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

Antonelli A.;Catalano G.;De Angelis M.;Di Muzio N.;Tucci M.;
2019-01-01

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 Angeles-prostate 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.
2019
Patient-reported outcome measures
Prostate cancer
Quality of life
Radical prostatectomy
Sexual function
Urinary function
Aged
Data Collection
Humans
Italy
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Prospective Studies
Prostate
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Quality of Life
Retrospective Studies
Robotic Surgical Procedures
Surveys and Questionnaires
Treatment Outcome
Propensity Score
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

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: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/110010
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 20
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 21
social impact