Search

BackgroundFinancial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling.MethodsUtilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations.ResultsOf the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from "finances in general" was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7).ConclusionsIn this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.

PurposeWe aimed to compare patient-reported mental health outcomes for men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer longitudinally over 5 years.Materials and methodsWe 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.ResultsA total of 2,742 men (median [quartiles] age 64 [59-70]) met inclusion criteria. Baseline depressive symptoms, as measured by the CES-D, were low (median 4, quartiles 1-8) 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).ConclusionsThis prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer showed no clinically important differences in mental health outcomes including depressive symptoms, emotional well-being, 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.

BackgroundThe role of pelvic irradiation in men receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer is unclear, in part due to a lack of data on patient-reported outcomes. We sought to compare functional outcomes for men receiving prostate and pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy, longitudinally over 5 years.Materials and methodsWe performed a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with clinically-localized prostate cancer undergoing EBRT. We examined the effect of prostate and pelvic (n = 102) versus prostate-only (n = 485) radiotherapy on patient-reported disease-specific (using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite[EPIC]-26) and general health-related (using the SF-36) function, over 5 years. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, clinicopathologic characteristics, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).Results587 men (median [quartiles] age 69 [64-73] years) met inclusion criteria and completed ≥1 post-treatment survey. More men treated with prostate and pelvic radiotherapy had high-risk disease (58% vs. 18%, P < 0.01) and received ADT (75% vs. 41%, P < 0.01). These men reported worse sexual (6 months-5 years), hormonal (at 6 months), and physical (6 months-5 years) function. Accounting for baseline function, patient and tumor characteristics, and use of ADT, pelvic irradiation was not associated with statistically or clinically significant differences in bowel function, urinary incontinence, irritative voiding symptoms or sexual function through 5-years (all P > 0.05). Marginally clinically important differences were noted in hormonal function at 3-years (adjusted mean difference 4.7, 95% confidence interval [1.2-8.3]; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) 4 to 6) and 5-years (4.2, [0.4-8.0]) following treatment. After adjustment, there was a transient statistically significant, but not clinically important, difference in emotional well-being at 6 months (3.0, [0.19-5.8]; MCID 6) that resolved by 1 year and no differences in physical functioning or energy and fatigue.ConclusionThis prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT, showed no clinically important differences in disease-specific or general health-related quality of life with the addition of pelvic irradiation to prostate radiotherapy, supporting the use of pelvic radiotherapy when it may be of clinical benefit, such as men with increased risk of nodal involvement.

Introduction and objectiveThe timing of radiotherapy (RT) after prostatectomy is controversial, and its effect on sexual, urinary, and bowel function is unknown. This study seeks to compare patient-reported functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) and postprostatectomy radiation as well as elucidate the timing of radiation to allow optimal recovery of function.MethodsThe Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, observational study of men with localized prostate cancer. Patient-reported sexual, urinary, and bowel functional outcomes were measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at baseline and at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Functional outcomes were compared among men undergoing RP alone, post-RP adjuvant radiation (RP + aRT), and post-RP salvage radiation (RP + sRT) using multivariable models controlling for baseline clinical, demographic, and functional characteristics.ResultsAmong 1,482 CEASAR participants initially treated with RP for clinically localized prostate cancer, 11.5% (N = 170) received adjuvant (aRT, N = 57) or salvage (sRT, N = 113) radiation. Men who received post-RP RT had worse scores in all domains (sexual function [-9.0, 95% confidence interval {-14.5, -3.6}, P < 0.001], incontinence [-8.8, {-14.0, -3.6}, P < 0.001], irritative voiding [-5.9, {-9.0, -2.8}, P < 0.001], bowel irritative [-3.5, {-5.8, -1.2}, P = 0.002], and hormonal function [-4.5, {-7.2, -1.7}, P = 0.001]) compared to RP alone at 5 years of follow-up. Compared to men treated with RP alone in an adjusted linear model, sRT was associated with significantly worse scores in all functional domains. aRT was associated with significantly worse incontinence, urinary irritation, and hormonal function domain scores compared to RP alone at 5 years of follow-up. On multivariable modeling, RT administered approximately 24 months after RP was associated with the smallest decline in sexual domain score, with an adjusted mean decrease of 8.85 points (95% confidence interval [-19.8, 2.1]) from post-RP, pre-RT baseline.ConclusionsIn men with localized prostate cancer, post-RP RT was associated with significantly worse sexual, urinary, and bowel function domain scores at 5 years compared to RP alone. Radiation delayed for approximately 24 months after RP may be optimal for preserving erectile function compared to radiation administered closer to the time of RP.

