quality of life outcomes of prostate cancer patients after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy in a cohort study

Background This study describes and compares health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of prostate cancer patients who received either radical prostatectomy (nerve-sparing, nsRP, or non-nerve-sparing, nnsRP) or radiotherapy (external RT, brachytherapy, or both combined) for treatment of localised prostate cancer. Methods The prospective, multicenter cohort study included 529 patients. Questionnaires included the IIEF, QLQ-C30, and PORPUS-P. Data were collected before (baseline), three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months after treatment. Differences between groups’ baseline characteristics were assessed; changes over time were analysed with generalised estimating equations (GEE). Missing values were treated with multiple imputation. Further, scores at baseline and end of follow-up were compared to German reference data. Results The typical time trend was a decrease of average HRQOL three months after treatment followed by (partial) recovery. RP patients experienced considerable impairment in sexual functioning. The covariate-adjusted GEE identified a significant - but not clinically relevant - treatment effect for diarrhoea (b = 7.0 for RT, p = 0.006) and PORPUS-P (b = 2.3 for nsRP, b = 2.2 for RT, p = 0.045) compared to the reference nnsRP. Most of the HRQOL scores were comparable to German norm values. Conclusions Findings from previous research were reproduced in a specific setting of a patient cohort in the German health care system. According to the principle of evidence-based medicine, this strengthens the messages regarding treatment in prostate cancer and its impacts on patients’ health-related quality of life. After adjustment for baseline HRQOL and other covariates, RT patients reported increased symptoms of diarrhoea, and nnsRP patients decreased prostate-specific HRQOL. RP patients experienced considerable impairment in sexual functioning. These differences should be taken into account by physicians when choosing the best therapy for a patient

Measuring prostate-specific quality of life in prostate cancer patients scheduled for radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy and reference men in Germany and Canada using the Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scale-Psychometric (PORPUS-P)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The PORPUS-P is a short questionnaire for measuring prostate-specific quality of life (QoL), which was designed in Canada for use in prostate cancer (PC) patients. We aimed to generate a German version and compare PORPUS-P scores of German reference men from the general population, and German and Canadian patients with newly diagnosed PC who were scheduled to receive radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study sample consisted of 988 reference men, 121 German and 66 Canadian PC patients scheduled for RT, and 371 German and 68 Canadian PC patients scheduled for RP. All men completed the PORPUS-P (German postal questionnaire, Canada personal interview). Data were gathered from PC patients before the start of therapy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Canadian patients were better educated than the German patients, and fewer were retired. Patients scheduled to receive RT were older and more were retired. German RT patients had lower D'Amico risk scores and pre-treatment Gleason scores than RP patients, and Canadian RT patients had higher pre-treatment PSA than RP patients. Urinary and sexual dysfunction were seen in PC patients (especially RT patients), but were also common in the German reference men. Crude mean PORPUS-P scores differed statistically significant between German RT and RP and Canadian RP and RT patients, with RT patients having higher QoL scores. The differences in age-adjusted mean PORPUS-P scores between reference men and RP patients were not clinically significant, while RT patients had (clinically) significantly lower scores than the reference men.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The German translation of the PORPUS-P appears to be a short and feasible tool for assessing prostate-specific QoL. Although we found a similar response pattern, Canadian and German PC patients scheduled to receive RT or RP rated their pre-treatment quality of life on different levels, which reveals the need for national reference data. Problems in several QoL domains exist before treatment, and differ between PC patients scheduled for RT and RP.</p

Different Aspects of Self-Reported Quality of Life in 450 German Melanoma Survivors

Abstract: The present study was aimed at assessing quality of life (QoL) in a total of 450 melanoma patients who filled out the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Q1; 15 months post diagnosis) as part of the OVIS Study. Follow-up questionnaires (Q2) were administered two years after Q1. The analyses presented herein were based on the following assumptions: QoL of melanoma patients is worse than that of a German reference population. Further, both tumor location and tumor stage have an influence on self-reported QoL, with patients with tumors located on face, head, neck, and advanced tumor stage (T3/T4) reporting the worst QoL levels. Finally, patients&apos; QoL improves over time based on the theory of disease adaptation. In contrast to the above assumptions, with the exception of global health/QoL scores, differences between OVIS and the reference population were below the minimal clinical important difference of ten points. Furthermore, no clinically meaningful differences were found between patients after stratifying our data by tumor location and tumor stage. Finally, no clinically relevant changes were seen between Q1 and Q2 across all scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30. However, when data were stratified by patients with stable disease versus those with OPEN ACCESS Cancers 2011, 3 2317 progression, clinically relevant differences were found between Q1 and Q2 predominantly in women in the latter group regarding emotional function, insomnia, dyspnoea, and fatigue. The lack of clinically meaningful differences across strata (tumor location; tumor stage), time, and patients compared to a reference population is surprising. However, it is possible that the instrument used, a generic QoL instrument, is generally not sensitive enough to detect differences in melanoma patients. Our findings may further be explained by the fact that all patients included in our sample had been diagnosed well before Q1, i.e., main illness adaptation processes may have occurred before study entry

