ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S2602

Clinical - Urology

ESTRO 2024

Purpose/Objective:

To assess patient-reported outcomes measures ( PROMs ) Quality of Life (QoL) scores evolution along the treatment, and the QoL worsening due to specific toxicity, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, in prostate cancer patients.

Material/Methods:

We performed a single institutional study evaluating patient-reported outcomes measures.We compare the results of the different QoL scales using EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires in all the participant patients, at baseline (M0), at the end of treatment (M1) and 4 months after treatment (M4). High scores on a functional scale correspond to better functioning, Minimal Important Differences (MID) were defined as small differences (5-10 points), moderated differences (10-20) and large differences (above 20). Clinical important differences were defined above 10 points.

Results:

A preliminary analysis after the enrollment of the first 100 patients was performed. 79 patients treated for prostate cancer between 2022 and 2023 had completed the 3 questionnaire evaluations. 49 patients had high and very high risk prostate cancer, 14 patients had intermediate risk, 9 patients had low risk and 6 patients had postoperative treatment. 60.7% of these patients were treated with exclusive EBRT and 39.2% with HDR brachytherapy boost. Androgen deprivation therapy was administered in 84.8% of the patients.

All the patients completed the QLQ assessment. We found no differences in physical functioning, Role functioning, and Cognitive functioning.

Global health status at the worst toxicity point (after RT treatment, M1) was 65.51 (versus basal 81.33), recovering to basal values at M4 (80.02). Emotional functioning basal value was (73.31), versus M1 (81.12), and M4 (86.54).

Social functioning basal values scale result was 95.78, versus 77.00 at M1 and 93.38 at M4. When analyzing the two components of the social functioning scale separately, we found that the worsening was higher in the social dimension (M0 95.78 vs M1 74.69) than in the familiar dimension (M0 95.78 vs M1 79.32). Image1.

Image 1.