PurposeTo compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer.Methods and materialsThe prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes.ResultsFive-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P  .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P

PurposeQuality measures represent the standards of appropriate treatment agreed upon by experts in the field and often supported by data. The extent to which providers in the community adhere to quality measures in radiation therapy (RT) is unknown.Methods and materialsThe Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with clinically localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012. Patients completed surveys and medical records were reviewed. Patients were risk-stratified according to D'Amico classification criteria. Patterns of care and compliance with 8 quality measures as endorsed by national consortia as of 2011 were assessed.ResultsOverall, 926 men underwent definitive RT (69% external beam radiation therapy [EBRT]), 17% brachytherapy (BT), and 14% combined EBRT and BT with considerable variation in radiation techniques across risk groups. Most men who received EBRT had dose-escalated EBRT (>75 Gy; 93%) delivered with conventional fractionation (

BACKGROUND:Whether prostate cancer severity modifies patient-reported functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences in predicted function over time between RP and EBRT varied by risk group. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, observational study that enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011-2012. Among 2117 CEASAR participants who underwent RP or EBRT, 817 had low-risk, 902 intermediate-risk, and 398 high-risk disease. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Patient-reported, disease-specific function was measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (at baseline and 6, 12, and 36 mo). Predicted function was estimated using regression models and compared by disease risk. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:Low-risk EBRT patients reported 3-yr sexual function scores 12 points higher than those of low-risk RP patients (RP, 39 points [95% confidence interval {CI}, 37-42] vs EBRT, 52 points [95% CI, 47-56]; p

BackgroundRelatively little is known about the relationship between race/ethnicity and patient-reported outcomes after contemporary treatments for localized prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that treatment-related changes in urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function vary by race/ethnicity.Design, setting, and participantsThe Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, observational study that enrolled 3708 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 2011-2012.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPatient-reported disease-specific function was measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) at baseline and 6 and 12 mo after enrollment. Mean treatment differences in function were compared by race using risk-adjusted generalized estimating equations.Results and limitationsWhile all race/ethnic groups reported considerable declines in scores for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy (RP) when compared to active surveillance, African-American men reported a greater difference than white men did (adjusted difference-in-differences 8.4 points, 95% confidence interval 2.0-14.8; p=0.01). No difference in bother scores was noted and the overall proportion of explained variation attributable to race/ethnicity was relatively small in comparison to primary treatment and baseline function. No clinically significant racial variation was noted for the sexual, bowel, irritative voiding, or hormone domains. Limitations include the lack of well-established thresholds for clinical significance using the EPIC instrument.ConclusionWhile these data demonstrate that incontinence at 1 yr after RP may be worse for African-American compared to white men, the difference appears to be modest overall. Treatment selection and baseline function explain a much greater proportion of the variation in function after treatment.Patient summaryWe observed that the effect of treatment for prostate cancer on patient-reported function did not vary dramatically by race/ethnicity. Compared to white men, African-American men experienced a somewhat more pronounced decline in urinary continence after radical prostatectomy, but the corresponding changes in bother scores were not significantly different between the two groups.

