You are here
Long-term quality of life among localised prostate cancer survivors: QALIPRO population-based study
European Journal of Cancer, August 2016, Pages 143 - 153
To evaluate quality of life (QoL) 10 years after treatments for localised prostate cancer (LPCa) patients in comparison with aged-matched healthy controls.
LPCa patients diagnosed in 2001 were obtained from 11 French cancer registries. Controls were recruited among the general population and were matched to patients on age and geographic area. EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 items, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory self-reported questionnaires were used to measure QoL, anxiety and fatigue. Patients were classified in three groups according to previous treatments: radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT) and radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy (RP+RT). The differences in QoL between patients and controls and according to treatment groups were evaluated.
There were 287 patients and 287 controls. There was no socio-demographic difference between patients and controls. Treatments were: RP (143), RT (78), PR+RT (33), baseline hormone therapy (49) and hormone therapy at the time of the study (34). Patients had similar levels of global QoL, anxiety, depression and fatigue as controls. They reported more urinary troubles (urinary function and incontinence) (p < 0.0001) and more sexual dysfunctions (p < 0.0001) than controls, whatever the treatment group. Worse bowel dysfunction was reported in patients treated by RT and RP+RT (p < 0.002). According to the treatments, RP groups had the worst urinary function and incontinence (p < 0.01), and reported more bowel bother when the treatment was combined with RT.
Even though patients reported similar global QoL as control 10 years after treatment, patients reported numerous urinary and sexual dysfunctions. Patients treated with RP+RT reported cumulative sequelae of both treatments.
- Ten years after treatment, patients reported similar global quality of life than controls.
- Nevertheless, they presented persistent urinary, bowel and sexual adverse effects.
- Patients treated with radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy reported cumulative sequelae of both treatments.
Keywords: Quality of life, Localised prostate cancer, Long survivors, Population based study.
Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most frequent cancers in developed countries and represents nearly a quarter of all cancers diagnosed in men in France . Improvements in cancer treatments and early diagnosis have led to an increased number of long-term PCa survivors.
Patients with localised prostate cancer (LPCa) have different curative treatment options such as radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT) or both. Androgen deprivation therapy can also be proposed in combination with the others treatments . LPCa patients have a long-term survival and treatments often induce acute and delayed toxicities and sequelae that impact quality of life (QoL). Toxicities may differ according to the treatment used .
While many studies have identified adverse effects of PCa treatments, some focused on short (1–3 years) or intermediate-term follow-up (4–5 years) and most of them focused only on symptoms. Some have assessed the impact of treatments in the long-term (>5 years) , , , , , , and  but few of them included assessment of different domains of QoL and fatigue, that could be impacted. Moreover, only three studies compared QoL and/or symptoms of patients to those of healthy controls , , and . Since the 10-year net survival rate is equal to 71% , a careful evaluation of long-term QoL and sequelae in LPCa patients in comparison to those of healthy men of the same age is crucial. This allows to better understand the issues involved and inform patients of the potential long-term consequences of the different treatments. This French population-based study evaluated QoL and sequelae 10 years after treatments for LPCa in comparison with those of aged-matched controls.
2.1. Study design and participants
QALIPRO is a population-based case-control study conducted in 2011 among long-term PCa patients survivors initially enrolled in a large cohort from the French network of cancer registries including 2181 patients with a diagnosis of PCa in 2001 from 11 French cancer registries . Inclusion criteria were as follows: i) age >40 at diagnosis, ii) LPCa, low or intermediate D'Amico risk classification, iii) alive but no clinical or radiological relapse (except isolated rising PSA), iv) no history of other cancer except basal cell skin carcinoma.
Controls were selected from the general population covered by the 11 cancer registries. They were randomly selected from electoral rolls in each geographic area and were matched with patients for age (±2 years). Males having a history of cancer (except basal cell skin carcinomas) were excluded.
The project was approved by the local ethics committee, the French Advisory Committee on Information Processing in Material Research in the Field of Health (CCTIRS) and by the National French Data Protection Authority (CNIL). Patients and controls were approached by mail to participate in a study with self-reported questionnaires. Data collection started in September 2011. Subjects were mailed a package including an information letter, the questionnaires, and a postage-paid return envelope. A reminder was sent after 1 month if necessary.
2.3. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs)
A self-administered questionnaire was sent to the patients and the controls. It included socio-demographic characteristics and standardised validated instruments assessing global and disease-specific QoL, anxiety and depression and fatigue. We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 item (EORTC QLQ-C30) to provide measure of general QoL and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) to provide disease-specific aspect of QoL  and . Anxiety and depression were measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and fatigue was evaluated using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) , , , , and .
