Quality of life, sexual function and decisional regret at 1 year after surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of changes in quality of life (QoL) and levels of sexual function on decisional regret after surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who decided to have a radical prostatectomy (RP) were assessed for health-related QoL using the general European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer C30 instrument and disease-specific prostate cancer module, and sexual function using the abbreviated International Index of Erectile Function-5 before and 1 year after RP. Decision control was measured before RP, and decisional regret 1 year afterward, using measures mailed to participants 1 year after treatment. RESULTS: Of 130 respondents (mean age 62 years), 4% expressed regret over their decision to have surgery. Physical and social functioning, and finances, were compromised, while emotional functioning and treatment-related symptoms improved by 1 year. Higher levels of decisional regret were correlated with decreases in role and social functioning, increased pain and financial difficulty (all P < 0.01). Sexual function was decreased (P < 0.001) after treatment. Men reported feeling less masculine, having less sexual enjoyment, difficulty in getting and maintaining an erection, and discomfort when being sexually intimate after surgery. Mean scores of decisional regret were similar among patients who reported assuming either active (84%) or collaborative (11%) roles in treatment decision-making. Men who assumed a passive role reported the most variability and highest scores on decision regret. CONCLUSIONS: Few men regretted having RP at 1 year after treatment, even though some QoL functions and domains were significantly affected. Ongoing assessment of the effect of surgical treatment on sexual function, sexuality and masculinity certainly deserves further exploration with this group of cancer survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".