ObjectiveTo compare the risk of hospitalisation and associated costs in patients after treatment for prostate cancer.Patients and methodsWe identified 29 571 patients aged 66-75 years without significant comorbidity from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database who were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009. We compared the rates of all-cause and treatment-related hospitalisation that occurred within 365 days of the initiation of definitive therapy. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify determinants associated with hospitalisation.ResultsMen who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) rather than radiotherapy (RT) had lower odds of being hospitalised for any cause after therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-0.87]. Patients who underwent RP rather than RT had higher odds of being hospitalised for treatment-related complications (OR 1.15, 95% CI: 1.03-1.29). However, men who underwent external beam RT (EBRT)/intensity modulated RT (IMRT) (OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72-0.99) had a 16% lower odds of hospitalisation from treatment-related complications than patients undergoing RP. Using propensity score-weighted analyses there was no significant difference in the odds of hospitalisation from treatment-related complications for men who underwent RP vs RT (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.92-1.21). Patients hospitalised for treatment-related complications after RT were costlier than patients who underwent RP (Mean $18 381 vs $13 203, P < 0.001).ConclusionsWith the exception of men who underwent EBRT/IMRT, there was no statistically significant difference in the odds of hospitalisation from treatment-related complications. Costs from hospitalisation after treatment were significantly higher for men undergoing RT than RP. Our findings are relevant in the context of penalties linked to hospital readmissions and bundled payment models.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare the overall survival of patients who undergo radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy versus noncancer controls to discern whether there is a survival advantage according to prostate cancer treatment and the impact of selection bias on these results.MethodsA matched cohort study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database. In total, 34,473 patients ages 66 to 75 years were identified who were without significant comorbidity, were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, and received treatment treated with surgery or radiotherapy between 2004 and 2011. These patients were matched to a noncancer control cohort. The rates of all-cause mortality that occurred within the study period were compared. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify determinants associated with overall survival.ResultsOf 34,473 patients who were included in the analysis, 21,740 (63%) received radiation therapy, and 12,733 (37%) underwent surgery. There was improved survival in patients who underwent surgery (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.38) and in those who received radiotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.75) compared with noncancer controls. Overall survival improved significantly in both treatment groups, with the greatest benefit observed among patients who underwent surgery (log rank P

ObjectiveTo evaluate the influence of psychosocial factors such as prostate cancer (PCa) anxiety, social support, participation in medical decision-making (PDM), and educational level on patient decisions to discontinue PCa active surveillance (AS) in the absence of disease progression.MethodsThe Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study is a prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized PCa diagnosed in 2011-2012. PCa anxiety, social support, PDM, educational level, and patient reasons for discontinuing AS were assessed through patient surveys. A Cox proportional hazards model examined the relationship between psychosocial variables and time to discontinuation of AS.ResultsOf 531 patients on AS, 165 (30.9%) underwent treatment after median follow-up of 37 months. Whereas 69% of patients cited only medical reasons for discontinuing AS, 31% cited at least 1 personal reason, and 8% cited personal reasons only. Patients with some college education discontinued AS significantly earlier (hazard ratio: 2.0, 95% confidence interval: 1.2, 3.2) than patients with less education. PCa anxiety, social support, and PDM were not associated with seeking treatment.ConclusionWe found that 31% of men who choose AS for PCa discontinue AS within 3 years. Eight percent of men who sought treatment did so in the absence of disease progression. Education, but not psychosocial factors, seems to influence definitive treatment-seeking. Future research is needed to understand how factors unrelated to disease severity influence treatment decisions among patients on AS to identify opportunities to improve adherence to AS.