According to the scoring instruction, a linear transformation was used to standardise raw scores on a 0–100 scale (for QLQ-C30, EPIC and MFI). For functional scales, higher scores representing higher levels of functioning (five dimensions in the QLQ-C30, EPIC). For symptom scales, higher scores represented higher levels of symptomatology or problems (nine dimensions in the QLQ-C30, MFI).
In addition, we collected information about family, socio-professional status and comorbidities using a questionnaire for living conditions used in previous surveys  and . This questionnaire included items on education level, marital status, employment, and use of medical services.
2.4. Medical information
For all eligible patients, initial clinical data at diagnosis (2001) were obtained from medical records collected by the registries and update in 2011 for the follow-up, which included clinical stage, histology, D'Amico risk classification, modalities of therapy, Charlson comorbidity index and follow-up.
2.5. Cancer treatment
Patients received various modalities of treatments. We categorised the modalities of treatment into three groups: RP (n = 143), RT (n = 78) and combined treatment, which included patients who had received radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy (RP+RT, n = 33). Whatever the treatment group, 49 patients received initial androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and 34 patients had ADT at the time of the study. Patients who had received only ADT (n = 12), endoscopic resection (n = 9), ultrasonography (n = 1) and no treatment (n = 11) were excluded from treatment-modality analyses.
2.6. Statistical analysis
Among patients, comparison between participants and non-participants on age and medical variables were performed using χ2 tests and t-tests. Comparison of socio-demographic characteristics and medical use between patients and controls were performed with a paired t-test for quantitative variables and the McNemar χ2 for categorical variables.
In order to identify medical and socio-demographic variables significantly linked to QoL scores, we performed a multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). Age, education level, marital status, lives alone, employment status, monthly income, medical consultation during the past 12 months, chronic disease and regular medication were tested initially by bivariate analysis then multivariate ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. Then, we performed a multivariate ANOVA in order to compare QoL scores between patients and controls, adjusting for the medical and socio-demographic variables linked to scores in the previous step. Likewise, we performed a multivariate ANOVA in order to compare QoL scores between treatment modalities and the group of controls, adjusting for the medical and socio-demographic variables linked to scores. A supplementary analyse was made, only on patients, for checked current ADT effects. For this, ADT was added to adjustment variables.
Based on the variability of scores reported in QoL studies, our study was designed to be able to detect a difference at least of ten points on a scale ranging from 0–100, when the standard deviation of the difference was equal to 40. With an alpha risk of 1% and 90% power, we calculated that 242 patients needed to be recruited.
For all PROs questionnaires (except HADS), a difference of 5–10 units on a scale ranging from 0–100 was considered as small, a difference of 10–20 units was considered as moderate, and a difference >20 units was considered as large, according to the recommendations , , and . Given the large number of comparisons, we applied a p-value <0.01 in order to minimise type 1 error. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). All reported P-values are two-sided.
3.1. Study population
We identified 646 eligible patients. Of these, 317 completed the questionnaire. Among the 2855 controls contacted, 683 completed the questionnaire (Fig. 1). The participation rate of all eligible subjects was 49.1% for patients and 23.9% for controls. After exclusions due to relapse or other cancer, 287 questionnaires of patients and 287 questionnaires of aged-matched controls were exploited in the final analyses.
Flowchart of study population.
Among patients, participants (n = 317) were younger than non-participants (n = 329) (65.7 years versus 68.8 years; p < 0.0001) and they had fewer comorbidities at diagnosis (81% of participants have no comorbidities versus 72%; p = 0.009). Controls were randomly age-matched to patients (±2 years). There was no statistical significant difference in initial PSA, D'Amico classification, Gleason score or clinical stage between participants and non-participants.
3.2. Population characteristics
Socio-demographic characteristics and medical consumption (medical consultations and use of medication) are presented in Table 1. There were no significant socio-demographic differences between the two groups. The mean age was 76 years. They were no significant differences in use of medical services, frequency of chronic disease and regular medication except for sedative consumption, where patients consumed more tranquilisers than controls.
Socio-demographic characteristics and medical consumption of localised prostate cancer patients and controls.
