Quality of life 12 months after radical prostatectomy

Authors

  • K.G. Braslis,

    1. Departments of Urology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
    • 2

      K.G. Braslis, Urologic Oncology Fellow.

  • C. Santa-Cruz,

    1. Departments of Urology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
    • 3

      C. Santa-Cruz, Resident.

  • A.L. Brickman,

    1. *Departments of Psychiatry, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
    • 4

      A.L. Brickman, Associate Professor.

  • M.S. Soloway

    Corresponding author
    1. Departments of Urology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA
      **Department of Urology, University of Miami School of Medicine, PO Box 016960 (M-814), Miami, Florida 33101, USA.
    Search for more papers by this author
    • 5

      M.S. Soloway, MD, Professor and Chairman.


**Department of Urology, University of Miami School of Medicine, PO Box 016960 (M-814), Miami, Florida 33101, USA.

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the impact of radical prostatectomy (RP) upon quality of life (QOL) in patients with prostate cancer.

Patients and methods Seventy-nine patients with prostate cancer were recruited to evaluate the impact of RP upon QOL. The patients comprised two groups: the first group (n= 51) was evaluated 12 months or longer after RP; and the second group (n= 28) was evaluated 1 month prior to RP. All patients completed two previously reported QOL measures: the Functional Living Index Cancer (FLIC) and Profile of Mood States (POMS), and a series of questions which evaluated bladder, bowel and sexual function.

Results Comparison of patients before RP with those after RP at 12 month follow-up revealed significant (P<0.05) deterioration in sexual function, continence and hardship scores following RP while tension scores improved significantly. Although 10 other subscale parameters were analysed, no other differences were observed. Of the 51 post-RP patients, 46 (90%) stated that given a choice they would have their surgery again.

Conclusion The Results reported show that RP has minimal overall impact upon patient QOL. Although minimal voiding and bowel dysfunction was reported, many patients were dissatisfied with post-operative sexual function.

Ancillary