Impact of a novel neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormone-deprivation approach on quality of life, voiding function, and sexual function after prostate brachytherapy

Open Access
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
BACKGROUND Data demonstrate a benefit from neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormone‐deprivation therapy with luteinizing hormone‐releasing hormone agonists in patients who are treated with radiotherapy for localized prostate carcinoma; however, this approach has detrimental effects on quality of life (QOL). A cross‐sectional study was undertaken to evaluate the impact on QOL, voiding function, and sexual function of an alternative hormone‐deprivation approach. METHODS Three hundred fifty patients with clinical T1c–T2b prostate carcinoma were treated from March 1997 to August 2000 either with palladium 103 brachytherapy (BTM) without hormone therapy or with 8 months of adjuvant and neoadjuvant hormone‐deprivation therapy with an antiandrogen and finasteride (BTM+H), were mailed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) global well being QOL instrument (FACT‐G), the American Urological Association symptom score (AUASS), and specific items addressing urinary control and sexual function from validated instruments. Differences between treatment groups were assessed as a function of time since treatment. RESULTS Seventy‐two percent of patients responded to the questionnaire. No differences in overall FACT‐G scores, AUASS scores, or AUASS subscale scores between the BTM group and the BTM+H group were found. The BTM+H group initially had lower personal well being FACT‐G subscale scores, more urinary incontinence, and lower odds of attaining an erection sufficient for intercourse initially, although these differences disappeared with longer follow‐up. CONCLUSIONS The use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant antiandrogen and finasteride with brachytherapy is associated with QOL equal to that of brachytherapy alone for the treatment of patients with localized prostate carcinoma, allowing the advantages of hormone manipulation in terms of tumor control without its downside. Cancer 2003;97:1203–10. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11177