|Patients (n = 287)||Controls (n = 287)||p-value∗|
|n (%)||n (%)|
|Age (years) median (min–max)||75.8 (61–91)||76.5 (59–91)||0.515|
|Low||67 (24.9)||57 (21.2)|
|Middle||116 (43.1)||125 (46.5)|
|High||86 (32.0)||87 (32.3)|
|Single||4 (1.5)||10 (3.6)|
|Married/in a couple||232 (84.4)||222 (80.7)|
|Separated||10 (3.6)||13 (4.7)|
|Widowed||29 (10.5)||30 (10.9)|
|Tenant||18 (6.5)||25 (9.1)|
|Owner||240 (87.3)||237 (86.2)|
|Lodging/ retirement home||17 (6.2)||13 (4.7)|
|Lives alone||26 (9.7)||37 (13.9)||0.161|
|Monthly income (euros)||0.913|
|0–750||11 (4.7)||11 (4.7)|
|750–1500||57 (24.4)||62 (26.5)|
|1500–3000||112 (47.9)||115 (49.1)|
|> 3000||54 (23.1)||46 (19.7)|
|Employed||6 (2.1)||7 (2.5)|
|Retired/house husband||275 (97.9)||274 (97.5)|
|Consultation during past 12 months|
|No doctor||5 (1.9)||8 (3.0)||0.581|
|General practitioner||247 (93.6)||253 (95.8)||0.327|
|Number of times GP means (std)||4.8 (3.0)||4.4 (3.1)||0.227|
|Specialist||141 (53.4)||161 (61.0)||0.088|
|Number of times specialist means (std)||2.6 (1.9)||2.6 (1.8)||0.893|
|No known chronic disease||48 (22.5)||46 (21.6)||0.906|
|Heart failure||39 (18.3)||37 (17.4)||0.899|
|Respiratory failure||17 (8.0)||17 (8.0)||1.000|
|Hypertension||77 (36.2)||79 (37.1)||0.923|
|Diabetes||24 (11.3)||37 (17.4)||0.092|
|Arthritis or other joint disease||71 (33.3)||70 (32.9)||1.000|
|Autoimmune disease||2 (0.9)||3 (1.4)||1.000|
|Other||31 (14.6)||21 (9.9)||0.164|
|Regular medication||244 (91.7)||225 (84.6)||0.011|
|Sleep medication||29 (11.3)||23 (9.0)||0.471|
|Tranquilisers||20 (7.8)||4 (1.6)||0.002∗|
|Hypertension medication||124 (48.4)||116 (45.3)||0.533|
|Heart medication||87 (34.0)||71 (27.7)||0.149|
|Pain medication||39 (15.2)||44 (17.2)||0.645|
|Prostate medication||58 (22.7)||48 (18.8)||0.302|
|Other drugs||76 (29.7)||75 (29.3)||1.000|
∗ Significant difference (p < 0.01).
Abbreviations: GP, general practitioner; std, standard deviation.
There were no differences between the three treatment groups concerning clinical characteristics except for the Gleason score (p < 0.01), which was higher in the combined treatment group (Table 2). Thirty-four were being treated with ADT at the time of the study (2011).
Clinical characteristics of localised prostate cancer patients according to initial treatment modality.
|RP (n = 143)||RT (n = 78)||RP + RT (n = 33)||p-value∗|
|n (%)||n (%)||n (%)|
|Age at diagnosis (years) median (min–max)||64.0 (41–73)||66.9 (54–78)||64.5 (53–74)||<.0001∗|
|<4 ng/ml||8 (5.6)||5 (6.4)||2 (6.1)|
|4–10 ng/ml||88 (61.5)||42 (53.8)||16 (48.5)|
|10–20 ng/ml||45 (31.5)||29 (37.2)||15 (45.4)|
|Unknown||2 (1.4)||2 (2.6)||0 (0.0)|
|Charlson comorbidity index||0.899|
|0||115 (80.4)||65 (83.3)||28 (84.9)|
|1–2||27 (18.9)||12 (15.4)||5 (15.2)|
|≥ 3||1 (0.7)||1 (1.3)||0 (6.1)|
|T1||72 (50.4)||33 (42.3)||8 (24.2)|
|T2||71 (49.7)||45 (57.7)||25 (75.8)|
|2–6||80 (55.9)||53 (68.0)||13 (39.4)|
|7||54 (37.8)||21 (26.9)||16 (48.5)|
|8–10||8 (5.6)||0 (0.0)||4 (12.1)|
|Unknown||1 (0.7)||4 (5.1)||0 (0.0)|
|D'Amico risk classification||0.102|
|Low||43 (29.6)||16 (20.5)||3 (9.1)|
|Intermediate||100 (70.4)||62 (79.5)||30 (90.9)|
|ADT in 2001||<.0001∗|
|Yes||8 (5.6)||35 (44.9)||6 (18.2)|
|No||135 (94.4)||43 (55.1)||27 (81.8)|
|ADT in 2011||0.114|
|Yes||14 (11.1)||13 (19.7)||7 (22.6)|
|No||129 (90.2)||65 (83.3)||26 (78.8)|
∗ Significant difference (p < 0.01) are shown in bold.
Abbreviations: RP, radical prostatectomy; RT, radiotherapy; RP+RT, radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; TNM, tumour node metastasis; ADT, androgen deprivation therapy.
3.3. Comparison of PROs between PCa survivors and controls (Table 3)
There were no differences between patients and controls in all the domains of QoL (QLQ-C30). Whereas patients reported more constipation than controls but this was not clinically relevant (<5 points). There was no difference concerning fatigue.
