Erectile and urinary function in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer: results from the Finnish arm of the PRIAS trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.45022Keywords:
PROM, IIEF, IPSS, QoL, long-term follow upAbstract
Objective: To evaluate longitudinal changes in urinary function (UF) and erectile function (EF) in a prospective active surveillance (AS) cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), and to correlate urinary and sexual satisfaction with quality of life (QoL).
Material and methods: The final cohort consisted of 359 men from the Finnish arm of the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) trial. Erectile function was assessed using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) questionnaire and UF using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire at baseline and at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 years. Correlation analyses were performed between EF, UF, and QoL. Factors influencing EF and UF, including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, and number of biopsies, were analysed.
Results: In all, 255 (71%) men completed the IIEF-15 and 262 (73%) the IPSS questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. The median IIEF-15 score at baseline was 56 (interquartile range [IQR] 28–65), decreasing to 42 (IQR 12–62) after 5 years. Median IPSS scores increased from 7 (4–13 IQR) at baseline to 10 (5.5–14.5 IQR) at 3 years. Overall sexual satisfaction and IPSS QoL remained stable throughout follow-up.
Conclusion: AS did not cause short-term disturbances in EF or UF, as measured by standardised IIEF-15 and IPSS questionnaires. Although EF and UF significantly declined over the longest follow-up reported in the literature, overall sexual satisfaction and urinary QoL remained unaffected, suggesting that functional deterioration did not substantially impact patient-perceived QoL during AS.
Downloads
References
Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1046–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062
Dall’Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):976–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.072 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.072
Lokman U, Vasarainen H, Lahdensuo K, et al. Prospective longitudinal health-related quality of life analysis of the Finnish Arm of the PRIAS active surveillance cohort: 11 years of follow-up. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8(5):1151–1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.06.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.06.008
Lardas M, Liew M, van den Bergh RC, et al. Quality of life outcomes after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72(6):869–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.035 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.035
Jeldres C, Cullen J, Hurwitz LM, et al. Prospective quality-of-life outcomes for low-risk prostate cancer: active surveillance versus radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2015;121(14):2465–2473. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29370 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29370
Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1425–1437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606221
Lane JA, Donovan JL, Young GJ, et al. Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment [ProtecT] study). BJU Int. 2022;130(3):370–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15739 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15739
Kinsella N, Stattin P, Cahill D, et al. Factors influencing men’s choice of and adherence to active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a mixed-methods systematic review. Eur Urol. 2018;74(3):261–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.02.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.02.026
Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, et al. The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1997;49(6):822–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0
Homma Y, Kawabe K, Tsukamoto T, et al. Estimate criteria for diagnosis and severity in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc. 1996;3(4):261–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.1996.tb00531.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.1996.tb00531.x
van den Bergh RCN, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2007;52(6):1560–1563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.05.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.05.011
Blanker MH, Alma HJ, Devji TS, et al. Determining the minimal important differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score and Overactive Bladder Questionnaire: results from an observational cohort study in Dutch primary care. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e032795. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032795
Johansson E, Steineck G, Holmberg L, et al. Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting with or without androgen deprivation therapy: the SPCG-4 randomized trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1(2):134–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.003
Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ, et al. Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(2):132–142. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1615869 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1615869
Gades NM, Jacobson DJ, McGree ME, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of sexual function in a male cohort: the Olmsted county study of urinary symptoms and health status among men. J Sex Med. 2009;6(9):2455–2466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01374.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01374.x
Johannes CB, Araujo AB, Feldman HA, et al. Incidence of erectile dysfunction in men 40 to 69 years old: longitudinal results from the Massachusetts male aging study. J Urol. 2000;163(2):460–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67900-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67900-1
Pearce SM, Wang CHE, Victorson DE, et al. A longitudinal study of predictors of sexual dysfunction in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Sex Med. 2015;3(3):156–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/sm2.78 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sm2.78
Tuncel A, Toprak U, Balci M, et al. Impact of transrectal prostate needle biopsy on erectile function: results of power Doppler ultrasonography of the prostate. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2014;30(4):194–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2013.11.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2013.11.004
Fujita K, Landis P, McNeil BK, et al. Serial prostate biopsies are associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2664–2669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.044
Bokhorst LP, Lepistö I, Kakehi Y, et al. Complications after prostate biopsies in men on active surveillance and its effects on receiving further biopsies in the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study. BJU Int. 2016;118(3):366–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13410
Ahlberg MS, Adami HO, Beckmann K, et al. PCASTt/SPCG-17-a randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer: rationale and design. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e027860. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027860 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027860
Rosen R, Altwein J, Boyle P, et al. Lower urinary tract symptoms and male sexual dysfunction: the multinational survey of the aging male (MSAM-7). Eur Urol. 2003;44(6):637–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2003.08.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2003.08.015
Yassin A, Saad F, Hoesl CE, et al. Alpha-adrenoceptors are a common denominator in the pathophysiology of erectile function and BPH/LUTS--implications for clinical practice. Andrologia. 2006;38(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0272.2006.00709.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0272.2006.00709.x
Arredondo SA, Downs TM, Lubeck DP, et al. Watchful waiting and health related quality of life for patients with localized prostate cancer: data from CaPSURE. J Urol. 2004;172(5 Pt 1):1830–1834. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000140758.04424.77 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000140758.04424.77
Traish AM, Hassani J, Guay AT, et al. Adverse side effects of 5α-reductase inhibitors therapy: persistent diminished libido and erectile dysfunction and depression in a subset of patients. J Sex Med. 2011;8(3):872–884. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02157.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02157.x
Åkerla J, Pesonen JS, Peltonen E, et al. Do men adapt to lower urinary tract symptoms? An 11-year longitudinal study of male urinary urgency and associated bother. Scand J Urol. 2024;59:47–53. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.18289 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.18289
Fukuta F, Masumori N, Mori M, et al. Natural history of lower urinary tract symptoms in Japanese men from a 15-year longitudinal community-based study. BJU Int. 2012;110(7):1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10866.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10866.x
Maljkovic J, Bill-Axelson A, Hållberg H, et al. Time trends for the use of active surveillance and deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer in Sweden: a nationwide study. Scand J Urol. 2024;59:200–206. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.40123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.40123
Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, O’Leary MP, et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol. 1992;148(5):1549–1557; discussion 1564. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)36966-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)36966-5
Narang GL, Pannell SC, Laviana AA, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27(4):366–374. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000412 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000412
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Oleg Kerro, Inari Kalalahti, Utku Lokman, Hanna Vasarainen, Antti Rannikko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