Different aspects of self-reported quality of life in 450 German melanoma survivors

The present study was aimed at assessing quality of life (QoL) in a total of 450 melanoma patients who filled out the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Q1; 15 months post diagnosis) as part of the OVIS Study. Follow-up questionnaires (Q2) were administered two years after Q1. The analyses presented herein were based on the following assumptions: QoL of melanoma patients is worse than that of a German reference population. Further, both tumor location and tumor stage have an influence on self-reported QoL, with patients with tumors located on face, head, neck, and advanced tumor stage (T3/T4) reporting the worst QoL levels. Finally, patients\u27 QoL improves over time based on the theory of disease adaptation. In contrast to the above assumptions, with the exception of global health/QoL scores, differences between OVIS and the reference population were below the minimal clinical important difference of ten points. Furthermore, no clinically meaningful differences were found between patients after stratifying our data by tumor location and tumor stage. Finally, no clinically relevant changes were seen between Q1 and Q2 across all scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30. However, when data were stratified by patients with stable disease versus those with progression, clinically relevant differences were found between Q1 and Q2 predominantly in women in the latter group regarding emotional function, insomnia, dyspnoea, and fatigue. The lack of clinically meaningful differences across strata (tumor location; tumor stage), time, and patients compared to a reference population is surprising. However, it is possible that the instrument used, a generic QoL instrument, is generally not sensitive enough to detect differences in melanoma patients. Our findings may further be explained by the fact that all patients included in our sample had been diagnosed well before Q1, i.e., main illness adaptation processes may have occurred before study entry

The ProCaSP study: quality of life outcomes of prostate cancer patients after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy in a cohort study urological oncology

Background: This study describes and compares health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of prostate cancer patients who received either radical prostatectomy (nerve-sparing, nsRP, or non-nerve-sparing, nnsRP) or radiotherapy (external RT, brachytherapy, or both combined) for treatment of localised prostate cancer. Methods: The prospective, multicenter cohort study included 529 patients. Questionnaires included the IIEF, QLQ-C30, and PORPUS-P. Data were collected before (baseline), three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months after treatment. Differences between groups\u27 baseline characteristics were assessed; changes over time were analysed with generalised estimating equations (GEE). Missing values were treated with multiple imputation. Further, scores at baseline and end of follow-up were compared to German reference data. Results: The typical time trend was a decrease of average HRQOL three months after treatment followed by (partial) recovery. RP patients experienced considerable impairment in sexual functioning. The covariate-adjusted GEE identified a significant - but not clinically relevant - treatment effect for diarrhoea (b&isin;=&isin;7.0 for RT, p&isin;=&isin;0.006) and PORPUS-P (b&isin;=&isin;2.3 for nsRP, b&isin;=&isin;2.2 for RT, p&isin;=&isin;0.045) compared to the reference nnsRP. Most of the HRQOL scores were comparable to German norm values. Conclusions: Findings from previous research were reproduced in a specific setting of a patient cohort in the German health care system. According to the principle of evidence-based medicine, this strengthens the messages regarding treatment in prostate cancer and its impacts on patients\u27 health-related quality of life. After adjustment for baseline HRQOL and other covariates, RT patients reported increased symptoms of diarrhoea, and nnsRP patients decreased prostate-specific HRQOL. RP patients experienced considerable impairment in sexual functioning. These differences should be taken into account by physicians when choosing the best therapy for a patient

Survival of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Germany and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Adulthood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is a rare disease. In contrast to childhood ALL, survival for adults with ALL is poor. Recently, new protocols, including use of pediatric protocols in young adults, have improved survival in clinical trials. Here, we examine population level survival in Germany and the United States (US) to gain insight into the extent to which changes in clinical trials have translated into better survival on the population level. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database in the US and 11 cancer registries in Germany. Patients age 15-69 diagnosed with ALL were included. Period analysis was used to estimate 5-year relative survival (RS). RESULTS: Overall 5-year RS was estimated at 43.4% for Germany and 35.5% for the US (p = 0.004), with a decrease in survival with increasing age. Survival was higher in Germany than the US for men (43.6% versus 37.7%, p = 0.002) but not for women (42.4% versus 40.3%, p\u3e0.1). Five-year RS estimates increased in Germany and the US between 2002 and 2006 by 11.8 and 7.3 percent units, respectively (p = 0.02 and 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Survival for adults with ALL continues to be low compared with that for children, but a substantial increase in 5-year survival estimates was seen from 2002 to 2006 in both Germany and the US. The reasons for the survival differences between both countries require clarification

Defining the roadmap towards revision of ENCR coding standards and training for cancer registries