Quality of life scores of localised prostate cancer patients and controls.
|Patients (n = 287)||Controls (n = 287)||p-valuea||Mean differencef|
|Meane (SE)||Meane (SE)|
|Physical functioning||84.5 (1.4)||83.7 (1.4)||0.610||0.8|
|Role functioning||85.0 (1.7)||86.3 (1.7)||0.483||−1.4|
|Emotional functioning||82.8 (1.2)||86.9 (1.2)||0.017||−4.1|
|Cognitive functioning||81.9 (1.2)||82.1 (1.2)||0.920||−0.2|
|Social functioning||86.8 (1.4)||90.5 (1.4)||0.057||−3.7|
|Global health status/ QoL||71.8 (1.2)||74.6 (1.2)||0.092||−2.8|
|Fatigue||20.8 (1.4)||19.1 (1.4)||0.360||1.7|
|Nausea and vomiting||1.7 (0.4)||1.7 (0.4)||0.928||0.0|
|Pain||13.5 (1.4)||17.7 (1.4)||0.038||−4.2|
|Dyspnoea||20.7 (2.2)||18.1 (2.1)||0.250||2.6|
|Insomnia||24.3 (1.7)||19.6 (1.7)||0.047||4.8|
|Appetite loss||5.8 (0.9)||4.3 (0.9)||0.280||1.4|
|Constipation||15.1 (1.3)||10.2 (1.3)||0.008a||4.8|
|Diarrhoea||8.6 (1.0)||6.0 (1.0)||0.055||2.6|
|Financial difficulties||6.6 (1.2)||7.5 (1.2)||0.538||−0.9|
|General fatigue||31.5 (1.8)||27.6 (1.7)||0.037||3.9|
|Physical fatigue||31.4 (2.1)||28.1 (2.0)||0.122||3.3|
|Mental fatigue||30.2 (2.6)||26.8 (2.4)||0.073||3.4|
|Reduced activity||40.0 (2.7)||36.3 (2.5)||0.053||3.8|
|Reduced motivation||31.6 (2.6)||30.2 (2.4)||0.468||1.4|
|Urinary||79.8 (1.0)||86.1 (1.0)||<.0001a||−6.3b|
|Urinary function||85.2 (0.9)||94.9 (0.9)||<.0001a||−9.7b|
|Urinary bother||76.3 (1.2)||80.3 (1.2)||0.013||−4.0|
|Irritative/obstructive||83.0 (0.9)||84.4 (0.9)||0.260||−1.4|
|Incontinence||76.1 (1.5)||91.7 (1.5)||<.0001a||−15.7c|
|Bowel||89.9 (1.3)||92.3 (1.3)||0.039||−2.4|
|Bowel function||91.1 (1.0)||93.0 (0.9)||0.026||−1.9|
|Bowel bother||88.4 (2.0)||90.4 (1.9)||0.244||−2.0|
|Sexual||37.9 (2.6)||54.5 (2.6)||<.0001a||−16.6c|
|Sexual function||31.9 (3.6)||55.4 (3.5)||<.0001a||−23.4d|
|Sexual bother||50.1 (6.0)||50.8 (5.8)||0.837||−0.7|
|Hormonal||88.8 (1.2)||92.1 (1.1)||0.010||−3.3|
|Hormonal function||89.7 (1.1)||92.3 (1.0)||0.026||−2.6|
|Hormonal bother||88.5 (1.5)||91.6 (1.4)||0.047||−3.0|
a Significant difference (p < 0.01).
b Small clinically relevant differences.
c Moderate clinically relevant differences.
d Large clinically relevant differences.
e Adjusted scores.
f Computed as adjusted mean (patient) – adjusted means (controls).
Abbreviations: QLQ-C30, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 items; MFI, multiple fatigue inventory; EPIC, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite; QoL, quality of life; SE, standard error.
Scores range from 0–100, for functional scales, higher scores representing higher levels of functioning (five dimensions in the QLQ-C30, EPIC). For symptom scales, higher scores representing higher levels of symptomatology or problems (nine dimensions in the QLQ-C30, MFI).
Concerning disease-specific QoL (EPIC), patients presented more urinary disorders than controls (urinary dysfunction and incontinence). They also had more sexual troubles, especially sexual dysfunction. These disorders had a significant clinical difference (all the differences were >15 points). Despite considerable functional decline, urinary and sexuality bother scores were not different between patients and controls. Patients tended to have more hormonal disorders although the difference was <5 points.
Long-term patients did not express any more anxiety or depression than controls (results not shown); mean score was 5.0 and 4.5 for anxiety and 4.9 and 4.4 for depression in patients and controls respectively (HADS, p > 0.05).
