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, Piergiorgio; Russi, Elvio Grazioso; 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', Patrizia; Brausi, M.; Bruni, A.; Bruno, G.; Brunocilla, E.; Buffoli, A.; Buttigliero, C.; Cacciamani, G.; Caldiroli, M.; Cardo, G.; Carmignani, Giorgia; Carrieri, G.; Castelli, E.; Castrezzati, E.; Catalano, G.; Cattarino, S.; Catucci, F.; Cavallini, F. D.; Ceccarini, O.; Celia, ALESSANDRA IDA; Chiancone, F.; Chini, T.; Cianci, C.; Cisternino, A.; Collura, D.; Corbella, F.; Corinti, M.; Corsi, P.; Cortese, F.; Corti, Lucia; 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, Ilaria Maria; Parisi, A.; Parma, P.; Pavan, N.; Pericolini, M.; Pinto, F.; Pistone, Alessandro; Pizzuti, Valentina; 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, Antonio; Santarsieri, M.; Santoni, R.; Scagliarini, S.; Scagliotti Giorgio, V.; Scanzi, M.; Scarcia, Marco; Schiavina, R.; Sciarra, A.; Sciorio, C.; Scolaro, T.; Scuzzarella, S.; Selvaggio, O.; Serao, A.; Serni, S.; Signor, M. A.; Silvani, M.; Silvano, Gino; 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)
Tubaro A.;GRAZIOTTI, Piergiorgio;Russi, Elvio Grazioso;Muto G.;Borghesi M.;Borzillo V.;BOVE', Patrizia;CARMIGNANI, Giorgia;Cattarino S.;Catucci F.;CELIA, ALESSANDRA IDA;Collura D.;Corinti M.;CORTI, Lucia;Francolini G.;Gentilucci A.;Italia C.;Lombardo R.;Masciullo S.;Maso G.;Palumbo, Ilaria Maria;PISTONE, ALESSANDRO;PIZZUTI, VALENTINA;Polli C.;Raguso G.;Ruggieri M. P.;SANTACATERINA, ANTONIO;SCARCIA, MARCO;Sciarra A.;SILVANO, GINO;Spagnoletti G.;Tombolini V.;Tronnolone L.;Vitali E.;
2019
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.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