The European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) jointly support harmonising the activities of the European population-based cancer registries (CR) in providing reliable and valid data on cancer. The process to supply valid, complete and comparable data in different European Countries, implies that CR implement common rules to define and code cancer and receive similar training. For this reason, one of the main activities of the ENCR-JRC is to provide CR staff with specific recommendations on coding along with training. For ENCR-JRC the objective of this workshop was to collate previous and current requests from CR and provide advice on the most pressing issues relating to recommendations and training. The workshop was planned during the ENCR Steering Committee (SC) meeting, which took place on November 2014, and JRC (the Secretariat of ENCR) was requested to organise it. A group of experts on cancer registration was identified. This group included the ENCR-SC members, representatives from Institutions and cancer research projects which collaborate with CR (i.e. IARC, Eurocare, Concord, Rarecare), representatives from national networks of CR, members of the Cancer Information group at the JRC, and other specialists in the field. Prior to the workshop, an anonymous questionnaire was sent to the group of experts. Moreover, all directors and staff of CR were invited to complete the questionnaire and provide comments in order for ENCR- JRC to get a more comprehensive overview of the situation. The questionnaire invited respondents to specify the five most urgent topics, to be addressed, on both recommendations and training. During the workshop, participants (around 30 people) were split into two groups: one to focus on recommendations and the other to focus on training. For each group a moderator facilitated the debate presented the responses to the questionnaire, which were discussed in detail using the Metaplan method. The results of the discussion were summarized in a final plenary section, where further clarifications were given and all the participants were involved in the discussion. In summary, the topics to be addressed by the ENCR-SC, in relation to recommendations, either as updates of current recommendations or for new specific ones, were: Multiple primary rules; Staging; Registration/reportability criteria; Death Certificate Only cases (DCO) – Death Certificate Notified cases (DCN); Date of incidence in relation to diagnosis; 'Complicated' cancers (e.g. bladder, etc.); Haematological cancers; and coding of borderline malignancies. The group on training suggested that all the issues that were raised (Cancer Registration; Haematological malignancies; Analysis; Stage; Quality; Multiple primaries; many on Specific cancer types; and Grading) should be addressed making available on the web high quality, reliable and training-oriented documentations. JRC offered to translate these documents, if necessary, into other European languages. For training on specific technical methodology (analysis, data quality) it was suggested that traditional face-to-face courses be provided. The workshop highlighted that recommendations and training are interlinked and this implies that, in the future, any new recommendation should be issued together with training documentation to explain its practical application. The technical proposals made at the workshop will help the ENCR-SC to prioritize the future supporting activities to the real needs of CR.JRC.I.2-Public Health Policy Suppor

The population-based oncological health care study OVIS – recruitment of the patients and analysis of the non-participants

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The ageing of the population is expected to bring an enormous growth in demand for oncological health care. In order to anticipate and respond to future trends, cancer care needs to be critically evaluated. The present study explores the possibility of conducting representative and population-based research on cancer care on the basis of data drawn from the Cancer Registry.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A population-based state-wide cohort study (OVIS) has been carried out in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. All patients with malignant melanoma, breast, or prostate cancer were identified in the Cancer Registry. Epidemiological data were obtained for all the patients and screened for study eligibility. A postal questionnaire requesting information on diagnosis, therapy, QoL and aftercare was sent to eligible patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 11,489 persons diagnosed with the cancer types of interest in the period from January 2002 to July 2004 were registered in the Cancer Registry. Of the 5,354 (47%) patients who gave consent for research, 4,285 (80% of consenters) completed the questionnaire. In terms of relevant epidemiological variables, participants with melanoma were not found to be different from non-participants with the same diagnosis. However, participants with breast or prostate cancer were slightly younger and had smaller tumours than patients who did not participate in our study.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Population-based cancer registry data proved to be an invaluable resource for both patient recruitment and non-participant analysis. It can help improve our understanding of the strength and nature of differences between participants and non-respondents. Despite minor differences observed in breast and prostate cancer, the OVIS-sample seems to represent the source population adequately.</p

Validation of the German version of the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) to assess the impact of disease on the partner or family member

Background The Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) assesses the impact of a patient’s chronic illness on the quality of life (QoL) of the patient’s partner or family members. The aim of the study was to translate, explore the structure of and validate the FROM-16. Methods The questionnaire was translated from English into German (forward, backward, four independent translators). Six interviews with family members were conducted to confirm the questionnaire for linguistic, conceptual, semantic and experiential equivalence and its practicability. The final German translation was tested for internal consistency, reproducibility and test validity. Criterion validity was tested by correlating the scores of the FROM-16 and the Global Health Scale (GHS). Principal component analysis, factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the questionnaire’s structure and its domains. Reliability and reproducibility were tested computing the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using one sample t-test for testing the hypothesis that the difference between the scores was not different from zero. Results Overall, 83 family members (61% female, median age: 61 years) completed the questionnaire at two different times (mean interval: 22 days). Internal consistency was good for the FROM-16 scores (Cronbach’s α for total score = 0.86). In those with stable GHS, the ICC for the total score was 0.87 and the difference was not different from zero (p = 0.262) indicating reproducible results. A bi-factor model with a general factor including all items, and two sub-factors comprising the items from the original 2-factor construct had the best fit. Conclusions The German FROM-16 has good reliability, test validity and practicability. It can be considered as an appropriate and generic tool to measure QoL of a patient’s partner or family member. Due to the presence of several cross-loadings we do not recommend the reporting of the scores of the two domains proposed for the original version of FROM-16 when using the German version. Thus, in reporting the results emphasis should be put on the total score