EQUINOXE study: Impact of relational cohesion and sexuality on the quality of life of patients treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for prostate cancer

Stéphane Droupy, Marie-Hélène Colson, Nathalie Pello-Leprince-Ringuet, Valérie Perrot, Aurélien Descazeaud, Stéphane Droupy, Marie-Hélène Colson, Nathalie Pello-Leprince-Ringuet, Valérie Perrot, Aurélien Descazeaud

Abstract

Objectives: To measure the effect of dyadic adjustment on changes in patients' quality of life when initiating treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist.

Patients and methods: A prospective, multicenter, longitudinal, and non-interventional study (NCT02630641) that included patients with prostate cancer starting GnRH agonist therapy, and their partners, in 157 centers in France. Data were collected at inclusion and after 6 months of treatment on quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF), disease perception (B-IPQ), disease symptoms (QLQ-PR25), and perception of cohesion within the couple (dyadic adjustment, DAS-16).

Results: The Full Analysis Set included 492 patients (median age [Q1;Q3]: 74 [68;80] years). An improvement of the quality of life (defined as the improvement of at least one of the four dimensions of WHOQOL-BREF) was reported in 290/434 (67%) patients between baseline and follow-up. Quality of life was better at baseline and follow-up in patients with good cohesion within the couple than in those with medium or poor cohesion. Factors associated with improvement in quality of life of patients were the following: initial presence of QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms (OR [95% CI]: 3.00 [1.46, 6.17]) suggesting testosterone deficiency symptoms at baseline and initial low level (2.04 [1.12, 3.72]) or absence of sexual activity (2.23 [1.11, 4.50]) before GnRH agonist initiation.

Conclusion: Men with the greatest improvement in quality of life after initiating hormone therapy were those with, at baseline, testosterone deficiency symptoms (identified by QLQ-PR25 treatment-related symptoms score) or no/low sexual activity. Cohesion within the couple was not confirmed as an influence on the evolution of quality of life.

Keywords: dyadic adjustment; gonadotropin‐releasing hormone; prostate cancer; quality of life; relational cohesion.

Conflict of interest statement

Stéphane Droupy: Ipsen, Menarini, Majorelle, AMS, Intuitive Surgical, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Takeda, Ferring. Marie‐Hélène Colson: Allergan, Astellas, Astra‐Zeneca, Bayer santé familiale, Biopharm, Boston, Bouchara‐Recordati, Ferring SA, Genévrier, Ipsen, Lilly SA, Majorelle, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer santé de la famille. Aurélien Descazeaud: Bouchara Recordati, Ipsen, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Takeda. Nathalie Pello‐Leprince‐Ringuet and Valérie Perrot are employees of Ipsen.

© 2021 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Patient disposition. M0, month 0 (baseline); M6, Month 6; CRF, Case report form; GnRH, Gonadotropin‐releasing hormone
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Quality of life WHOQOL‐BREF score for (A) patients and (B) partners—Full Analysis Set. * Significant evolution (P <.05); p‐value paired Student's t test. Bars are mean +SD, SD, standard deviation; WHOQOL‐BREF, World Health Organization Quality‐of‐Life Scale; range 0‐100, higher scores mean better evaluation
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
DAS of the patient and partner—Full Analysis Set. DAS, Dyadic Adjustment Scale; range 0‐154, higher scores mean better dyadic adjustment; p‐value paired. Student's t‐test

