Comparison of quality of life after stereotactic body radiotherapy and surgery for early-stage prostate cancer

Background: As the long-term efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) becomes established and other prostate cancer treatment approaches are refined and improved, examination of quality of life (QOL) following prostate cancer treatment is critical in driving both patient and clinical treatment decisions. We present the first study to compare QOL after SBRT and radical prostatectomy, with QOL assessed at approximately the same times pre- and post-treatment and using the same validated QOL instrument. Methods: Patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with either radical prostatectomy (n = 123 Spanish patients) or SBRT (n = 216 American patients). QOL was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) grouped into urinary, sexual, and bowel domains. For comparison purposes, SBRT EPIC data at baseline, 3 weeks, 5, 11, 24, and 36 months were compared to surgery data at baseline, 1, 6, 12, 24,and 36 months. Differences in patient characteristics between the two groups were assessed using Chi-squared tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were constructed for each EPIC scale to account for correlation among repeated measures and used to assess the effect of treatment on QOL. Results: The largest differences in QOL occurred in the first 16 months after treatment, with larger declines following surgery in urinary and sexual QOL as compared to SBRT, and a larger decline in bowel QOL following SBRT as compared to surgery. Long-term urinary and sexual QOL declines remained clinically significantly lower for surgery patients but not for SBRT patients. Conclusions: Overall, these results may have implications for patient and physician clinical decision making which are often influenced by QOL. These differences in sexual, urinary and bowel QOL should be closely considered in selecting the right treatment, especially in evaluating the value of non-invasive treatments, such as SBRT.

Comparison of quality of life after stereotactic body radiotherapy and surgery for early-stage prostate cancer

Background: As the long-term efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) becomes established and other prostate cancer treatment approaches are refined and improved, examination of quality of life (QOL) following prostate cancer treatment is critical in driving both patient and clinical treatment decisions. We present the first study to compare QOL after SBRT and radical prostatectomy, with QOL assessed at approximately the same times pre- and post-treatment and using the same validated QOL instrument. Methods: Patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with either radical prostatectomy (n = 123 Spanish patients) or SBRT (n = 216 American patients). QOL was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) grouped into urinary, sexual, and bowel domains. For comparison purposes, SBRT EPIC data at baseline, 3 weeks, 5, 11, 24, and 36 months were compared to surgery data at baseline, 1, 6, 12, 24,and 36 months. Differences in patient characteristics between the two groups were assessed using Chi-squared tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were constructed for each EPIC scale to account for correlation among repeated measures and used to assess the effect of treatment on QOL. Results: The largest differences in QOL occurred in the first 1-6 months after treatment, with larger declines following surgery in urinary and sexual QOL as compared to SBRT, and a larger decline in bowel QOL following SBRT as compared to surgery. Long-term urinary and sexual QOL declines remained clinically significantly lower for surgery patients but not for SBRT patients. Conclusions: Overall, these results may have implications for patient and physician clinical decision making which are often influenced by QOL. These differences in sexual, urinary and bowel QOL should be closely considered in selecting the right treatment, especially in evaluating the value of non-invasive treatments, such as SBRT.

Localized prostate cancer in Norway, the United States, and Spain: between-country differences of variables before treatment among patients eligible for curative treatment

Between-country differences in medical and sociodemographic variables, and patient-related outcomes (PROs) before treatment might explain published variations of side effects after radical prostatecomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RAD) for prostate cancer (PCa). This hypothesis was tested among 1908 patients from the United States, Spain, and Norway. Significant between-country differences were observed for most factors investigated before treatment. The observations should be considered in comparison of the frequency and severity of internationally published studies. Background: In men with PCa, large variations of PROs after RP or high-dose RAD might be related to betweencountry differences of medical and sociodemographic variables, and differences in PROs before treatment in the sexual and urinary domains. Patients and Methods: In 1908 patients with localized PCa from Norway, the United States, or Spain, the relation between medical (prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, cT-category) and sociodemographic variables (age, education, marital status) before treatment was investigated. Using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire, PROs before treatment within the sexual and urinary domains were also considered. Results: Compared with the European patients, American patients were younger, fewer had comorbid conditions, and more had a high education level. Fifty-three percent of the US men eligible for RP had low-risk tumors compared with 42% and 31% among the Norwegian and the Spanish patients, respectively. Among the Spanish RAD patients, 54% had had low-risk tumors compared with 34% of the American and 21% of the Norwegian men planned for RAD, respectively. Compared with the European patients, significantly fewer US patients reported moderate or severe sexual dysfunction and related problems. In most subgroups, the number of patients with sexual or urinary dysfunction exceeded that of patients with bother related to the reported dysfunction. Conclusion: Statistically significant between-country differences were observed in medical and sociodemographic variables, and in PROs before treatment within the sexual and urinary domains. Large differences between reported dysfunction and related problems within the sexual and urinary domains indicate that dysfunction and bother should be reported separately in addition to calculation of summary scores. The documented differences, not at least regarding PROs, might in part explain the large variation of side effects after treatment evident in the medical literature