ImportanceUnderstanding the adverse effects of contemporary approaches to localized prostate cancer treatment could inform shared decision making.ObjectiveTo compare functional outcomes and adverse effects associated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and active surveillance.Design, setting, and participantsProspective, population-based, cohort study involving 2550 men (≤80 years) diagnosed in 2011-2012 with clinical stage cT1-2, localized prostate cancer, with prostate-specific antigen levels less than 50 ng/mL, and enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis.ExposuresTreatment with radical prostatectomy, EBRT, or active surveillance was ascertained within 1 year of diagnosis.Main outcomes and measuresPatient-reported function on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) 36 months after enrollment. Higher domain scores (range, 0-100) indicate better function. Minimum clinically important difference was defined as 10 to 12 points for sexual function, 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative symptoms, 5 for bowel function, and 4 for hormonal function.ResultsThe cohort included 2550 men (mean age, 63.8 years; 74% white, 55% had intermediate- or high-risk disease), of whom 1523 (59.7%) underwent radical prostatectomy, 598 (23.5%) EBRT, and 429 (16.8%) active surveillance. Men in the EBRT group were older (mean age, 68.1 years vs 61.5 years, P

Background and objectiveQuality measures used in pay-for-performance systems are intended to address specific quality goals, such as safety, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness. Given the small number of narrowly focused measures in prostate cancer care, we sought to determine whether adherence to any of the available payer-driven quality measures influences patient-centered outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL), patient satisfaction, and treatment-related complications.MethodsThe Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study is a population-based, prospective cohort study that enrolled 3708 men with clinically localized prostate cancer during 2011 and 2012, of whom 2601 completed the 1-year survey and underwent complete chart abstraction. Compliance with 6 quality indicators endorsed by national consortia was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to determine the relationship between indicator compliance and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) instrument summary scores, satisfaction scale scores (service satisfaction scale for cancer care), and treatment-related complications.ResultsOverall rates of compliance with these quality measures ranged between 64% and 88%. Three of the 6 measures were weakly associated with 1-year sexual function and bowel function scores (β=-4.6, 1.69, and 2.93, respectively; P≤0.05), whereas the remaining measures had no significant relationship with patient-reported HRQOL outcomes. Satisfaction scores and treatment-related complications were not associated with quality measure compliance.ConclusionsCompliance with available nationally endorsed quality indicators, which were designed to incentivize effective and efficient care, was not associated with clinically important changes in patient-centered outcomes (HRQOL, satisfaction, or complications) within 1-year.

PurposeRobotic assisted radical prostatectomy has largely replaced open radical prostatectomy for the surgical management of prostate cancer despite conflicting evidence of superiority with respect to disease control or functional sequelae. Using population cohort data, in this study we examined sexual and urinary function in men undergoing open radical prostatectomy vs those undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsSubjects surgically treated for prostate cancer were selected from 2 large population based prospective cohort studies, the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (enrolled 1994 to 1995) and the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (enrolled 2011 to 2012). Subjects completed baseline, 6-month and 12-month standardized patient reported outcome measures. Main outcomes were between-group differences in functional outcome scores at 6 and 12 months using linear regression, and adjusting for baseline function, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate outcomes between patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy within and across CEASAR and PCOS.ResultsThe combined cohort consisted of 2,438 men, 1,505 of whom underwent open radical prostatectomy and 933 of whom underwent robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Men treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy reported better urinary function at 6 months (mean difference 3.77 points, 95% CI 1.09-6.44) but not at 12 months (1.19, -1.32-3.71). Subjects treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy also reported superior sexual function at 6 months (8.31, 6.02-10.56) and at 12 months (7.64, 5.25-10.03). Sensitivity analyses largely supported the sexual function findings with inconsistent support for urinary function results.ConclusionsThis population based study reveals that men undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy likely experience less decline in early urinary continence and sexual function than those undergoing open radical prostatectomy. The clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain and longer followup will be required to establish whether these benefits are durable.

