416C Brachytherapy for early prostate cancer — part II: Treatment, results, side effects and complications

Abstract Background: Early prostate cancer (PCa) treatment interventions may leave men with debilitating sexual side effects. These side effects may remain permanent, often undiagnosed and undermanaged. The objective of this study is to map the evidence pertaining to the prevalence, and use of questionnaires, related to the neglected sexual side effects (NSSE) after Pca treatment.Methods:This systematic scoping review’s search strategy will involve the following electronic databases: PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar. Following title searching, two-independent reviewers will conduct screening of abstracts and full articles. Thescreenings will be guided by the eligibility criteria. Data will be extracted from the included studies and the emerging themes will be analysed. The review team will analyse the implications of the findings in relation to the research question and aim of the study. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) will be employed for quality appraisal of included studies.Discussion: We anticipate finding a small amount of studies pertaining to the prevalence and questionnaire use for NSSE after early PCa treatment. The study findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, peer presentations as well as presentations at relevant conferences

Download Full-text

The prevalence of the Neglected Sexual Side Effects (NSSEs) after early prostate cancer treatment and the role of a questionnaire in its diagnosis: A Scoping Review Protocol

10.21203/rs.3.rs-27667/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Pierre Roscher ◽

Jacqueline M Van Wyk

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Side Effects ◽

Research Question ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Treatment Interventions ◽

Early Prostate Cancer ◽

Sexual Side Effects ◽

Review Team ◽

Review Protocol

Abstract Background: Early prostate cancer (PCa) treatment interventions may leave men with debilitating sexual side effects. These side effects may remain permanent, often undiagnosed and undermanaged. The objective of this study is to map the evidence about the prevalence, and use of questionnaires, related to the neglected sexual side effects (NSSE) after PCa treatment.Methods: This systematic scoping review's search strategy will involve the following electronic databases: PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar. Following title searching, two-independent reviewers will conduct screening of abstracts and full articles. Eligibility criteria will guide the screenings. Data will be extracted from the included studies, and the emerging themes will be analysed. The review team will analyse the implications of the findings concerning the research question and aim of the study. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) will be employed for quality appraisal of included studies.Discussion: We anticipate finding a small number of studies about the prevalence and questionnaire use for NSSE after early PCa treatment. The study findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, peer presentations, as well as presentations at relevant conferences.

Download Full-text

A survey to determine patients’ (pts) opinions of a clinical trial (CT) comparing intermittent (int) versus continuous (cont) androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSi) therapy for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2019.37.7_suppl.295 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽

pp. 295-295

Author(s):

Cameron Phillips ◽

Seanthel Delos Santos ◽

Robert Mason ◽

Urban Emmenegger

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Side Effects ◽

Cost Savings ◽

Treatment Interruption ◽

Treatment Results ◽

Androgen Receptor Signaling ◽

Wide Range ◽

Complementary Study ◽

The Ideal

295 Background: Several therapies have shown a survival benefit and improvements in pt-reported quality of life in metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) including ARSis, such as abiraterone (A) and enzalutamide (E). While both are fairly well tolerated, there is a wide range of side effects associated with them. In addition, both of these medications are costly. The purpose of this study was to obtain pts’ opinions regarding potential participation in a randomized CT comparing int to cont treatment with A and E. Methods: We approached ambulatory pts diagnosed with mPC between August 2018 and October 2018 to complete a questionnaire eliciting their preferences regarding participation in a CT comparing int to cont treatment with A or E. A total of 105 patients completed the survey. We collected information regarding pts’ current/prior therapies, their interest in being treated with an int strategy and reasons for or against participating in a randomized CT with int versus cont treatment. Results: The median age of our pts was 72 years (IQR: 67 -78). 30% of patients had prior experience with an ARSi (A 10%, E 20%). 51% of pts were receiving either A (28%) or E (23%) at the time of the survey. 76% of pts indicated that they would generally be interested (27%) or very interested (49%) in participating in CTs, and 65% of patients were interested (19%) or very interested (46%) in participating in a CT involving int ARSi therapy. The reasons for participating include the prospect of less side effects (49%), less medication burden (39%), and cost-savings (15%). The reasons for not participating include the possibility of the cancer worsening off treatment (55%), the possibility of worse overall survival (48%), and the possibility of developing cancer-related symptoms in the off-phase (39%). Conclusions: The majority of pts surveyed would be interested in participating in a randomized CT that would include int versus cont treatment with an ARSi. In a complementary study, we are surveying oncologists to determine the ideal patient cohort for such a study, as well as acceptable triggers for treatment interruption and resumption.

Download Full-text