Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Patient-reported quality of life progression in men with prostate cancer following primary cryotherapy, cyberknife, or active holistic surveillance

Abstract

Background

Technological advancements have led to the success of minimally invasive treatment modalities for prostate cancer such as CyberKnife and Cryotherapy. Here, we investigate patient-reported urinary function, bowel habits, and sexual function in patients following CyberKnife (CK) or Cryotherapy treatment, and compare them with active holistic surveillance (AHS) patients.

Methods

An IRB-approved institutional database was retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent CK, Cryotherapy, or AHS. Quality of life (QoL) survey responses were collected every three months and the mean function scores were analyzed in yearly intervals over the 4 years post-treatment.

Results

279 patients (767 survey sets) were included in the study. There was no difference among groups in urinary function scores. The CyberKnife group had significantly lower bowel habit scores in the early years following treatment (year 2 mean difference: −5.4, P < 0.01) but returned to AHS level scores by year 4. Cryotherapy patients exhibited initially lower, but not statistically significant, bowel function scores, which then improved and approached those of AHS. Both CyberKnife (year 1 mean difference: −26.7, P < 0.001) and Cryotherapy groups (−35.4, P < 0.001) had early lower sexual function scores relative to AHS, but then gradually improved and were not significantly different from AHS by the third year post-treatment. A history of hormonal therapy was associated with a lower sexual function scores relative to those patients who did not receive hormones in both CyberKnife (−18.45, P < 0.01) and Cryotherapy patients (−14.6, P < 0.05).

Conclusions

After initial lower bowel habits and sexual function scores, CyberKnife or Cryotherapy-treated patients had no significant difference in QoL relative to AHS patients. These results highlight the benefit of CyberKnife and Cryotherapy in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Potosky AL, Legler J, Albertsen PC, Stanford JL, Gilliland FD, Hamilton AS, et al. Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1582–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1250–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Madalinska JB, Essink-Bot M-L, de Koning HJ, Kirkels WJ, van der Maas PJ, Schroder FH. Health-related quality-of-life effects of radical prostatectomy and primary radiotherapy for screen-detected or clinically diagnosed localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1619–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, Ganz PA, Leake B, Leach GE, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995;273:129–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Jones JS, Rewcastle JC, Donnelly BJ, Lugnani FM, Pisters LL, Katz AE. et al. Whole gland primary prostate cryoablation: initial results from the cryo on-line data registry. J Urol. 2008;180:554–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Lambert EH, Bolte K, Masson P, Katz AE. Focal cryosurgery: encouraging health outcomes for unifocal prostate cancer. Urology. 2007;69:1117–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    King CR, Lehmann J, Adler JR, Hai J. CyberKnife radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: rationale and technical feasibility. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2003;2:25–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Alkhorayef M, Mahmoud MZ, Alzimami KS, Sulieman A, Fagiri MA. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in localized prostate cancer treatment. Polish J Radiol. 2015;80:131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lindner U, Lawrentschuk N, Trachtenberg J. Focal laser ablation for localized prostate cancer. J Endourol. 2010;24:791–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Valerio M, Stricker PD, Ahmed HU, Dickinson L, Ponsky L, Shnier R, et al. Initial assessment of safety and clinical feasibility of irreversible electroporation in the focal treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17:343–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:272–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;28:126–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Berg CJ, Habibian DJ, Katz AE, Kosinski KE, Corcoran AT, Fontes AS. Active holistic surveillance: the nutritional aspect of delayed intervention in prostate cancer. J Nutr Metabolism. 2016;2016:2917065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Habibian DJ, Katz AE. Emerging minimally invasive procedures for focal treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. Int J Hyperthermia. 2016;32:795–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ward JF, Jones JS. Focal cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a report from the national Cryo On-Line Database (COLD) Registry. BJU Int. 2012;109:1648–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Katz AJ, Santoro M, Diblasio F, Ashley R. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: disease control and quality of life at 6 years. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Robinson JW, Donnelly BJ, Saliken JC, Weber BA, Ernst S, Rewcastle JC. Quality of life and sexuality of men with prostate cancer 3 years after cryosurgery. Urology. 2002;60(2 Suppl 1):12–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr., O’Leary MP, Bruskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK, et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol. 1992;148:1549–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56:899–905.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A. The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1997;49:822–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Onik GM, Cohen JK, Reyes GD, Rubinsky B, Chang Z, Baust J. Transrectal ultrasound-guided percutaneous radical cryosurgical ablation of the prostate. Cancer. 1993;72:1291–1291.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Ullal AV, Korets R, Katz AE, Wenske S. A report on major complications and biochemical recurrence after primary and salvage cryosurgery for prostate cancer in patients with prior resection for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single-center experience. Urology. 2013;82:648–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Vu CC, Haas JA, Katz AE, Witten MR. Prostate-specific antigen bounce following stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Frontiers Oncol. 2014;4:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cassel C, Dickersin K, Garber A, Gatsonis C, Gottlieb G, Guest J, et al. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. 2009.

  26. 26.

    Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:203–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Chen RC, Basak R, Meyer AM, Kuo TM, Carpenter WR, Agans RP, et al. Association between choice of radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance and patient-reported quality of life among men with localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2017;317:1141–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Barocas DA, Alvarez J, Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Hoffman KE, Tyson MD, et al Association between radiation therapy, surgery, or observation for localized prostate cancer and patient-reported outcomes after 3 years. JAMA. 2017;317:1126–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1425–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Michalski JM, Gay H, Jackson A, Tucker SL, Deasy JO. Radiation dose–volume effects in radiation-induced rectal injury. Intl J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:S123–S129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Yu J, Cooper H. A Quantitative Review of Research Design Effects on Response Rates to Questionnaires. J Mark Res. 1983;20:36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Stone HB, Coleman CN, Anscher MS, McBride WH. Effects of radiation on normal tissue: consequences and mechanisms. Lancet Oncol. 2003;4:529–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Rodriguez E, Finley DS, Skarecky D, Ahlering TE. Single institution 2-year patient reported validated sexual function outcomes after nerve sparing robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;181:259–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D, Burnett AL. Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;55:58–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Zisman A, Leibovici D, Kleinmann J, Siegel YI, Lindner A. The impact of prostate biopsy on patient well-being: a prospective study of pain, anxiety and erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 2001;165:445–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

G.T.W. was supported by Medical Scientist Training Program award T32GM008444 and National Research Service Award F30AI112252 from the NIH.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glenn T. Werneburg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

JAH has received speaker honoraria from Accuray, the manufacturer of CyberKnife.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Werneburg, G.T., Kongnyuy, M., Halpern, D.M. et al. Patient-reported quality of life progression in men with prostate cancer following primary cryotherapy, cyberknife, or active holistic surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21, 355–363 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-017-0004-y

Download citation

Search

Quick links