Contra RP (4). Bother function. RP. Davis et al, 2001 [27]. n.r.. 40.4 vs 25.2 p = âsigâ. Contra RP (1). Function. RP. Huang et al, 2010 [31]. 12. 36 vs 19. n.r.. n.a.. â.
Table S3 – Patient-reported outcomes: sexual End point
LDR-BT Study
Follow-
vs
up, mo
Score
OR (95% CI) or
Effect1
p value
BSFI, mean score Function
RP
Bradley et al, 2004 [22]
12
n.r.
8.2 (1.6–41.3)
Contra RP (1)
–
–
24
n.r.
2.5 (0.9–6.7)
diff. not sig.
–
–
36
n.r.
1.1 (0.2–4.8)
diff. not sig.
RP
Ferrer et al, 2008 [29]
24
n.r.
p < 0.001
Contra RP (2)
EBRT
Ferrer et al, 2008 [29]
24
n.r.
p = 0.01
Contra EBRT (1)
RP
Giberti et al, 2009 [30]
6
18.5 vs 16.3
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
12
21.9 vs 22.2
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
60
21.2 vs 22.0
n.r.
n.a.
RP
Giberti et al, 2009 [30]
6
58 vs 40
p = 0.024
n.a.
–
–
12
78 vs 68
p = 0.223
n.a.
–
–
60
68 vs 65
p = 0.719
n.a.
RP
Borchers et al, 2004 [21]
12
53 vs 42
p = 0.015
Contra RP (3)
EPIC, mean score Function IIEF, mean score Function
IIEF >22, % event Function
QLQ-PR25, mean score Function
End point
LDR-BT Study
Follow-
vs
up, mo
Score
OR (95% CI) or
Effect1
p value
RP
Giberti et al, 2009 [30]
6
10 vs 9
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
12
7 vs 7
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
60
8 vs 7
n.r.
n.a.
Function
RP
Davis et al, 2001 [27]
n.r.
32.2 vs 17.9
p = “sig”
Contra RP (4)
Bother function
RP
Davis et al, 2001 [27]
n.r.
40.4 vs 25.2
p = “sig”
Contra RP (1)
Function
RP
Huang et al, 2010 [31]
12
36 vs 19
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
24
38 vs 28
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
36
38 vs 30
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
48
35 vs 30
n.r.
n.a.
RP
Huang et al, 2010 [31]
12
46 vs 30
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
24
48 vs 39
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
36
47 vs 44
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
48
48 vs 46
n.r.
n.a.
RP
Kobuke et al, 2009 [33]
6
34 vs 6
p < 0.05
Contra RP (5)
–
–
12
39 vs 10
p < 0.05
Contra RP (–)
RP
Kobuke et al, 2009 [33]
6
72 vs 51
p = “not sig”
diff. not sig.
–
–
12
78 vs 62
p = “not sig”
diff. not sig.
UCLA-PCI, mean score
Bother function
Function Bother function
End point Function
LDR-BT Study
Follow-
vs
up, mo
RP
Malcolm et al, 2010 [36]
6
Score
OR (95% CI) or
Effect1
p value 77 vs 372
n.r.
n.a.
2
–
–
12
71 vs 43
n.r.
n.a.
RP
Malcolm et al, 2010 [36]
6
70 vs 282
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
12
63 vs 402
n.r.
n.a.
RP
Smith et al, 2009 [43]3
12
n.r.
5.0 (1.7–15.5)
Contra RP (6)
–
–
24
n.r.
3.8 (1.7–8.3)
Contra RP (–)
–
–
36
54.0 vs 34.7
4.4 (2.5–11.4)
Contra RP (–)
RP
Smith et al, 2009 [43]3
12
n.r.
1.7 (0.8–3.5)
diff. not sig.
–
–
24
n.r.
1.2 (0.6–2.2)
diff. not sig.
–
–
36
54.0 vs 34.7
1.6 (0.8–3.0)
diff. not sig.
Function
EBRT
Davis et al, 2001 [27]
n.r.
32.2 vs 26.0
p = “not sig”
diff. not sig.
Bother function
EBRT
Davis et al, 2001 [27]
n.r.
40.4 vs 40.0
p = “not sig”
diff. not sig.
Function
EBRT
Huang et al, 2010 [31]
12
36 vs 27
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
24
38 vs 29
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
36
38 vs 30
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
48
35 vs 28
n.r.
n.a.
EBRT
Huang et al, 2010 [31]
12
46 vs 50
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
24
48 vs 48
n.r.
n.a.
–
–
36
47 vs 49
n.r.
n.a.
Bother function Function
Bother function
Bother function
End point
Function
Bother function
Function
Bother function
LDR-BT Study
Follow-
vs
up, mo
Score
OR (95% CI) or
Effect1
p value
–
–
48
48 vs 51
n.r.
n.a.
EBRT
Smith et al, 2009 [43]
12
n.r.
0.6 (0.2–1.1)
diff. not sig.
–
–
24
n.r.
1.0 (0.4–2.6)
diff. not sig.
–
–
36
54.0 vs 32.0
1.3 (0.8–4.4)
diff. not sig.
EBRT
Smith et al, 2009 [43]
12
n.r.
0.4 (0.2–1.0)
diff. not sig.
–
–
24
n.r.
0.9 (0.3–1.9)
diff. not sig.
–
–
36
66.8 vs 57.6
1.1 (0.4–2.9)
diff. not sig.
NPT
Smith et al, 2009 [43]
12
n.r.
0.3 (0.1–0.6)
Pro NPT (1)
–
–
24
n.r.
0.5 (0.2–1.3)
diff. not sig.
–
–
36
54.0 vs 44.1
0.8 (0.4–2.2)
diff. not sig.
NPT
Smith et al, 2009 [43]
12
n.r.
0.4 (0.2–0.8)
Pro NPT (1)
–
–
24
n.r.
0.5 (0.2–1.0)
diff. not sig.
–
–
36
66.8 vs 65.9
0.7 (0.4–1.6)
diff. not sig.
LDR-BT = low–dose rate brachytherapy; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; BSFI = Brief Sexual Function Inventory; RP = radical prostatectomy; n.r. = not reported; diff. not sig. = difference between treatment groups not statistically significant; EPIC = Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite; EBRT = external-beam radiation therapy; IIEF = International Index of Erectile Function; n.a. = not applicable; QLQPR25 = European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Prostate Cancer 25 items; UCLA-PCI = University of California, Los Angeles, Prostate Cancer Index; “sig” = statistically significant as stated in the article; NPT = no primary treatment. 1
Count of statistically significant effects.
2
Malcolm et al, 2010: mean percent of baseline.
3
Smith et al, 2009: RP nerve-sparing technique.