ESTRO-HERO survey: Radiotherapy equipment and departments in the European countries: Final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey

Background: Documenting the distribution of radiotherapy departments and the availability of radiotherapy equipment in the European countries is an important part of HERO the ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology project. HERO has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The aim of the current report is to describe the distribution of radiotherapy equipment in European countries. Methods: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, principally through their national societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy departments and equipment (questionnaire items 2629), analyzed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis is based on validated responses from 28 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). Results: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. There were 2192 linear accelerators, 96 dedicated stereotactic machines, and 77 cobalt machines reported in the 27 countries where this information was available. A total of 12 countries had at least one cobalt machine in use. There was a median of 0.5 simulator per MV unit (range 0.31.5) and 1.4 (range 0.44.4) simulators per department. Of the 874 simulators, a total of 654 (75%) were capable of 3D imaging (CT-scanner or CBCToption). The number of MV machines (cobalt, linear accelerators, and dedicated stereotactic machines) per million inhabitants ranged from 1.4 to 9.5 (median 5.3) and the average number of MV machines per department from 0.9 to 8.2 (median 2.6). The average number of treatment courses per year per MV machine varied from 262 to 1061 (median 419). While 69% of MV units were capable of IMRT only 49% were equipped for image guidance (IGRT). There was a clear relation between socio-economic status, as measured by GNI per capita, and availability of radiotherapy equipment in the countries. In many low income countries in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe there was very limited access to radiotherapy and especially to equipment for IMRT or IGRT. Conclusions: The European average number of MV machines per million inhabitants and per department is now better in line with QUARTS recommendations from 2005, but the survey also showed a significant heterogeneity in the access to modern radiotherapy equipment in Europe. High income countries especially in Northern-Western Europe are well-served with radiotherapy resources, other countries are facing important shortages of both equipment in general and especially machines capable of delivering high precision conformal treatments (IMRT, IGRT)

ESTRO-HERO survey: Radiotherapy staffing in the European countries: Final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey

Background: The ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (HERO) project has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The first milestone was to assess the availability of radiotherapy resources within Europe. This paper presents the personnel data collected in the ESTRO HERO database. Materials and methods: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, through their national scientific and professional radiotherapy societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy staffing (questionnaire items 4760), analysed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis was conducted between February and July 2014, and is based on validated responses from 24 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). Results: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. Averages and ranges for personnel numbers per million inhabitants are 12.8 (2.530.9) for radiation oncologists, 7.6 (019.7) for medical physicists, 3.5 (012.6) for dosimetrists, 26.6 (1.978) for RTTs and 14.8 (0.461.0) for radiotherapy nurses. The combined average for physicists and dosimetrists is 9.8 per million inhabitants and 36.9 for RTT and nurses. Radiation oncologists on average treat 208.9 courses per year (range: 99.9348.8), physicists and dosimetrists conjointly treat 303.3 courses (range: 85757.7) and RTT and nurses 76.8 (range: 25.7156.8). In countries with higher GNI per capita, all personnel categories treat fewer courses per annum than in less affluent countries. This relationship is most evident for RTTs and nurses. Different clusters of countries can be distinguished on the basis of available personnel resources and socio-economic status. Conclusions: The average personnel figures in Europe are now consistent with, or even more favourable than the QUARTS recommendations, probably reflecting a combination of better availability as such, in parallel with the current use of more complex treatments than a decade ago. A considerable variation in available personnel and delivered courses per year however persists among the highest and lowest staffing levels. This not only reflects the variation in cancer incidence and socio-economic determinants, but also the stage in technology adoption along with treatment complexity and the different professional roles and responsibilities within each country. Our data underpin the need for accurate prediction models and long-term education and training programmes