According to treatment groups, in comparison to controls (Fig. 2), patients treated with RP±RT had worse urinary summary scores, especially in urinary function and incontinence scores. Scores of patients treated with RT were not different from those of controls for incontinence but were lower for urinary function (score = 89.9 versus 95.3). Bowel disorders were reported among patients treated with RT and RP+RT. Moreover, patients treated with combined RP+RT reported bowel bother (score = 74.0 versus 91.1 for controls).
EPIC quality of life score of according to treatment. Controls are shown in green. At the top, global p-value for the subscale. A. Urinary domain. B. Bowel domain. C. Sexual domain. D. Hormonal domain. Abbreviations: RP, radical prostatectomy; RT, radiotherapy; RP+RT, radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy. * Androgen deprivation therapy in 2011: RP = 11.1%, RT = 19.7%, RP+RT = 22.6%.
All the patients presented sexual dysfunction whatever the treatment. Bother related to ADT were mainly reported in patients treated with RP+RT, explicated by the fact that 23% of them were receiving ADT at the time of the study.
3.4. Comparison of prostate-specific PROs between the treatments groups
When QoL was compared between the different treatment groups, patients treated with RP±RT had worse urinary dysfunction and incontinence than those treated only by RT. Patients treated with the association of RP+RT had a worse summary bowel score than those treated only with RP (p < 0.0001). The range of sexuality impairment was the same in the three groups.
Concerning symptoms related to ADT, no difference was observed between the three groups with regards to functioning but patients treated with PR+RT reported more bother. However, after adjustment on current ADT, the hormonal dimension was the same whatever the treatment group (results not shown).
Patients treated by ADT (in 2011) had more hormonal disorders than other patients. They also had worse sexual function (Table 4).
Quality of life of prostate cancer survivors according to androgen deprivation therapy at the time of study.
|ADT in 2011 (n = 34)||No ADT (n = 220)||p-valuea||Means differencee|
|Meand (SE)||Meand (SE)|
|Urinary||81.0 (2.9)||79.5 (1.5)||0.643||1.5|
|Urinary function||88.2 (2.9)||82.6 (1.4)||0.083||5.6|
|Urinary bother||76.0 (3.2)||76.8 (1.7)||0.810||−0.8|
|Irritative/obstructive||82.3 (2.4)||83.2 (1.3)||0.737||−0.9|
|Incontinence||80.1 (4.5)||73.9 (2.3)||0.209||6.2|
|Bowel||91.1 (2.3)||85.5 (1.2)||0.030||5.6|
|Bowel function||92.0 (1.8)||88.1 (0.9)||0.049||3.9|
|Bowel bother||90.9 (3.3)||83.5 (1.6)||0.042||7.4|
|Sexual||21.4 (2.8)||26.2 (1.3)||0.110||−4.8|
|Sexual function||4.2 (3.4)||14.5 (1.6)||0.005a||−10.3c|
|Sexual bother||64.9 (7.9)||54.0 (3.7)||0.191||10. 9|
|Hormonal||78.6 (2.7)||88.8 (1.3)||0.001a||−10.2c|
|Hormonal function||81.1 (2.6)||88.1 (1.3)||0.013||−7.0|
|Hormonal bother||78.4 (3.2)||88.1 (1.6)||0.005a||−9.7b|
|Physical functioning||82.2 (74.9)||80.5 (74.8)||0.570||1.7|
|Role functioning||77.9 (4.3)||81.5 (2.6)||0.428||−3.6|
|Emotional function||84.7 (3.6)||81.8 (1.7)||0.460||2.9|
|Cognitive functioning||79.5 (3.5)||84.0 (1.8)||0.222||−4.5|
|Social functioning||84.2 (3.8)||84.6 (1.9)||0.937||−0.4|
|Global health status||87.8 (7.6)||86.3 (6.8)||0.666||1.5|
|Anxiety||5.6 (2.8)||6.2 (3.5)||0.289||NA|
|Depression||5.5 (3.1)||5.2 (3.9)||0.658||NA|
a Significant differences (p<0.01) are shown in bold.
b Small clinically relevant differences.
c Moderate clinically relevant differences.
d Adjusted scores.
e Computed as adjusted mean (ADT in 2011) – adjusted means (No ADT).
Abbreviations: ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; NA, non applicable; QLQ-C30, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 items; SE, standard error; EPIC, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Scores range from 0–100 (except for the HADS), for functional scales, higher scores representing higher levels of functioning (five dimensions in the QLQ-C30, EPIC).
To our knowledge, this is one of the first large population-based studies to analyse all the aspects of long-term QoL and symptoms 10 years after treatments among a group of patients with LPCa in comparison to the general population. Our results obtained from registry data better reflect reality than hospital series. The patients had a global QoL similar to that of aged-matched controls. Nevertheless, they presented severe persistent urinary, bowel and sexual adverse effects, especially those who had received the combined treatment.
