Population-Based Outcomes Following Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer



Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer in American men and accounts for greater than 200,000 new cancer cases each year in the United States [1]. Although prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death, survival is favorable for most men. Currently, a number of different effective treatment modalities are used to manage prostate cancer, including surgery, external radiation therapy, interstitial radiation therapy, and ablative therapy such as cryotherapy. Outcomes following treatment vary according to disease factors (e.g., Gleason grade, pretreatment PSA levels, and disease stage) as well as treatment modality; however, most cancers are cured or controlled with local therapy. Other outcomes, such as functional outcomes, vary more substantially. Because survival is typically favorable regardless of therapy, greater focus has been placed on treatment-related morbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Several population-based studies have been used to assess these outcomes and arguably provide more accurate, real-world estimates of outcomes experienced by most patients when compared to results reported in single-surgeon or institutional case series. As a result, these population-based studies are applicable to the majority of patients treated for clinically localized prostate cancer because of the heterogeneity and community-based nature of the pooled population. This chapter will focus on several studies from three of the largest and most commonly used data sources: the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program (and SEER-Medicare), the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (PCOS), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) database.


Sexual Function Localize Prostate Cancer Anastomotic Stricture Urinary Function Open Radical Prostatectomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    SEER (NCI) website. Accessed 15 Aug 2012.
  3. 3.
    Begg C, Riedel E, Bach P, et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1138–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hu J, Gold K, Pashos C. Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:401–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hu J, Gu X, Lipsitz S, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs. open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302:1557–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith Jr J. Practice makes perfect. J Urol. 2008;180:1216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Barret E, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 240 procedures. Urol Clin North Am. 2001;28:189–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herrell S, Smith Jr J. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology. 2005;66(suppl):105–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hu J, Wang Q, Pashos C, et al. Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2278–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Potosky A, Harlan L, Stanford J, et al. Prostate cancer practice patterns and quality of life: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1719–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stanford J, Feng Z, Hamilton A, et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. JAMA. 2000;283:354–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Penson D, McLerran D, Feng Z, et al. Five-year urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Urol. 2005;173:1701–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Potosky A, Legler J, Albertsen P, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Postosky A, Davis W, Hoffman R, et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1358–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang G, Sadetsky N, Penson D. Health related quality of life for men treated for localized prostate cancer with long-term followup. J Urol. 2010;183:2206–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Litwin M, Pasta D, Yu J, et al. Urinary function and bother after radical prostatectomy or radiation for prostate cancer: a longitudinal multivariate quality of life analysis from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. J Urol. 2000;164:1973–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Le J, Cooperberg M, Sadetsky N, et al. Changes in specific domains of sexual function and sexual bother after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106:1022–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Litwin M, Flanders S, Pasta D, et al. Sexual function and bother after radical prostatectomy or radiation for prostate cancer: multivariate quality-of-life analysis from CaPSURE. Urology. 1999;54:503–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lubeck D, Litwin M, Henning J, et al. Changes in health-related quality of life in the first year after treatment for prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. Urology. 1999;53:180–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suggested Reading

  1. Sanda MG, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(12):1250–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyShands at the University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of Florida, College of MedicineGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations