Evaluation of quality of life of patients after treatment for prostate cancer:a real world study based on network questionnaires
Hongzhen Li,Xin Qi,Xianshu Gao,Shangbin Qin,Mingwei Ma,Min Zhang,Qingguo Wang,Xiaoying Li,Yun Bai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2018.02.004
2018-01-01
Abstract:Objective
To evaluate the real world data on toxicity and quality of life of patients after treatment for prostate cancer in China.
Methods
Electronic questionnaires were issued to members of the prostate cancer patient group in Beijing through the network new media method to collect the basic information of these patients, diagnostic information, TNM stage, treatment options, and adverse reactions after therapy. The questionnaire were designed based on the EORTC C30 and PR25. Systemic reactions, urinary reactions, rectal reactions, hematology toxicity, and sexual dysfunction were analyzed using the Pearson χ2 test, and Fisher′s exact test was used when the probability frequency was less than 5.
Results
A total of 228 patients were included. The proportions of patients who underwent radical, external radiotherapy (including postoperative radiotherapy), endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, and particle implantation were 50.0% (114/228), 77.6% (177/228), 80.3% (183/228), 7.89% (18/228), and 3.95% (9/228), respectively. Top ten treatment toxicities were fatigue (42.5%, 97/228), defecation frequency (42.1%, 96/228), leukopenia (39.5%, 90/228), urinary frequency (31.6%, 72/228), increased nocturia (27.6%, 63/228), anemia (20.2%, 46/228), diarrhea (19.7%, 45/228), urinary urgency (19.7%, 45/228), sexual dysfunction (18.4%, 42/228), and sleep loss (18.4%, 42/228). The incidence of urinary incontinence (23.7% vs 5%, χ2=12.200, P=0.000) and sexual dysfunction (21.1% vs 15%, χ2=1.140, P=0.286) in patients undergoing surgery was higher than that of patients undergoing radiotherapy. The rates of urinary frequency (32.5% vs 30.7%, χ2=0.071, P=0.791) and defecation frequency (45% vs 34.2%, χ2=2.310, P=0.286) in patients undergoing radiotherapy were higher than those in patients undergoing surgery. To treat these adverse reactions, the first choice in these patients was to take traditional Chinese medicine (46.9%, 107/228).
Conclusion
Different treatment methods have different toxicities and different effects on quality of life, and reasonable treatment plan should be chosen according to patients′ demands for future quality of life.
Key words: Prostate cancer; Radiotherapy; Oppenheimer′s treatment; Quality of life