BackgroundDespite the paramount importance of patient-reported outcomes, little is known about the evolution of patient-reported urinary and sexual function over time.ObjectiveTo evaluate differences in pretreatment urinary and sexual function in two population-based cohorts of men with prostate cancer enrolled nearly 20 yr apart.Design, setting, and participantsPatients were enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (PCOS) or the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study, two population-based cohorts that enrolled patients with incident prostate cancer from 1994 to 1995 and from 2011 to 2012, respectively. Participants completed surveys at baseline and various time points thereafter.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisWe performed multivariable logistic and linear regression analysis to investigate differences in pretreatment function between studies.Results and limitationsThe study comprised 5469 men of whom 2334 (43%) were enrolled in PCOS and 3135 (57%) were enrolled in CEASAR. Self-reported urinary incontinence was higher in CEASAR compared with PCOS (7.7% vs 4.7%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-2.43). Similarly, self-reported erectile dysfunction was more common among CEASAR participants (44.7% vs 24.0%) with an adjusted OR of 3.12 (95% CI, 2.68-3.64). Multivariable linear regression models revealed less favorable self-reported baseline function among CEASAR participants in the urinary incontinence and sexual function domains. The study is limited by its observational design and possibility of unmeasured confounding.ConclusionsReporting of pretreatment urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction has increased over the past two decades. These findings may reflect sociological changes including heightened media attention and direct-to-consumer marketing, among other potential explanations.Patient summaryPatient reporting of urinary and sexual function has evolved and is likely contingent on continually changing societal norms. Recognizing the evolving nature of patient reporting is essential in efforts to conduct high-quality, impactful comparative effectiveness research.

PurposeThe Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of GM-CSF in reducing mucosal injury and symptom burden from curative radiotherapy for head and neck (H&N) cancer.MethodsEligible patients with H&N cancer receiving radiation encompassing ≥50 % of the oral cavity or oropharynx received subcutaneous GM-CSF or placebo. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the RTOG-modified University of Washington H&N Symptom Questionnaire at baseline 4, 13, 26, and 48 weeks from radiation initiation.ResultsOf 125 eligible patients, 114 were evaluable for QoL (58 GM-CSF, 56 placebo). Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and baseline symptom scores were well balanced between the treatment arms. At the end of the acute period (13 weeks), patients in both arms reported negative change in total symptom score indicating increase in symptom burden relative to baseline (mean -18.4 GM-CSF, -20.8 placebo). There was no difference in change in total symptom score (p > 0.05) or change in mucous, pain, eating, or activity domain scores (p > 0.01) between patients in the GM-CSF and placebo arms. Analysis limited to patients treated per protocol or with an acceptable protocol deviation also found no difference in change in total symptom score (p > 0.05) or change in domain scores (p > 0.01) between treatment arms. Provider assessment of acute mucositis during treatment did not correlate with patient-reported mucous domain and total symptom scores (p > 0.05).ConclusionGM-CSF administered concurrently during head and neck radiation does not appear to significantly improve patient-reported QoL symptom burden.

BackgroundThe authors investigated the prevalence of pretreatment urinary, sexual, hormonal, and bowel dysfunction in a contemporary, population-based prostate cancer cohort. They also explored the associations between baseline function and age, comorbidity, and timing of baseline survey completion with respect to treatment.MethodsThe Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a population-based, prospective cohort study that enrolled 3691 men with incident prostate cancer during 2011 and 2012. Pretreatment function was ascertained using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index-26 (EPIC-26). Data were stratified by age, comorbidity, and timing of baseline survey completion with respect to treatment. Unadjusted and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the relations between exposures and pretreatment function.ResultsAfter applying exclusion criteria, the study cohort comprised 3072 men. A strikingly high proportion of men reported inability to obtain erections satisfactory for intercourse (45%) and some degree of urinary incontinence (17%) at baseline. Sexual function was particularly age-sensitive, with patients aged ≤60 years reporting summary scores in excess of 30 points higher than patients aged ≥75 years (P < .001). Compared with the healthiest men, highly comorbid patients reported less favorable function in each domain, including urinary incontinence (summary score, 89.5 vs 74.1; P < .001) and sexual function (summary score, 70.8 vs 32.9; P < .001). Although statistically significant differences in summary scores were identified between patients who completed the baseline questionnaire before treatment (52%) versus after treatment (48%), the absolute differences were small (range, 1-3 points).ConclusionsPatients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer exhibit a wide distribution of pretreatment function. The current data may be used to redefine the population "at risk" for treatment-related harms.