Prospective Longitudinal Comparative Study of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Invasive Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Health-related quality of life (QoL) concerns are important for patients selecting treatment options for clinically localized prostate cancer and are critical in evaluating outcomes. We report pretreatment and post-treatment general and disease-specific QoL for the following invasive interventions: open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and palladium-103 ((103)Pd) brachytherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective longitudinal survey of 452 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer treated at a single medical center between 2001 and 2003. An Institutional Review Board-approved questionnaire comprised of validated QoL instruments was sent to patients scheduled to undergo ORP (N = 186), LRP (N = 116), or brachytherapy (N = 150). The same questionnaire was sent out 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after therapy. Comparisons were made between the groups to determine if the choice of therapy resulted in differences in QoL. RESULTS: General QoL scores were minimally affected by the choices; however, the disease-specific domains of bowel, urinary, and sexual function were adversely affected by all modalities. The ORP and LRP groups were similar among disease-specific domains and received lower post-treatment urinary and sexual scores than the (103)Pd patients. At 12 months, 38% of ORP and 46% of LRP patients had returned to baseline urinary function compared with 75% of (103)Pd patients. At 12 months, 63% of (103)Pd patients had returned to baseline sexual function compared with 19% of both the LRP and ORP patients. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive treatments for localized prostate cancer have little impact on general QoL but significantly affect disease-specific domains. Both ORP and LRP have a greater initial negative impact on urinary and sexual function than (103)Pd. The differences among the treatments with regard to QoL provide information to patients faced with choosing a treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".