Background: To report health-related quality of life outcomes as assessed by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: This study analyzed patients treated with RP within The PROState cancer monitoring in Italy, from the National Research Council (Pros-IT CNR). Italian versions of Short-Form Heath Survey and university of California los Angelesprostate cancer index questionnaires were administered. PROMs were physical composite scores, mental composite scores and urinary, bowel, sexual functions and bothers (UF/B, BF/B, SF/B). Baseline unbalances were controlled with propensity scores and stabilized inverse weights; differences in PROMs between different RP approaches were estimated by mixed models. Results: Of 541 patients treated with RP, 115 (21%) received open RP (ORP), 90 (17%) laparoscopic RP (LRP) and 336 (61%) robot-assisted RP (RARP). At head-to-head comparisons, RARP showed higher 12-month UF vs. LRP (interaction treatment * time p = 0.03) and 6-month SF vs. ORP (p < 0.001). At 12-month from surgery, 67, 73 and 79% of patients used no pad for urinary loss in ORP, LRP and RARP respectively (no differences for each comparison). Conversely, 16, 27 and 40% of patients declared erections firm enough for sexual intercourse in ORP, LRP and RARP respectively (only significant difference for ORP vs. RARP, p = 0.0004). Conclusions: Different RP approaches lead to significant variations in urinary and sexual PROMs, with a general trend in favour of RARP. However, their clinical significance seems limited.
Patient-reported outcome measures; Prostate cancer; Quality of life; Radical prostatectomy; Sexual function; Urinary function
Settore MED/24 - Urologia
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
496980.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 285.52 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
285.52 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2434/690885
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 17
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 19
social impact