Search

Purpose: Modifications to surgical technique, particularly the widespread adoption of robotic surgery, have been proposed to improve functional recovery after prostate cancer surgery. However, rigorous comparison of men in historical vs contemporary practice to evaluate the cumulative effect of these changes on urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy is lacking., Materials and Methods: We compared prospectively collected patient-reported urinary and sexual function from historical (PROSTQA [Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction With Treatment Quality Assessment study], n=235) and contemporary (MUSIC-PRO [Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Patient Reported Outcome] registry, n=1,215) cohorts at the University of Michigan to understand whether modern techniques have resulted in functional improvements for men undergoing prostate cancer surgery., Results: We found significant differences in baseline function, with better urinary (median [IQR]; 100 [93.8-100] vs 93.8 [85.5-100], P < .001) and sexual scores (median [IQR]; 83.3 [66.7-100] vs 74.4 [44.2-87.5], P < .001) prior to treatment in PROSTQA compared to MUSIC-PRO patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the pattern of urinary incontinence recovery after surgery from 6-24 months between groups ( P = .14). However, men in the contemporary MUSIC-PRO group did have significantly better recovery of sexual function compared to men in the historical PROSTQA group ( P < .0001). Further, we found that contemporary practice consists of men with more unfavorable demographic and clinical characteristics compared to historical practice., Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that the widespread alterations in prostate cancer surgery over the past 2 decades have yielded improvements in sexual, but not urinary, function recovery.

Purpose: We aimed to compare patient-reported mental health outcomes for men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer longitudinally over 5 years. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective population-based analysis using the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study. Patient-reported depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression [CES-D]) and domains of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form survey evaluating emotional well-being and energy/fatigue were assessed through 5 years after treatment with surgery, radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) and active surveillance. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, and treatment approach. Results: A total of 2,742 men (median [quartiles] age 64 [59e70]) met inclusion criteria. Baseline depressive symptoms, as measured by the CES-D, were low (median 4, quartiles 1e8) without differences between groups. We found no effect of treatment modality on depressive symptoms (p[0.78), though older age, poorer health, being unmarried and baseline CES-D score were associated with declines in mental health. There was no clinically meaningful association between treatment modality and scores for either emotional well-being (p[0.81) or energy/fatigue (p[0.054). Conclusions: This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer showed no clinically important differences in mental health outcomes including depressive symptoms, emotional wellbeing, and energy/fatigue according to the treatment received (surgery, radiotherapy, or surveillance). However, we identified a number of characteristics associated with worse mental health outcomes including: older age, poorer health, being unmarried, and baseline CES-D score which may allow for early identification of patients most at risk of these outcomes following treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Despite significant sexual dysfunction and distress after localized prostate cancer treatment, patients typically receive only physiologic erectile dysfunction management. The authors performed a randomized controlled trial of an online intervention supporting couples' posttreatment recovery of sexual intimacy. METHODS: Patients treated with surgery, radiation, or combined radiation and androgen deprivation therapy who had partners were recruited and randomized to an online intervention or a control group. The intervention, tailored to treatment type and sexual orientation, comprised 6 modules addressing expectations for sexual and emotional sequelae of treatment, rehabilitation, and guidance toward sexual intimacy recovery. Couples, recruited from 6 sites nationally, completed validated measures at the baseline and 3 and 6 months after treatment. Primary outcome group differences were assessed with t tests for individual outcomes. RESULTS: Among 142 randomized couples, 105 patients (mostly surgery) and 87 partners completed the 6‐month survey; this reflected challenges with recruitment and attrition. There were no differences between the intervention and control arms in Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Satisfaction With Sex Life scores 6 months after treatment (the primary outcome). Three months after treatment, intervention patients and partners reported more engagement in penetrative and nonpenetrative sexual activities than controls. More than 73% of the intervention participants reported high or moderate satisfaction with module content; more than 85% would recommend the intervention to other couples. CONCLUSIONS: Online psychosexual support for couples can help couples to connect and experience sexual pleasure early after treatment despite patients' sexual dysfunction. Participants' high endorsement of the intervention reflects the importance of sexual health support to couples after prostate cancer treatment. LAY SUMMARY: This study tested a web‐based program supporting couples' sexual recovery of sexual intimacy after prostate cancer treatment.One hundred forty‐two couples were recruited and randomly assigned to the program (n = 60) or to a control group (n = 82).The program did not result in improvements in participants' satisfaction with their sex life 6 months after treatment, but couples in the intervention group engaged in sexual activity sooner after treatment than couples in the control group.Couples evaluated the program positively and would recommend it to others facing prostate cancer treatment. Couples coping with prostate cancer participated in a randomized controlled trial of a sexual recovery support program. Although participants assigned to the intervention were not more satisfied with their sex life 6 months after treatment, they re‐engaged in sexual activity earlier than a control group and found the program beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Little empirical research identifies environmental influences on sexual recovery of men with prostate cancer. This secondary qualitative analysis aimed to describe the role of the patients' environment on their sexual recovery process following prostate cancer surgery. PARTICIPANTS & SETTING: Transcripts of interviews with 8 heterosexual men were randomly selected and analyzed from a sample of 18 at three months postprostatectomy. