(107) Evaluating the Impact of Prior Prostate Cancer Hormonal Therapy on Satisfaction Rates in Post Implantation of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis
Authors: Khalaf Alla K , Jacob J , Desai I , Wang R 
Published: March 2024

Introduction

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a vital treatment modality for prostate cancer, effectively reduces androgens (testosterone & dihydrotestosterone) through inhibiting its production or blocking its action, thereby impeding the growth and even causing shrinkage of prostate cancer cells. It has been utilized in the treatment of early-stage, recurrent, and metastatic cases of prostate cancer. Common side effects were hot flashes, fatigue, decreased bone density, mood changes, decrease libido and sexual dysfunction. Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation has already emerged as a highly successful treatment option, garnering significant satisfaction rates among the general population with erectile dysfunction (ED) and specifically in prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (XRT). Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of literature examining satisfaction rates specifically in patients with hormonal therapy history post-IPP implantation

Objective

Our study aims to comprehensively evaluate patient satisfaction rates post IPP implantation for ED, in relation to their ADT status for prostate cancer.

Methods

A retrospective chart review from our institutional database was conducted to identify 529 patients who underwent IPP at our institution by a single surgeon from 2017 to 2022. Eligible patients for inclusion included those with histological confirmation of prostate cancer treated by RP or XRT with or without hormonal therapy, followed by IPP implantation for ED, and had completed the 11-item Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) validated questionnaire with data available for review. All EDITS questionnaires were administered at least 6 months from operative date or later. Eligible patients were screened for placement into one of two groups depending on their ADT status. To prevent crossover confounding; patients with history of other types of hormonal therapy for non prostate cancer patients were excluded.

Results

A total of 96 patients were included and categorized into group 1 (ADT, n=30) and group 2 (No ADT, n=66). All patients' demographics were summarised in Table 1. The study revealed notable results regarding the impact of ADT on post IPP satisfaction rates which exhibited a significantly lower EDITS score compared to group 2 (P= 0.034) (Figure 1). Furthermore, group 1 showed no significant changes in post IPP satisfaction with relation to type of prostate cancer treatment offered. While group 2 demonstrated a significantly higher EDITS score post IPP in RP patients compared to XRT, which aligns with the reported literature.

Conclusions

Our initial findings suggest that despite IPP implantation for managing erectile dysfunction, which is expected to yield high satisfaction rates compared to other available treatment options, Yet the previous or ongoing history of androgen deprivation therapy continues to influence such patients' satisfaction. These observations provide valuable insights; however, further investigation on a larger scale is essential to validate these trends. Additionally, it is crucial to offer proper counseling to these patients regarding the expected outcomes to assist them in making informed decisions regarding the management of their ED. Lastly, the routine use of validated questionnaires has demonstrated significant value in quantifying device and sexual satisfaction following IPP implantation and should be considered as an integral evaluation tool

Disclosure

No.