Patient-reported outcome measures compared to clinician reported outcomes regarding incontinence and erectile dysfunction in localized prostate carcinoma after robot assisted radical prostatectomy: Impact on management.

Abstract

PURPOSE/ BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used after robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in order to evaluate the impact/burden of the treatment. The most bothersome side effects of RARP are urine incontinence (UI) and erectile dysfunction (ED). During the follow up consultations, clinicians report these side effects in interviewing patients. Our study examined the discrepancy between the PROMs and clinician report outcomes (CROs) and hypothesized that the disagreement could have an impact on the management of UI and ED.

CONCLUSIONS

This is to our knowledge the first study that compared the PROs with clinician reported functional outcomes and the impact of discrepancies on the management of side effects of RARP in prostate cancer. Observed discrepancies between the PROs and CROs did not affect offered management and counseling of UI and ED.

RESULTS

The ICIQ-SF Score matched with CROs in all sum score categories except in ICIQ sum score 6 to 12; here the UI was underreported by clinicians in 58% and 59% of patients at 8 and 12 months (P < 0.001). Furthermore, at 8 and 12 months postoperatively, clinicians underreported UI in 29% and 23% of patients with ICIQ score 13-18 (P < 0.001). The clinician significantly over-reported the recovery of erectile function ("normal erection") (P < 0.001), especially in men with IIEF-EF sum score 6 to 16. Independently of ICIQ-SF/IIEF-EF scores, discrepancy between PROs and CROs did not affect rate of health care offered to patients.

METHODS

Up to 1 year after RARP, UI and ED recovery of 312 men with localized and locally advanced prostate cancer were assessed using the International Consultation Incontinence Questionnaire Short-Form (ICIQ-SF) and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) and CROs by interview. Discrepancies between PROs and CROs were studied in light of treatment offered and management.

More about this publication

Urologic oncology
  • Volume 41
  • Issue nr. 11
  • Pages 454.e1-454.e8
  • Publication date 01-11-2023

This site uses cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.