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: The study was based on the social ecological model. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was applied to examine environmental factors affecting sexual recovery through the participant's perspective. FINDINGS: The value of trusted connections and support extended beyond the partner to the patient's social and healthcare networks. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: These findings support the need for providers to assess the full constellation of patients' environmental experiences to better understand sexual recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose We sought to develop a core set of clinical indicators to enable international benchmarking of localized prostate cancer management using data available in the TrueNTH Global Registry. Materials and Methods An international expert panel completed an online survey and participated in a face-to-face meeting. Participants included 3 urologists, 3 radiation oncologists, 2 psychologists, 1 medical oncologist, 1 nurse and 1 epidemiologist with prostate cancer expertise from a total of 7 countries. Current guidelines on prostate cancer treatment and potential quality indicators were identified from a literature review. These potential indicators were refined and developed through a modified Delphi process during which each panelist independently and repeatedly rated each indicator based on importance (satisfying the indicator demonstrated a provision of high quality care) and feasibility (the likelihood that data used to construct the indicator could be collected at a population level). The main outcome measure was items with panel agreement indicated by a disagreement index less 1, median importance 8.5 or greater and median feasibility 9 or greater. Results The expert panel endorsed 33 indicators. Seven of these 33 prostate cancer quality indicators assessed care relating to diagnosis, 7 assessed primary treatment, 1 assessed salvage treatment and 18 assessed health outcomes. Conclusions We developed a set of quality indicators to measure prostate cancer care using numerous international evidence-based clinical guidelines. These indicators will be pilot tested in the TrueNTH Global Registry. Reports comparing indicator performance will subsequently be distributed to groups at participating sites with the purpose of improving the consistency and quality of prostate cancer management on a global basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate cancer affects couples' sexual intimacy, but men rarely use recommended proerectile aids. This mixed-methods study aimed to identify couples' preprostatectomy barriers to sexual recovery. Interviews about anticipated sexual recovery were paired with surveys: the Dyadic Assessment Scale, the Protective Buffering Scale, the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, the Sexual Experience Questionnaire (men), and the Female Sexual Function Index. Potential barriers were derived using Grounded Theory. Quantitative data triangulated qualitative findings. Heterosexual couples (N = 28) participated. Men's average age was 62 years and their partners' average age was 58 years. Preexisting and diagnosis-related barriers included aging-related sexual dysfunction, inadequate sexual problem-solving skills, stressors, worry, avoidance of planning for sexual recovery, and dislike of artificially assisted sex. Participants endorsed moderate/high marital satisfaction (DAS: for men, M = 110.0, SD = 11.4; for partners, M = 114.1, SD = 12.1) and communication (PBS: for men, M = 24.5.2, SD = 6.1; for partners, M = 25.1, SD ± 6.2). Men reported mild erectile dysfunction and incontinence (EPIC sexual function M = 76.6, SD = 21.5, urinary incontinence M = 88.4, SD = 18.2). Men's couple sexual satisfaction was lowest (Sexual Experience Questionnaire: M = 60.1, SD = 26.9). Mean total Female Sexual Function Index was low (M = 21.6, SD = 7.8). Heterosexual couples face prostatectomy-related sexual side-effects having experienced developmental sexual losses. Couples use avoidant strategies to defend against worry about cancer and anticipated prostatectomy-related sexual changes. These potential barriers are modifiable if couples can learn to cope with sexual losses and accept sexual rehabilitation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Interventions designed to help couples recover sexual intimacy after prostatectomy have not been guided by a comprehensive conceptual model. Aim We examined a proposed biopsychosocial conceptual model of couples' sexual recovery that included functional, psychological, and relational aspects of sexuality, surgery-related sexual losses, and grief and mourning as recovery process. Methods We interviewed 20 couples preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. between 2010 and 2012. Interviews were analyzed with Analytic Induction qualitative methodology, using NVivo software. Paired t-tests described functional assessment data. Study findings led to a revised conceptual model. Main Outcome Measures Couples' experiences were assessed through semi-structured interviews; male participants' sexual function was assessed with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite and female participants' sexual function with the Female Sexual Function Index. Results Preoperatively, 30% of men had erectile dysfunction ( ED) and 84% of partners were postmenopausal. All valued sexual recovery, but worried about cancer spread and surgery side effects. Faith in themselves and their surgeons led 90% of couples to overestimate erectile recovery. Postoperatively, most men had ED and lost confidence. Couples' sexual activity decreased. Couples reported feeling loss and grief: cancer diagnosis was the first loss, followed by surgery-related sexual losses. Couples' engagement in intentional sex, patients' acceptance of erectile aids, and partners' interest in sex aided the recovery of couples' sexual intimacy recovery. Unselfconscious sex, not returning to erectile function baseline, was seen as the end point. Survey findings documented participants' sexual function losses, confirming qualitative findings. Conclusions Couples' sexual recovery requires addressing sexual function, feelings about losses, and relationship simultaneously. Perioperative education should emphasize the roles of nerve damage in ED and grief and mourning in sexual recovery. Wittmann D, Carolan M, Given B, Skolarus TA, Crossley H, An L, Palapattu G, Clark P, and Montie JE. What couples say about their recovery of sexual intimacy after prostatectomy: Toward the development of a conceptual model of couples' sexual recovery after surgery for prostate cancer. J Sex Med 2015;12:494-504. