MP45-14 COMPARISON OF RESPONSE RATES TO QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEYS BETWEEN PATIENTS UNDERGOING SURGERY FOR RENAL CELL CARCINOMA AND PROSTATE CANCER

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized III1 Apr 2014MP45-14 COMPARISON OF RESPONSE RATES TO QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEYS BETWEEN PATIENTS UNDERGOING SURGERY FOR RENAL CELL CARCINOMA AND PROSTATE CANCER Andrew Davidiuk, Alexander Parker, Gregory Broderick, Kaitlynn Custer, Andrea Tavlarides, Michelle Arnold, and David Thiel Andrew DavidiukAndrew Davidiuk More articles by this author , Alexander ParkerAlexander Parker More articles by this author , Gregory BroderickGregory Broderick More articles by this author , Kaitlynn CusterKaitlynn Custer More articles by this author , Andrea TavlaridesAndrea Tavlarides More articles by this author , Michelle ArnoldMichelle Arnold More articles by this author , and David ThielDavid Thiel More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.1211AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Introduction and Objectives Improvements in survival times following surgery for clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have led to an increased interest in evaluating factors associated with post-treatment quality of life (QOL) among these patients. Related to this, we examined overall response rates to QOL surveys, as well as factors associated with response, in these two patient populations. Methods Patients who underwent surgery for RCC or PCa at our institution between 2006 and 2012 were offered enrollment in a prospective registry that included baseline and annual QoL assessment. We identified 201 patients in the RCC registry and 616 patients in the PCa registry who completed a baseline QoL survey and were mailed a follow-up QoL at one and two years post surgery [RCC: SF-36, FACT–G (73 questions), PCa: EPIC, IIEF, Max-PC (80 questions)]. We compared patient characteristics between responders (i.e. those that returned at least a one or two-year follow-up) and non-responders using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and a Fisher’s Exact test for categorical variables. To compare cancer-specific survival (CSS) between responders and non-responders we employed Cox Proportional Hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided, with significance set at p= 0.05. Results The overall response rate for the PCa and RCC groups were 63% and 48% (p<0.001), respectively. Interestingly, this difference in response rate remained when we limited analysis to only those with early stage disease (pT2a for PCa and pT1 RCC, 62% vs. 52%; p=0.03). Among the PCa group, characteristics associated with response included older age (64.1 vs 62.6 years, p=0.032) and robotic versus open surgery (56% vs 44%; p=0.009). We observed no significant difference in CSS between PCa responders and non-responders. By comparison, we identified no characteristics that were associated with response in RCC group; however, non-responders had poorer CSS compared to responders. Conclusions Surgically treated PCa patients have significantly higher QOL survey response rates than those patients with RCC. Societal awareness and education regarding RCC remains behind that of PCa, possibly due to the increased incidence of PCa, as well as an increase in men’s health awareness programs. The results may also indicate that patient’s expectations regarding surgery for RCC rely more heavily on survival, as opposed to PCa, where long-term quality of life continues to be a focus following surgery. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e464-e465 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Andrew Davidiuk More articles by this author Alexander Parker More articles by this author Gregory Broderick More articles by this author Kaitlynn Custer More articles by this author Andrea Tavlarides More articles by this author Michelle Arnold More articles by this author David Thiel More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...