With time, most of the generic QoL domains in patients returned to the level of those of the general population, even if they had sequelae. These results confirm those from other long-term studies in which the generic QoL of patients was similar to that of controls or a normative sample , , and . Life events other than cancer and its treatments may have more impact on the feeling of well-being in patients. Bellizzi found that some cancer survivors who reported little positive or negative impact of the disease were also coping simultaneously with the loss of vision associated with ageing, the recent loss of a loved one, and other more traumatic life events  and . Similarly, even though long-term PCa survivors had worse scores for their general health perception in the study conducted by Mols et al., they had better scores for mental health compared with an age-matched normative sample. In that study, most patients experienced not only negative effects but also some positive effects after an encounter with a stressor . Over time they adapted to their situation and managed to lead a satisfying life, thus deriving benefit from adversity .
Although our patients have a good global QoL compared to that of controls, they still have sequelae due to their disease and treatment. Regardless of the treatment received, the patients experienced more urinary and sexual dysfunction than controls, although they reported no more bother than controls. Findings were similar in previous long-term studies including non-cancer controls , , and . In view of the functional results, we would expect that bother is worse for patients. Although they still had functional disorders, it seems they have been adapted without major bother.
Each treatment modality affects disease-specific outcomes differently. In our study, urinary dysfunction and incontinence had a greater effect on those who had undergone prostatectomy compared to controls. Patients receiving irradiation reported more long-term bowel dysfunctions. Sexual dysfunction was more frequent in patients than in controls whatever the treatment modality. These results corroborate those of previous studies , , , and .
Our patients treated with RP+RT experienced long-term toxicities of the two modalities of treatments. In comparison with patients treated only with RT, the group with the combined treatment reported worse urinary and bowel dysfunction. When they received the combination, they reported both function and bother bowel disorders. We confirm some previous results reported by other studies with shorter follow-up. Hu et al. found worse bowel and sexual function in men who received salvage radiotherapy than in those who received only prostatectomy . In the SWOG trial, the PR+RT group reported more frequent urinary and bowel compromise than the RP group throughout the 5 years of follow-up, but there were no difference in erectile dysfunction between the two groups . Other studies found contrary results. In one study measuring QoL after multimodal therapy with a follow-up of 21 months, patients who received RP+RT experienced a decline in urinary function. However, impact of combined treatment on urinary bother, bowel function and sexuality was no greater than in patients treated with RP alone . Nevertheless, follow-up was short in that study. Three years after treatment, Formenti et al. found no significant difference in urinary and sexual function among patients treated with RP and who received postoperative RT or not . However, this lack of difference may be explained by the late onset of toxicities, which ordinarily appear with a delay from the treatment, usually at least after 2–3 years after RT. Nevertheless, in comparison to the other studies, ours presents the advantage to compare patients with a long-term follow-up treated with combined therapy (RP+RT) to a group of controls. However, studies with long-term follow-up showed an early decline with some recovery in the first 2 years after treatment and thereafter a plateau or a slight decrease. Therefore, most differences between treatments seemed to be attenuated over time , , and .
Our study has some limitations. First, it had a case-control design and there was no prospective follow-up to evaluate the course of the disturbances over time and no know how about baseline dysfunction. Second, among the patients, non-participants were older and had more comorbidity than participants. The participation rate for the study was quite low, however it was similar to population-based studies , , , and . We may have observed more severe sequelae than are usually encountered nowadays with modern irradiation techniques such as the conformational approach and progress with surgical techniques, which better protects the critical organs.
In summary, this population-based study provides information on all the aspects of QoL among long-term PCa survivors compared to healthy controls. Global QoL has returned to the level of the general population 10 years after diagnosis. On the other hand, functional sequelae persist such as urinary, bowel and sexual dysfunction, especially in those treated with the combined treatments RP+RT. These findings provide new insights for helping clinicians to choose treatment modalities and to inform patients of the risk of the late side-effects that may occur. This is particularly true when surgery was proposed for patients with some poor prognostic factors which could be expected to have a substantial risk of receiving this combined therapy.
This work was co-supported by grants from the ‘French National Institute of Cancer (INCa)’, the ‘Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer’ and the ‘Fondation ARC’, (PAIR PROSTATE 2011, n°2010-176).
Conflict of interest statement
Role of the funding source
The funding sources had no role in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
The authors thank the physicians, the urologists and the pathologists from the 11 departments in the study. They thank the patients and controls who agreed to participate in the study.
