Open Access 01-12-2018 | Correction
Correction to: Health-related quality of life among long-term (≥5 years) prostate cancer survivors by primary intervention: a systematic review
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2018
Login to get accessExcerpt
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.
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)
|
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
|
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
|