Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31615476›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2019

Quality of life among symptomatic compared to PSA-detected prostate cancer survivors - results from a UK wide patient-reported outcomes study.

David W Donnelly, Linda C Vis, Therese Kearney, Linda Sharp, Damien Bennett, Sarah Wilding, Amy Downing, Penny Wright, Eila Watson, Richard Wagland and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Is the digital rectal exam any good as a prostate cancer screening test?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

David W DonnellyNorthern Ireland Cancer Registry, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6DP, Northern Ireland, UK. david.donnelly@qub.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0076-7685
Linda C VisNorthern Ireland Cancer Registry, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6DP, Northern Ireland, UK.
Therese KearneyNorthern Ireland Cancer Registry, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6DP, Northern Ireland, UK.
Linda SharpInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England.
Damien BennettNorthern Ireland Cancer Registry, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6DP, Northern Ireland, UK.
Sarah WildingLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Amy DowningLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Penny WrightLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Eila WatsonDepartment of Midwifery, Community and Public Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, England.
Richard WaglandFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, England.
William R CrossDepartment of Urology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, England.
Malcolm D MasonDivision of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales.
Sabine SieslingDepartment of Health Technology & Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Jeannette G van ManenDepartment of Health Technology & Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Adam W GlaserLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Anna GavinNorthern Ireland Cancer Registry, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6DP, Northern Ireland, UK.

Funding

Movember Foundation (GB) BO26/MOProstate Cancer UK BO26/MO
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality of life among prostate cancer survivors varies by socio-demographic factors and treatment type received; however, less in known about differences in functional outcomes by method of presentation. We investigate differences in reported urinary, bowel, sexual and hormone-related problems between symptomatic and PSA-detected prostate cancer survivors.

methodsA UK wide cross-sectional postal survey of prostate cancer survivors conducted 18-42 months post-diagnosis. Questions were included on presentation method and treatment. Functional outcome was determined using the EPIC-26 questionnaire. Reported outcomes were compared for symptomatic and PSA-detected survivors using ANOVA and multivariable log-linear regression.

resultsThirty-five thousand eight hundred twenty-three men responded (response rate: 60.8%). Of these, 31.3% reported presenting via PSA test and 59.7% symptomatically. In multivariable analysis, symptomatic men reported more difficulty with urinary incontinence (Adjusted mean ratio (AMR): 0.96, 95% CI: 0.96-0.97), urinary irritation (AMR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.95-0.96), bowel function (AMR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.97-0.98), sexual function (AMR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92), and vitality/hormonal function (AMR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.96-0.96) than PSA-detected men. Differences were consistent across respondents of differing age, stage, Gleason score and treatment type.

conclusionProstate cancer survivors presenting symptomatically report poorer functional outcomes than PSA-detected survivors. Differences were not explained by socio-demographic or clinical factors. Clinicians should be aware that men presenting with symptoms are more likely to report functional difficulties after prostate cancer treatment and may need additional aftercare if these difficulties persist. Method of presentation should be considered as a covariate in patient-reported outcome studies of prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeAftercareAgedAge FactorsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsSelf ReportTreatment OutcomeProstate-Specific AntigenPatient-reported outcomesPresentationProstate cancerPSAQuality of lifeSymptoms

Identifiers

PMID31615476
PMCPMC6792209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.