Advertisement

Correction to: Health-related quality of life among long-term (≥5 years) prostate cancer survivors by primary intervention: a systematic review

  • Salome Adam
  • Anita Feller
  • Sabine Rohrmann
  • Volker Arndt
Open Access
Correction

Correction

The original article [1] contains errors whereby some information provided in Tables 2 and 5 in the online version is missing in the PDF version; in addition, some details regarding the study by Mols et al., Johnstone et al. and Fransson et al. (2008) in Tables 1 and 5 require correction.
Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

 

At survey ≥ 5 years

Mean/ Median (Range)a

At diagnosisg

First Author/ Year, Country

Study Design

Sample

Size (n)

Intervention (%)

Age at survey (years)

Follow-up timef

(years)

Cancer Stage (%)

Berg, A/ 2007, Norway [35]

Hospital-based observational prospective monocentric cohort study

64

EBRT (100) [+ADT (44.0)]e

66c (48-81)

11 (10 – 16)

Localized PC (33.0)

Locally advanced PC (67.0)

Brundage, M/ 2015, UK and US [36]

Hospital-based mulitcentric randomized controlled trial

85-111d

1. ADT (50.0)c

2. ADT + EBRT (50.0)c

69.7c (65.5 – 73.5)

(5 – 8)

Locally advanced PC (100.0)

Donovan, J L / 2016, UK [37]

Population-based multicentric randomized controlled trial

1413-1463d

1. AS (33.2)

2. RP (33.7)

3. EBRT (33.1)

62c

(5 – 6)

Localized PC (100.0)

Fransson, P/ 2008, Sweden [38]

Hospital-based observational prospective monocentric cohort study

64

1. EBRT (42.2) +ADT (20.3)

2. Controls (57.8)

78.1 (62 – 87)

14.7 (13.5 – 16.4)

Localized PC (89.9)

Locally advanced PC (11.1)

Fransson, P/ 2009, Sweden [39]

Hospital-based observational monocentric retrospective cohort study

54

1. EBRT (50.0)

2. WW (50.0)

78 (54 – 88)

9.6 (6.4 – 16.3)

Local PC (100.0)

Galbraith, M E/ 2005, US [40]

Hospital-based observational prospective monocentric cohort study

137

1. WW (11.5)c

2. RP (21.4)c

3. EBRT – C (9.9)b,c

4. EBRT - PB (11.5)b,c

5. EBRT - MB (20.3) b,c

6. EBRT -LD (13.7)b,c

7. EBRT - HD (17)b,c

69.9c

5.5

No information

Giberti, C/ 2009, Italy [41]

Hospital-based monocentric randomized controlled trial

174

1. RP (44.5)

2. BT (55.5)

65.3c (56 – 74)c

5

Localized PC (100.0)

Johnstone, P A S/ 2000, US [42]

Hospital based observational monocentric prospective cohort study

46

EBRT (100.0)

[+ ADT (43.5)]4

80 (62 – 90)

13.9 (10 – 23)

Localized PC

Locally advanced PC

Mols, F/ 2006, Denmark [43]

Population-based observational retrospective cohort study

780

1. RP (32.9)

2. EBRT (41.4)

3. ADT (13.7)

4. WW (11.9)

75

(5-10)

Localized PC (76.0)

Locally Advanced PC (18.0)

Unknown (6.0)

Namiki, S/ 2011, Japan [44]

Hospital-based observational prospective monocentric cohort study

111

1. RP (43.2) + ADT (48)

2. EBRT (56.8) + ADT (100.0)

69.5c (53 – 84)

5

Locally Advanced PC (100.0)

Namiki, S/ 2014, Japan [45]

Hospital-based observational prospective monocentric cohort study

91

RP (100.0)

63.9c

8.5 (7.1 – 10.25)

Localized PC (94.5)

Locally Advanced PC (5.5)

Shinohara, N/ 2013, Japan [46]

Hospital-based observational monocentric prospective cohort study

67

1. EBRT (32.4)

2. RP (67.6)

682 (53 – 79)

5

Localized PC (93.4)

Locally Advanced PC (6.6)

Thong, M S/ 2010, Netherlands [47]

Population-based observational retrospective cohort study

142

1. AS (50.0) [+ ADT (2.8)/ +RP (1.4)/ + EBRT (7)/ + EBRT + ADT (1.4)]e

2. EBRT (50) + [RP (7)/ + ADT (2.8)/ +EBRT (1.4) + EBRT + ADT (1.4)]e

75.8

7.8

Localized PC (100)

