About this item:

172 Views | 216 Downloads

Author Notes:

Correspondence: annhol@ous-hf.no

Study design: Sophie D Fosså, Martin G Sanda. Data acquisition: Anne Holck Storås, Martin G. Sanda, Olatz Garin, Peter Chang, Dattatraya Patil, Catrina Crociani, Jose Francisco Suarez, Sophie D. Fosså. Data analysis: Milada Cvancarova, Anne Holck Storås, Sophie D Fosså.

Drafting of manuscript: Anne Holck Storås, Sophie D Fosså. Critical revision of the manuscript: Anne Holck Storås, Martin G. Sanda, Olatz Garin, Peter Chang, Dattatraya Patil, Catrina Crociani, Jose Francisco Suarez, Sophie D. Fosså, Milada Cvancarova, Jon Håvard Loge.

The PROSTQA Consortium includes contributions in cohort design, patient accrual and follow-up from the following investigators: Meredith Regan (Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA); Larry Hembroff and Douglas Roberts (Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA); John T. Wei, Dan Hamstra, Rodney Dunn, Laurel Northouse and David Wood (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

Eric A Klein and Jay Ciezki (Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA); Jeff Michalski and Gerald Andriole (Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA); Mark Litwin and Chris Saigal (University of California—Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA); Thomas Greenfield, PhD (Eneryville, CA, USA), Louis Pisters and Deborah Kuban (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA);

Howard Sandler (Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA); Jim Hu and Adam Kibel (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA); Douglas Dahl and Anthony Zietman (Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA); Peter Chang, Andrew Wagner, and Irving Kaplan (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA) and Martin G. Sanda (Emory, Atlanta, GA, USA).

We acknowledge PROSTQA Data Coordinating Center Project Management by Kyle Davis and Jill Hardy, MS (Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA), Erin Najuch and Jonathan Chipman (Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA), Dattatraya Patil, MBBS, MPH (Emory, Atlanta, GA, USA) and Catrina Crociani

MPH (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA), grant administration by Beth Doiron, BA (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA), and technical support from coordinators at each clinical site.

We would like to thank the study participants. Without them this study would not be possible.

Disclosures: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Subjects:

Research Funding:

The study was funded by a grant from Health-Region South. East, Norway (No. 8324).

Keywords:

  • Adverse effects
  • Prostate cancer
  • Radical prostatectomy
  • Urinary incontinence
  • Prospective study
  • Oncology
  • Published dichotomization
  • European men
  • American men
  • Comparative approach

A prospective study of patient reported urinary incontinence among American, Norwegian and Spanish men 1 year after prostatectomy

Tools:

Journal Title:

Asian Journal of Urology

Volume:

Volume 7, Number 2

Publisher:

, Pages 161-169

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

Abstract:

Objective: To compare pre- and post-radical prostatectomy (RP) responses in the urinary incontinence domain of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) in cohorts from the USA, Norway and Spain. Methods: A prospective study of pre- and 1-year post-treatment responses in American (n=537), Norwegian (n=520) and Spanish (n=111) patients, establishing the prevalence of urinary incontinence defined according to published dichotomization. Thereafter we focused on the response alternatives “occasional dribbling”, pad use and problem experience. A multivariate logistic regression analysis (significance level ≤ 0.01) considered risk factors for “not retaining total control”. Results: Compared to the European men, the American patients were younger, healthier and more presented with lower risk tumors. Before RP no inter-country differences emerged the prevalence of urinary incontinence (6%). One-year post-treatment urinary incontinence was described by 30% of the American and 41% of the European patients, occasional dribbling being the most frequent type of urinary leakage. In the multivariate analysis the risk of “not retaining total control” increased almost 3-fold in European compared to American patients, with age and co-morbidity being additional independent risk factor. Conclusion: After RP patients from Spain and Norway reported more unfavorable outcomes by EPIC-26 than the American patients to most of the urinary incontinence items, the difference between the European and American patients remaining in the multivariate analysis. The most frequent post-RP response alternative “occasional dribbling” needs to be validated with pad weighing as “gold standard”.

Copyright information:

© 2020 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology.

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Export to EndNote