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers evaluated the acceptance and effectiveness of a group intervention that provided education about post-prostatectomy sexual recovery and peer support for couples. Couples valued the intervention and retained the information. Partners became accepting of erectile dysfunction and communicated more openly about upsetting topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We studied patient expectations of post-prostatectomy recovery from urinary incontinence, and urinary irritable, hormonal, bowel and sexual function symptoms after preoperative counseling. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, recruited between June 2007 and November 2008, were extensively counseled preoperatively regarding expected outcomes. They were assessed at baseline and 1 year after surgery using the short form of the Expanded Prostate Index Composite. Their baseline expectations of functional outcomes 1 year after surgery were assessed using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite-Expectations. Pearson''s correlation coefficient and a multiple linear regression were used to assess the associations between Expanded Prostate Index Composite-Expectations and Expanded Prostate Index Composite-Short Form at baseline and 1 year. Results: A total of 152 consenting patients completed all questionnaires. Baseline sexual function score predicted significantly expectations of sexual function (p <0.0001) and urinary incontinence (p <0.0001) scores. Expanded Prostate Index Composite-Expectations predicted Expanded Prostate Index Composite-sexual function at 1 year (p <0.0001). Of the patients 36% and 40% expected the same as baseline function at 1 year in urinary incontinence and sexual function, respectively, and 17%, 45%, 39%, 15% and 32% expected worse than baseline function at 1 year in urinary incontinence, urinary irritable symptoms, bowel function, hormonal function and sexual function, respectively. One year after prostatectomy fewer than 22% of patients attained lower than expected urinary irritable symptoms, and bowel and hormonal function. However, 47% and 44% of patients attained lower than expected function for urinary incontinence and sexual function, respectively. Surprisingly 12% and 17% of patients expected better than baseline urinary incontinence and sexual function at 1 year after surgery. Conclusions: Men have unrealistic expectations of urinary and sexual function after prostatectomy despite preoperative counseling. We hypothesize potentially responsible psychological mechanisms. These data provide a baseline for further preoperative educational interventions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To evaluate whether completing a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile - Prostate (P3P), prior to prostatectomy, affects self-reported bother from post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.Materials and Methods: This retrospective analysis included data from men with newly diagnosed clinically localized, very low to intermediate risk prostate cancer who elected for prostatectomy within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative between 2018-2021. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between P3P use and bother from post prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26).Results: Among the 3987 patients included, 7% used P3P (n = 266). Men who used P3P reported significantly less bother from erectile dysfunction at 6 months vs non-users (aOR 0.42 [95% CI 0.27-0.66]). At 12 months, the effect of P3P on bother from erectile dysfunction was not statistically significant (aOR 0.62 [95% CI 0.37-1.03]). Men who used P3P did not have a statistically significant difference in bother from urinary incontinence (3-month: aOR 0.56 [95% CI 0.30-1.06]; 6-month; aOR 0.79 [95% CI 0.31-1.97]).Conclusion: Within the stated limitations of this study, we find that use of a decision aid for localized prostate cancer was associated with decreased odds of men being bothered from sexual dysfunction but not urinary incontinence at 6 months post prostatectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the acceptance and knowledge attained in a preoperative psychoeducational group seminar for patients and partners. Education before radical prostatectomy (RP) helps patients set appropriate expectations for functional recovery. We hypothesized that the seminar would be acceptable and would facilitate learning.Materials and Methods: Men scheduled for RP from March 1, 2012, to July 31, 2013, were eligible, and partners were invited. The 2.5-hour interactive seminar included multidisciplinary presentations about surgery-related urinary and sexual outcomes, rehabilitation, and couples' work toward recovering sexual intimacy. A satisfaction and knowledge survey was administered immediately afterward. We analyzed demographic and satisfaction data with descriptive statistics and evaluated congruence of patients' and partners' knowledge responses using nonparametric statistics.Results: Of 618 patients scheduled, 426 patients and 342 partners attended; 323 couples provided complete data. Over 90% of participants found the seminar informative and 74% found a group setting comfortable; 84% found travel to the seminar burdensome. Most patients and partners (84% and 90%, respectively) expected some urinary incontinence and understood rehabilitation strategies to regain bladder control; 84% of patients and 78% of partners expected postsurgery sexual activity to be different and 73% of patients and 65% of partners expected surgery to make erections worse. Couples were incongruent regarding frequency of incontinence, likelihood of erectile dysfunction, and sex being different after surgery: patients were more realistic.Conclusion: A preoperative psychoeducational group seminar on the recovery from RP side effects promotes realistic expectations and is acceptable to patients and partners. Incongruent couples may need further instruction after surgery. Web-based methodology could improve access and should be studied in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]