RP Radical Prostatectomy, EBRT External Beam Radiotherapy (refers to the external delivery of any type of radiation), BT Brachytherapy, WW Watchful Waiting, AS Active Surveillance, ADT Androgen Deprivation Therapy

aMean/Medians for total sample

bEBRT-C — Conventional radiation; EBRT-HD — High-dose mixed-beam radiation; EBRT-LD — Low-dose mixed-beam radiation; EBRT-MB — Standard protocol/mixed-beam radiation; EBRT-PB — Proton beam radiation

cSample size/Age at enrolment in study or randomisation

dSample sizes at different time points ≥ 5 years

eSecondary intervention(s)

fEither time since diagnosis or time since randomization

gCategorization: local PC – T1 & T2, locally advanced PC T3 & T4

Table 2

Summary table of study characteristics

Characteristic

Frequency

Study Design

Randomized controlled trial

Observational prospective cohort study

Observational retrospective cohort study

3

7

3

Recruitment

Monocentric hospital-based

Multicentral hospital-based

Population-based

9

1

3

Comparison: Intervention vs. general population*

RP

EBRT

ADT

WW

AS

 

X

    

2

 

X1a

   

5

  

X

  

1

   

X

 

1

    

X

1

Comparison between different interventions*

RP

EBRT

ADT

WW

AS

 

X

X

  

X

1

X

Xd

   

1

X

X

   

1

 

X vs. Xc

   

1

 

Xc

X

  

1

 

X

  

X

1

 

X

 

X

 

1

X

X

X

X

 

1

X

Xe

 

X

 

1

X

Xf

   

1

Sample sizes (total population)

<100

101 – 200

780

1463 (after 5 years since randomization) respectively 1413 participants (6 years since randomization)

6

5

1

1

Years since diagnosis/randomization

Long-term survivors (5-10 years after diagnosis)

Very long-term survivors (10 + years after diagnosis)

10

3

Stage at diagnosis

Localized (T1/T2) PC

Locally advanced (T3/T4 any N1/M1) PC

Localized & locally advanced PC

No information

3

2

7

1

Recurrent PC survivors

No information

Excluded

Included

10

1g

2

Progressive PC survivors

No information

Excluded

Included

5

3

5

aSome studies had multiple comparisons

b“Plus ADT and/or clinical progression”

cplus ADT

dBrachytherapy

eEBRT-C — Conventional radiation; EBRT-HD — High-dose mixed-beam radiation; EBRT-LD — Low-dose mixed-beam radiation; EBRT-MB — Standard protocol/mixed-beam radiation; EBRT-PB — Proton beam radiation

fBrachytherapy

gExcluded because they died

Table 5

Main findings on HRQoL in observational studies

Comp.

Study

Key Findings

Potential Limitation(s)

S1a

Thong, M S/ 2010 [47]

Comparison: AS vs. EBRT, follow-up timeb: 7.8 years, mean aged: 75.8 years

- No significant differences in HRQoL between AS and EBRT on the QOL-CS scales

- In multivariate models EBRT was significantly negatively associated with physical functioning, bodily pain dimensions, QOL-CS spiritual and total well-being scores

Subgroup analyses: exclusion of clinically progressed cancer survivors

- Above results remain unchanged

Comparison: AS or EBRT vs. controls from the general population, follow-up timeb: 7.8 years, mean aged: 75.8 years

- PC survivors reported comparable HRQoL scores compared to age-matched, normative population, except in role physical PC survivors treated with EBRT reported significantly (p<0.05) worse mean compared to controls from the general population

- No baseline data available

S2

Namiki, S/ 2011 [44]

Comparison: RP vs. EBRT, follow-up timeb: 5 years, meane: 69.5 years

- Patterns of alterations over time in intervention groups were different in physical function (p<0.001), role physical (p<0.001), role emotional (p<0.001) and vitality (p=0.027), whereas survivors treated with RP had higher scores in all domains

- Sample size <70 in all study arms

- (Repeated ANOVA-tests: only changes over time are shown)

- No confounding control

- No adjustment for attrition error

S3a

Berg, A/ 2007 [35]

Comparison: EBRT + ADT/clinical progression vs. controls from the general population, follow-up timeb: 10-16 years, median agee: 66 years

- Worse clinically relevant scores for survivors in social functioning scales and higher burden with insomnia and diarrhea

Comparison: EBRT vs. controls from the general population, follow-up timec: 10-16 years, median agee: 66 years

- Clinically relevant higher burden for PC survivors with diarrhea

- Sample size <100 in all study arms

- No confounding control

- No significance statistical test

-No adjustment for attrition error

S3a

Fransson, P/ 2008 [38]

Comparison: EBRT vs. controls from the general population, follow-up timec: 15 years, mean aged: 78.1 years

- Significantly different (p<0.05) worse mean for PC survivor in role function (clinically important difference)f and higher burden with appetite loss, diarrhea (clinically important difference)f, nausea/vomiting and pain

Comparison: EBRT vs. EBRT + ADT, follow-up timec: 15 years, mean aged: 78.1 years

- No significant differences were observed among intervention groups in measures of general health-related or cancer-related QoL

- Sample size <100 in study arms

- No confounding control

- No adjustment for attrition error

S3

Fransson, P/ 2009 [39]

Comparison: EBRT vs. WW, follow-up timec: 10 years, median aged: 78 years

- No significant differences were observed between groups in measures of general health-related or cancer-related QoL

