Mónica Ávila

Quality of life impact of treatments for localized prostate cancer: Cohort study with a 5 year follow-up

PURPOSE To assess long-term quality of life (QoL) impact of treatments in localized prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS Observational, prospective cohort study with pre-treatment QoL evaluation and follow-up until five years after treatment. 704 patients with low or intermediate risk localized prostate cancer were consecutively recruited in 2003-2005. QoL was measured by the EPIC questionnaire, with urinary irritative-obstructive, incontinence, bowel, sexual, and hormonal scores (ranging 0-100). RESULTS Brachytherapys QoL impact was restricted to the urinary domain, Generalized Estimating Equation models showed score changes at five years of -12.0 (95% CI=-15.0, -9.0) in incontinence and -5.3 (95% CI=-7.5, -3.1) in irritative-obstructive scales. Compared to brachytherapy, radical prostatectomy fared +3.3 (95% CI=+0.0, +6.5) points better in irritative-obstructive but -17.1 (95% CI=-22.7, -11.5) worse in incontinence. Sexual deterioration was observed in radical prostatectomy (-19.1; 95% CI=-25.1, -13.1) and external radiotherapy groups (-7.5; 95% CI=-12.5, -2.5). CONCLUSIONS Brachytherapy is the treatment causing the least impact on QoL except for moderate urinary irritative-obstructive symptoms. Our study provides novel long-term valuable information for clinical decision making, supporting brachytherapy as a possible alternative to radical prostatectomy for patients seeking an attempted curative treatment, while limiting the risk for urinary incontinence and sexual impact on QoL.

Long-acting beta-agonists plus inhaled corticosteroids safety: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies

BackgroundAlthough several systematic reviews investigated the safety of long-acting beta–agonists (LABAs) in asthma, they mainly addressed randomized clinical trials while evidence from non-randomized studies has been mostly neglected. We aim to assess the risk of serious adverse events in adults and children with asthma treated with LABAs and Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICs), compared to patients treated only with ICs, from published non-randomized studies.MethodsThe protocol registration number was CRD42012003387 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/Prospero). Literature search for articles published since 1990 was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Two authors selected studies independently for inclusion and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies. To assess the risk of serious adverse events, meta-analyses were performed calculating odds ratio summary estimators using random effect models when heterogeneity was found, and fixed effect models otherwise.ResultsOf 4,415 candidate articles, 1,759 abstracts were reviewed and 220 articles were fully read. Finally, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of them were retrospective observational cohorts. Sample sizes varied from 50 to 514,216. The meta-analyses performed (69,939-624,303 participants according to the outcome considered) showed that odds ratio of the LABAs and ICs combined treatment when compared with ICs alone was: 0.88 (95% CI 0.69-1.12) for asthma-related hospitalization; 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.84) for asthma-related emergency visits; 1.02 (95% CI 0.94-1.10) for systemic corticosteroids; and 0.95 (95% CI 0.9-1.0) for the combined outcome.ConclusionsEvidence from observational studies shows that the combined treatment of LABAs and ICs is not associated with a higher risk of serious adverse events, compared to ICs alone. Major gaps identified were prospective design, paediatric population and inclusion of mortality as a primary outcome.

Economic evaluation of treatments for patients with localized prostate cancer in Europe: a systematic review

BackgroundOur objective was to assess the efficiency of treatments in patients with localized prostate cancer, by synthesizing available evidence from European economic evaluations through systematic review.MethodsArticles published 2000–2015 were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED (Prospero protocol CRD42015022063). Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies. We included European economic evaluations or cost comparison studies, of any modality of surgery or radiotherapy treatments, regardless the comparator/s. Drummond’s Checklist was used for quality assessment.ResultsAfter reviewing 8,789 titles, 13 European eligible studies were included: eight cost-utility, two cost-effectiveness, one cost-minimization, and two cost-comparison analyses. Of them, five compared interventions with expectant management, four contrasted robotic with non robotic-assisted surgery, three assessed new modalities of radiotherapy, and three compared radical prostatectomy with brachytherapy. All but two studies scored ≥8 in the quality checklist. Considering scenario and comparator, three interventions were qualified as dominant strategies (active surveillance, robotic-assisted surgery and IMRT), and six were cost-effective (radical prostatectomy, robotic-assisted surgery, IMRT, proton therapy, brachytherapy, and 3DCRT). However, QALY gains in most of them were small. For interventions considered as dominant strategies, QALY gain was 0.013 for active surveillance over radical prostatectomy; and 0.007 for robotic-assisted over non-robotic techniques. The highest QALY gains were 0.57–0.86 for radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting, and 0.72 for brachytherapy vs conventional radiotherapy.ConclusionsCurrently, relevant treatment alternatives for localized prostate cancer are scarcely evaluated in Europe. Very limited available evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy over watchful waiting, brachytherapy over radical prostatectomy, and new treatment modalities over traditional procedures. Relevant disparities were detected among studies, mainly based on effectiveness. These apparently contradictory results may be reflecting the difficulty of interpreting small differences between treatments regarding QALY gains.