References

    1. Defossez G, Le Guyader‐Peyrou S, Uhry Z, Grosclaude P, Colonna M, Dantony E, et al. National estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in metropolitan France between 1990 and 2018. Santé publique France; 2019.
    1. Sharpley CF, Bitsika V, Christie DRH. The worst thing was…: Prostate cancer patients' evaluations of their diagnosis and treatment experiences. Am J Mens Health. 2018;12:1503–9.
    1. Lafaye A, Petit S, Richaud P, Houede N, Baguet F, Cousson‐Gelie F. Dyadic effects of coping strategies on emotional state and quality of life in prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Psychooncology. 2014;23:797–803.
    1. Bouregba A, Lebret T. Prostate cancer, the urologist, the patient, and treatment. Ann Urol (Paris). 2007;41:S87–91.
    1. Saini A, Berruti A, Cracco C, Sguazzotti E, Porpiglia F, Russo L, et al. Psychological distress in men with prostate cancer receiving adjuvant androgen‐deprivation therapy. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:352–8.
    1. Lebret T, Culine S, Davin J‐L, Hennequin C, Mignard J‐P, Moreau J‐L, et al. Quality of life of 1276 elderly patients with prostate cancer, starting treatment with a gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonist: results of a French observational study. The Aging Male. 2014;17:87–93.
    1. Soloway CT, Soloway MS, Kim SS, Kava BR. Sexual, psychological and dyadic qualities of the prostate cancer “couple”. BJU Int. 2005;95:780–5.
    1. Gore JL, Krupski T, Kwan L, Maliski S, Litwin MS. Partnership status influences quality of life in low‐income, uninsured men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2005;104:191–8.
    1. Volk RJ, Cantor SB, Cass AR, Spann SJ, Weller SC, Krahn MD. Preferences of husbands and wives for outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:339–48.
    1. Droupy S. Quality of life after localized prostate cancer treatment. Prog Urol. 2009;19:S163–7.
    1. Kim Y, Kashy DA, Wellisch DK, Spillers RL, Kaw CK, Smith TG. Quality of life of couples dealing with cancer: dyadic and individual adjustment among breast and prostate cancer survivors and their spousal caregivers. Ann Behav Med. 2008;35:230–8.
    1. Manne S, Badr H. Intimacy and relationship processes in couples' psychosocial adaptation to cancer. Cancer. 2008;112:2541–55.
    1. Lafaye A, Cousson‐Gélie F, Petit S, Bouisson J. Cancer de la prostate et relation conjugale: point de vue du patient et de sa conjointe. Résultats préliminaires. Psycho‐Oncologie. 2007;1:246–51. 10.1007/s11839-007-0056-7
    1. von Steinbuchel N, Lischetzke T, Gurny M, Eid M. Assessing quality of life in older people: psychometric properties of the WHOQOL‐BREF. Eur J Ageing. 2006;3:116–22.
    1. Baumann C, Erpelding ML, Regat S, Collin JF, Briancon S. The WHOQOL‐BREF questionnaire: French adult population norms for the physical health, psychological health and social relationship dimensions. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2010;58:33–9.
    1. Spanier G. Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. J Marriage Fam. 1976;38:15.
    1. Antoine P, Christophe V, Nandrino J‐L. Échelle d’ajustement dyadique: intérêts cliniques d’une révision et validation d’une version abrégée. L’Encéphale. 2008;34:38–46.
    1. Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, Weinman J. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:631–7.
    1. van Andel G, Bottomley A, Fosså SD, Efficace F, Coens C, Guerif S, et al. An international field study of the EORTC QLQ‐PR25: a questionnaire for assessing the health‐related quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:2418–24.
    1. Lebret T, Davin J‐L, Hennequin C, Latorzeff I, Mignard J‐P, Moreau J‐L, et al. Selection criteria for initiation and renewal of luteinizing hormone‐releasing hormone agonist therapy in patients with prostate cancer: a French prospective observational study. Ther Adv Urol. 2014;6:205–14.
    1. Lebret T, Ruffion A, Latorzeff I, Zerbib M, Moreau J‐L, Rossi D, et al. Criteria for indication and treatment modification in a cohort of patients with prostate cancer treated with hormone therapy. Ther Adv Urol. 2018;10:365–76.
    1. Badr H, Carmack CL, Kashy DA, Cristofanilli M, Revenson TA. Dyadic coping in metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychol. 2010;29:169–80.
    1. Jenewein J, Zwahlen RA, Zwahlen D, Drabe N, Moergeli H, Buchi S. Quality of life and dyadic adjustment in oral cancer patients and their female partners. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2008;17:127–35.
    1. Giannousi Z, Karademas EC, Dimitraki G. Illness representations and psychological adjustment of Greek couples dealing with a recently‐diagnosed cancer: dyadic, interaction and perception‐dissimilarity effects. J Behav Med. 2016;39:85–93.
    1. Wittmann D, Northouse L, Crossley H, Miller D, Dunn R, Nidetz J, et al. A pilot study of potential pre‐operative barriers to couples' sexual recovery after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Sex Marital Ther. 2015;41:155–68.
    1. Badr H, Krebs P. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of psychosocial interventions for couples coping with cancer. Psychooncology. 2013;22:1688–704.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