-  F. Binder-Foucard, N. Bossard, P. Delafosse, A. Belot, A.-S. Woronoff, L. Remontet, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in France over the 1980-2012 period: solid tumors. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2014;62:95-108 10.1016/j.respe.2013.11.073 Crossref
-  A. Heidenreich, P.J. Bastian, J. Bellmunt, M. Bolla, S. Joniau, T. van der Kwast, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65:124-137 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046 Crossref
-  K.L. Taylor, G. Luta, A.B. Miller, T.R. Church, S.P. Kelly, L.R. Muenz, et al. Long-term disease-specific functioning among prostate cancer survivors and noncancer controls in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2768-2775 10.1200/JCO.2011.41.2767 Crossref
-  P. Fransson, J.-E. Damber, A. Widmark. Health-related quality of life 10 years after external beam radiotherapy or watchful waiting in patients with localized prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2009;43:119-126 10.1080/00365590802519396 Crossref
-  E. Johansson, G. Steineck, L. Holmberg, J.-E. Johansson, T. Nyberg, M. Ruutu, et al. Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:891-899 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70162-0 Crossref
-  M.J. Resnick, T. Koyama, K.-H. Fan, P.C. Albertsen, M. Goodman, A.S. Hamilton, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:436-445 10.1056/NEJMoa1209978 Crossref
-  F. Mols, L.V. van de Poll-Franse, A.J.J.M. Vingerhoets, A. Hendrikx, N.K. Aaronson, S. Houterman, et al. Long-term quality of life among Dutch prostate cancer survivors: results of a population-based study. Cancer. 2006;107:2186-2196 10.1002/cncr.22231 Crossref
-  K.M. Davis, S.P. Kelly, G. Luta, C. Tomko, A.B. Miller, K.L. Taylor. The association of long-term treatment-related side effects with cancer-specific and general quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology. 2014;84:300-306 10.1016/j.urology.2014.04.036 Crossref
-  S. Punnen, J.E. Cowan, J.M. Chan, P.R. Carroll, M.R. Cooperberg. Long-term health-related quality of life after primary treatment for localized prostate cancer: results from the CaPSURE registry. Eur Urol. 2014; 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.074
-  V. Jooste, P. Grosclaude, L. Remontet, G. Launoy, I. Baldi, F. Molinié, et al. Unbiased estimates of long-term net survival of solid cancers in France. Int J Cancer. 2013;132:2370-2377 10.1002/ijc.27857 Crossref
-  J. Jegu, B. Tretarre, M. Velten, A.-V. Guizard, A. Danzon, A. Buemi, et al. Prostate cancer management and factors associated with radical prostatectomy in France in 2001. Prog Urol. 2010;20:56-64 10.1016/j.purol.2009.09.004 Crossref
-  N.K. Aaronson, S. Ahmedzai, B. Bergman, M. Bullinger, A. Cull, N.J. Duez, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365-376 Crossref
-  J.T. Wei, R.L. Dunn, M.S. Litwin, H.M. Sandler, M.G. Sanda. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56:899-905 Crossref
-  A.S. Zigmond, R.P. Snaith. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361-370 Crossref
-  E.M. Smets, B. Garssen, B. Bonke, J.C. De Haes. The multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J Psychosom Res. 1995;39:315-325 Crossref
-  S. Friedman, J.C. Samuelian, S. Lancrenon, C. Even, P. Chiarelli. Three-dimensional structure of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in a large French primary care population suffering from major depression. Psychiatry Res. 2001;104:247-257 Crossref
-  S. Gentile, J.C. Delarozière, F. Favre, R. Sambuc, J.L. San Marco. Validation of the French “multidimensional fatigue inventory” (MFI 20). Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2003;12:58-64 Crossref
-  E.M. Smets, B. Garssen, A. Cull, J.C. de Haes. Application of the multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-20) in cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 1996;73:241-245
-  G. Le Borgne, M. Mercier, A.-S. Woronoff, A.-V. Guizard, E. Abeilard, A. Caravati-Jouvenceaux, et al. Quality of life in long-term cervical cancer survivors: a population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:222-228 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.12.033 Crossref
-  F. Joly, J.F. Héron, L. Kalusinski, P. Bottet, D. Brune, N. Allouache, et al. Quality of life in long-term survivors of testicular cancer: a population-based case-control study. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:73-80 Crossref
-  Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual (3rd ed.). n.d.
-  Scoring Instructions for the EPIC-Scoring n.d. http://www.med.umich.edu/urology/research/EPIC/EPIC-Scoring-2.2002.pdf [accessed 23.12.14].