Patient-reported outcomes after treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The aim of this systematic review is to assess the impact of primary treatments with curative intention in patients with localized prostate cancer, measured with Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), and to examine differences among modalities within treatments. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature search for January 2005-March 2017 following PRISMA guidelines, including longitudinal studies measuring disease-specific PROs in localized prostate cancer patients with a follow-up from pre- to post-treatment (≥1 year). Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The study is registered in PROSPERO: CRD42015019747. RESULTS Of 148 identified studies, 60 were included in the meta-analyses. At the 1st year, radical prostatectomy patients showed small urinary irritative-obstructive improvement (0.37SD 95%CI 0.30, 0.45), but large deterioration for sexual function and incontinence with high heterogeneity (I2 = 77% and 93%). Moderate worsening in external radiotherapy patients for sexual function (-0.46SD 95%CI -0.55, -0.36), small urinary incontinence (-0.16SD 95%CI -0.23, -0.09) and bowel impairment (-0.31SD 95%CI -0.39, -0.23). Brachytherapy patients presented small deterioration in urinary incontinence (-0.29SD 95%CI -0.39, -0.19), irritative obstructive symptoms (-0.35SD 95%CI -0.47, -0.23), sexual function (-0.12SD 95%CI -0.24, -0.002), and bowel bother (-0.27SD 95%CI -0.42, -0.11). These patterns persisted up to the 5th year. High-intensity focused ultrasound and active surveillance only have results at 1st year, showing no statistically significant worsening. CONCLUSIONS No remarkable differences in PRO appeared between modalities within each treatment. Nowadays, available evidence supports brachytherapy as possible alternative to radical prostatectomy for patients seeking an attempted curative treatment limiting the risk for urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction.

Adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS)

AbstractObjective The Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS) is a combined profile and utility-based quality of life measure for prostate cancer patients. Our objectives were to adapt the PORPUS into Spanish and to assess its acceptability, reliability, and validity.MethodsThe PORPUS was adapted into Spanish using forward and back translations and cognitive debriefing. PORPUS was administered jointly with the SF-36 and the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) to 480 Spanish prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. The Spanish PORPUS scores’ distribution and reliability were examined and compared with the original instrument. To evaluate construct validity, relationships were assessed between PORPUS and other instruments (testing hypotheses of the original PORPUS study), and among known groups defined by side effect severity.ResultsReliability coefficient was 0.76 (similar to the original PORPUS’ 0.81). Spanish PORPUS items presented correlations ranging 0.57–0.88 with the corresponding EPIC domains, as in the original PORPUS study (0.60–0.83). Both PORPUS-P and PORPUS-U showed significant differences and large effect sizes (0.94–1.90) when comparing severe versus no problem groups on urinary, bowel, sexual and hormonal side effects defined by EPIC.ConclusionsA conceptually equivalent Spanish version was obtained, with high reliability and good construct validity, similar to the original Canadian PORPUS version. It can therefore be used to measure health-related quality of life and utilities in Spanish prostate cancer patients.

Head-to-head comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in general population health surveys

BackgroundThe EQ-5D has been frequently used in national health surveys. This study is a head-to-head comparison to assess how expanding the number of levels from three (EQ-5D-3L) to five in the new EQ-5D-5L version has improved its distribution, discriminatory power, and validity in the general population.MethodsA representative sample (N = 7554) from the Catalan Health Interview Survey 2011–2012, aged ≥18, answered both EQ-5D versions, and we evaluated the response redistribution and inconsistencies between them. To assess validity of this redistribution, we calculated the mean of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), which measures perceived health. The discriminatory power was examined with Shannon Indices, calculated for each dimension separately. Spanish preference value sets were applied to obtain utility indices, examining their distribution with statistics of central tendency and dispersion. We estimated the proportion of individuals reporting the best health state in EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L within groups of specific chronic conditions and their VAS mean.ResultsA very small reduction in the percentage of individuals with the best health state was observed, from 61.8% in EQ-5D-3L to 60.8% in EQ-5D-5L. In contrast, a large proportion of individuals reporting extreme problems in the 3 L version moved to severe problems (level 4) in the 5 L version, particularly for pain/discomfort (75.5%) and anxiety/depression (66.4%). The average proportion of inconsistencies was 0.9%. The pattern of the perceived health VAS mean confirmed the hypothesis established a priori, supporting the validity of the observed redistribution. Shannon index showed that absolute informativity was higher in the 5 L version for all dimensions. The means (SD) of the Spanish EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L indices were 0.87 (0.25) and 0.89 (0.22). The proportion of individuals with the best health state within each specific chronic condition was very similar, regardless of the EQ-5D version (≤ 30% in half of the 28 chronic conditions).ConclusionAlthough the proportion of individuals with the best possible health state is still very high, our findings support that the increase of levels provided by the EQ-5D-5L contributed to the validity and discriminatory power of this new version to measure health in general population, as in the national health surveys.