A 5-Year Follow-Up of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following External Beam Radiotherapy or Radical Prostatectomy in Localised Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Late toxicity following radiotherapy is common and compromises patient quality of life. However, the impact of toxicity on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) five years after prostate external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is poorly characterised. We describe PROMs using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) five years post-EBRT compared against radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: A prospective cohort of patients with localised prostate cancer treated from 2000 to 2020 captured by a state-level cancer registry was analysed. Multivariable mixed-effects linear modelling was performed to compare differences between EPIC-26 domains over time between ERBT and RP patients. The percentage of patients recording a decline in EPIC-26 domains compared with baseline which exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated and compared between groups. Additionally, subgroup analysis was performed on patients treated using contemporary techniques. Results: There were 1720 patients (EBRT n = 1441 vs. RP n = 279) with evaluable EPIC-26 PROMS. Patients in the EBRT group had a higher median age (74 vs. 66, p < 0.001) and National comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk disease (61% vs. 24%, p < 0.001). Bowel domain scores were worse after EBRT compared to RP (beta −0.46, 95% CI −1.20–−0.28, p < 0.001), with a greater proportion of patients reporting a change in symptoms that exceeded the MICD at 12 months (22 vs. 11%, p = 0.009). Moderate/big bowel bother scores were significantly higher in the EBRT cohort at baseline and all follow-up periods compared to RP (beta −8.27, 95% CI −10.21–−6.34, p < 0.001). Pad use (i.e., ≥1) per day was significantly lower amongst the EBRT group (beta 16.56, 95% CI 14.35–18.76, p < 0.001). Despite contemporary techniques, EBRT was associated with worse bowel domain scores at 12 (75 vs. 80, p < 0.05) and 60 months (75 vs. 80, p < 0.05) compared to RP; however, EBRT was associated with less pad use at 12 (4% vs. 34%, p < 0.001), 24 (10% vs. 33%, p < 0.001) and 60 months (13% vs. 33%, p = 0.15) than RP. Conclusions: There are significant differences in PROMs after local curative treatment for prostate cancer which persist to five years post-treatment, despite contemporary techniques. Understanding the associated toxicity patterns helps inform shared decision-making during pre-treatment counselling.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".