-  D. Osoba, G. Rodrigues, J. Myles, B. Zee, J. Pater. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:139-144
-  T.A. Skolarus, R.L. Dunn, M.G. Sanda, P. Chang, T.K. Greenfield, M.S. Litwin, et al. Minimally important difference for the expanded prostate cancer index composite short form. Urology. 2015;85:101-105 10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.044
-  K. Cocks, M.T. King, G. Velikova, M. Martyn St-James, P.M. Fayers, J.M. Brown. Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:89-96 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0107 Crossref
-  R.M. Hoffman, F.D. Gilliland, D.F. Penson, S.N. Stone, W.C. Hunt, A.L. Potosky. Cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons of health-related quality of life between patients with prostate carcinoma and matched controls. Cancer. 2004;101:2011-2019 10.1002/cncr.20608 Crossref
-  D.C. Miller, M.G. Sanda, R.L. Dunn, J.E. Montie, H. Pimentel, H.M. Sandler, et al. Long-term outcomes among localized prostate cancer survivors: health-related quality-of-life changes after radical prostatectomy, external radiation, and brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2772-2780 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.116
-  K.M. Bellizzi. Expressions of generativity and posttraumatic growth in adult cancer survivors. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2004;58:267-287 Crossref
-  B.J. Zebrack, J. Yi, L. Petersen, P.A. Ganz. The impact of cancer and quality of life for long-term survivors. Psychooncology. 2008;17:891-900 10.1002/pon.1300 Crossref
-  T.O. Blank, K.M. Bellizzi. After prostate cancer: predictors of well-being among long-term prostate cancer survivors. Cancer. 2006;106:2128-2135 10.1002/cncr.21865 Crossref
-  F. Mols, I.J. Korfage, A.J.J.M. Vingerhoets, P.J.M. Kil, J.W.W. Coebergh, M.-L. Essink-Bot, et al. Bowel, urinary, and sexual problems among long-term prostate cancer survivors: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73:30-38 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.004 Crossref
-  J.C. Hu, E.P. Elkin, T.L. Krupski, J. Gore, M.S. Litwin. The effect of postprostatectomy external beam radiotherapy on quality of life: results from the Cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. Cancer. 2006;107:281-288 10.1002/cncr.21980 Crossref
-  C.M. Moinpour, K.A. Hayden, J.M. Unger, I.M. Thompson, M.W. Redman, E.D. Canby-Hagino, et al. Health-related quality of life results in pathologic stage C prostate cancer from a Southwest Oncology Group trial comparing radical prostatectomy alone with radical prostatectomy plus radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:112-120 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.4505 Crossref
-  A.K. Wu, M.R. Cooperberg, N. Sadetsky, P.R. Carroll. Health related quality of life in patients treated with multimodal therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2008;180:2415-2422 10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.015 discussion 2422 Crossref
-  S.C. Formenti, G. Lieskovsky, D. Skinner, D.D. Tsao-Wei, S. Groshen, Z. Petrovich. Update on impact of moderate dose of adjuvant radiation on urinary continence and sexual potency in prostate cancer patients treated with nerve-sparing prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56:453-458 Crossref
-  M. Alemozaffar, M.G. Sanda. Quality of life after primary treatment for localized prostate cancer: long-term considerations. Eur Urol. 2014; 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.003
-  D. Klein, M. Mercier, E. Abeilard, M. Puyraveau, A. Danzon, V. Dalstein, et al. Long-term quality of life after breast cancer: a French registry-based controlled study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129:125-134 10.1007/s10549-011-1408-3 Crossref
-  A. Caravati-Jouvenceaux, G. Launoy, D. Klein, M. Henry-Amar, E. Abeilard, A. Danzon, et al. Health-related quality of life among long-term survivors of colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Oncologist. 2011;16:1626-1636 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0036 Crossref
-  M.A. Hager, S. Wilson, T.H. Pollak, P.M. Rooney. Response rates for mail surveys of nonprofit organizations: a review and empirical test. Nonprof Volunt Sec Q. 2003;32:252-267 10.1177/0899764003032002005 Crossref
a Calvados General Tumor Registry, François Baclesse Cancer Center, Caen, France
b UMR 1086 « Cancers et Préventions », Inserm – University of Basse-Normandie, Caen, France
c Tarn Cancer Registry, Albi, France
d Claudius Regaud Institute, IUCT-O, Tarn Cancer Registry, Toulouse, France
e Quality of Life in Oncology National Platform, France
f EA 3181, SFR-FED 4234, University of Franche Comté, France
g Department of Medical Oncology, François Baclesse Cancer Center, Caen, France
h CHU Côte de Nacre, University of Basse-Normandie, Caen, France
∗ Corresponding author: Calvados General Tumor Registry, François Baclesse Cancer Center, 3 Avenue du Général Harris, BP 5026, 14076 Caen, France. Tel.: +33 2 31 45 52 45; fax: +33 2 31 45 86 32.
1 French Network of Cancer Registries (FRANCIM): Anne-Sophie Woronoff (Doubs CR); Brigitte Trétarre (Hérault CR); Patricia Delafosse (Isère CR); Florence Molinié (Loire-Atlantique CR); Simona Bara (Manche CR); Michel Velten (Bas-Rhin CR); Emilie Marrer (Haut Rhin CR); Bénédicte Lapôtre-Ledoux (Somme CR); Anne Cowppli-Bony (Vendée CR). Note: CR = Cancer Registry.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd, All rights reserved.