- Sample size <100 in both study arms

S3

Johnstone, P A S/ 2000 [42]

Comparison: EBRT (plus ADT) vs. controls from the general population, follow-up timec: 13.9 years, median aged: 80 years

- Clinically important differencesf but worse scores for PC survivors in role emotional and vitality not statistically relevant

- Sample size <70 in study arm

- No statistical significance test performed

- No confounding control

- No baseline data

S3

Mols, F/ 2006 [43]

Comparison: RP vs. EBRT (plus ADT) vs. ADT vs. WW, follow-up timeb: 5-10 years, aged: average 80 years

- PC survivors who underwent RP had, in general, the highest HRQoL, followed by survivors who received WW and patients who received EBRT. Survivors who received ADT had the lowest physical HRQL, in general.

- Significantly different means between intervention groups in physical functioning (p < 0.001, clinical important differencef) and physical well-being (p = 0.02). Clinically important differencesf in vitality among group means, but not significantly different means.

- PC survivors treated with EBRT reported a significantly (p < 0.05) worse mean in physical functioning compared to survivors treated with RP

- Survivors treated with ADT reported a significantly (p<0.05) worse mean in physical functioning and vitality compared to survivors treated with RP

Subgroup analyses – age groups: <75 years vs. ≥75 years

- In general, HRQoL scores were higher for younger survivors than for older survivors

Comparison: RP or EBRT or ADT or WW vs. general population, 5-10 years after diagnosis

- PC survivors reported comparable HRQoL scores compared to an age-matched, normative population group

- PC survivors treated with RP, EBRT and WW reported less problems with bodily pain than population controls

- Sample size <70 in two (ADT & WW) out of 4 study arms in general analyses

- Sample size <70 in three out of 4 study arms (RP, ADT & WW) in subgroup analyses

- No baseline data available

S3

Namiki, S/ 2014 [45]

Comparison: RP vs. controls from the general population, follow-up timec: 8.3 years, mean aged: 63.9 years

- No significant differences were observed among the groups in measures of general health-related or cancer-related quality of life

- Sample size <70 in study arms

- No adjustment for attrition error

S3a

Shinohara, N/ 2013 [46]

Comparison: EBRT vs. RP, localized and locally advanced PC, follow-up time: 5 years, mean/median age: 68 years

- No significant differences were observed among the groups in measures of general health-related or cancer-related QoL

- Sample size <70 in all study arms

- No adjustment for attrition error

- No confounding control

X

Galbraith, M E/ 2005 [30]

Comparison: EBRT – LDg, EBRT – Cg vs. WW, follow-up timec: 5.5 years, aged: average 69.7 years

- Regardless of type of intervention, health-related QOL and general health tend to decrease for prostate cancer survivors

- PC survivors in WW tended to have poorer health outcomes

- Sample size <70 in all study arms

- No confounding control

- For growth curve analyses plots are printed badly, so it cannot be distinguished between intervention arms

- For comparisons at specific time points it is not explained which statistical tests was used

- P-values are not shown for all comparisons, not explained for which reasons some results are not shown

- No adjustment for attrition error

Comp. Comparison group

S1: HRQoL by primary intervention in long-term survivors with localized PC; S2: HRQoL by intervention in long-term survivors with locally advanced PC; S3: HRQoL by intervention in long-term survivors with localized or locally advanced PC; X: No assignment possible as study revealed no information about cancer stage

Studies were ordered by stage information and within each group alphabetically.

As potential limitations, the following criteria were considered: (1) sample size 100 per study arm for studies using EORTC-C30 and 70 for studies using SF-36 70 (2) adjustment for attrition error (3) statistical significance tests performed (4) adjustment for attrition error (only prospective cohort studies) (5) baseline data available (6) reporting of appropriate results.

Definition of clinically meaningful difference: EORTC QLQ-C30: min. 10 points difference; SF-36: min. 5 points difference in general health dimension, min 6.5 points in physical dimension, 7.9 points in mental health dimension.

aInlcusion of PC survivors with disease progression

bTime since diagnosis

cTime since enrolment in study

dAge at survey

eAge at enrollment in study

fNot reported, but clinically meaningful difference

gEBRT-LD — Low-dose mixed-beam radiation, EBRT-C — Conventional radiation

As such, the corrected tables can be seen ahead.

Reference

  1. 1.
    Adam S, Feller A, Rohrmann S, Arndt V. Health-related quality of life among long-term (≥5 years) prostate cancer survivors by primary intervention: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):22.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0836-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salome Adam
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anita Feller
    • 3
  • Sabine Rohrmann
    • 1
  • Volker Arndt
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention InstituteUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Unit of Cancer Survivorship, Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging ResearchGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.National Institute for Cancer Epidemiology and Registration (NICER)University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.National Institute for Cancer Epidemiology and Registration (NICER)University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  5. 5.Unit of Cancer Survivorship, Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging ResearchGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations