Journal of Cancer Research & Therapy
An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal
ISSN 2052-4994
- Download PDF
- |
- Download Citation
- |
- Email a Colleague
- |
- Share:
-
- Tweet
-
Journal of Cancer Research & Therapy
Volume 1, Issue 2, April 2013, Pages 105-110
Short reportOpen Access
Quantitative assessment of quality of life in New Zealand prostate cancer survivors: the effect of androgen deprivation therapy
- 1 Bond University Research Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Australia
- 2 Human Potential Centre, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
- 3 Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
- 4 Department of Psychology, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
- 5 Auckland City Hospitals, Auckland, New Zealand
- 6 North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
- 7 Hammond Care, Greenwich Hospital, Sydney, Australia
- 8 Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
*Corresponding author: Keogh JW, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, 4229, Australia, Tel.: +617 5595 4487; Fax: +617 5595 4480. E-mail: jkeogh@bond.edu.au
Received 1 January 2013 Revised 21 February 2013 Accepted 28 February 2013 Published 7 March 2013
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14312/2052-4994.2013-16
Copyright: © 2013 Keogh JW, et al. Published by NobleResearch Publishers. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
AbstractTop
Men with prostate cancer experience many challenges to their quality of life (QOL). While some of these challenges reflect the direct effects of the cancer, additional side-effects and symptoms are also associated with common treatments especially androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While several studies have examined the effects of ADT on the QOL of men with prostate cancer, much of this research is between 10-20 years old and was conducted in North America or Europe. This study therefore examined the effects of ADT on QOL in prostate cancer patients (survivors) in the Southern hemisphere. The registries of two New Zealand based hospitals were sourced to identify men with prostate cancer who were using ADT for at least six months (ADT group, n=205) and those who had never used ADT (non-ADT group, n=143). Participants in both groups were mailed a letter of invitation, the WHOQOL-BREF and three facets of the WHOQOL-OLD QOL questionnaire. Response rates of 41% and 40% were obtained for the ADT and non-ADT groups, respectively. QOL scores were generally similar between the groups, with the exception of physical QOL, which was significantly lower in the ADT group. Such results suggest that cancer clinicians, allied health professionals and cancer researchers should not just concentrate on the physical effect of ADT on their survivors’ risk of developing osteoporosis, falls-related fracture and cardio-metabolic syndrome, but also devote time to ensure their survivors’ perception of their physical QOL is not compromised.
Keywords: cancer survivorship; cancer therapy; hormonal therapy; quality of life; prostate cancer
IntroductionTop
Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer for men in many countries including New Zealand and Australia [1, 2]. As a result of high 5 year survival rates of 88% [2], 53,296 men are still alive 5 years post prostate cancer diagnosis in Australia. The high 5 year survival rates may reflect some combination of improvements in early detection and treatment modalities including surgical techniques, radiation therapy, chemotherapy and ADT [3].
Of these treatments, ADT is perhaps the most commonly prescribed, with ~50% of prostate cancer survivors likely to use ADT during their treatment [4, 5]. ADT reduces the cancer progression by blocking testosterone production, but this unfortunately contributes to many side-effects and symptoms. Such effects include significant changes in body composition (increased fat mass and reduced muscle and bone mass), reduced muscular strength, endurance, functional performance in activities of daily living and sexual function as well as increased levels of fatigue and rates of other chronic conditions including osteoporosis, falls-related fracture and metabolic syndrome [6, 8]. While men on ADT experience greater co-morbidity than their non-ADT peers, it is not completely clear how these ADT-related side-effects and symptoms affect their QOL, with several studies reporting relatively few significant differences in QOL between ADT and non-ADT prostate cancer survivors [9–11].
The relative lack of significant QOL differences, while perhaps a surprise due to the side-effects and symptoms associated with ADT may reflect several factors. The first is that the literature comprises studies that have compared prostate cancer survivors using ADT to prostate cancer survivors undergoing radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy [9] or active surveillance [9–12]. As ADT, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy all have known side-effects and symptoms [7, 13], a lack of many significant differences in the QOL of men using these therapies is of little surprise. Secondly, all of these studies were conducted in North America or Europe, with the North America studies involving data from 1994 and 1995 [9, 10]. As ADT treatment protocols have changed considerably since that time and may also differ across countries [14, 16], newer studies in other non-North American and European countries may be needed to better quantify the contemporary effect of ADT on QOL in men with prostate cancer. Another issue with these studies may concern the QOL tools used, with the studies generally using the SF-36 [9–11] although one study used the EORTC-C30 and sexual behaviour questionnaires (SBQ) [12]. While all of these QOL tools have adequate psychometric properties, the WHOQOL tools [17] have the added advantage of providing excellent cross-cultural validity due to the way in which they were developed [18]. Scores on the WHOQOL tools, especially those pertaining to physical and psychological QOL, are generally found to be moderately correlated with related components of the SF-36 [19], although the SF-36 appears to be much more likely to yield floor and ceiling effects [20]. The WHOQOL also captures a very wide range of relevant QOL issues, such as social and environmental QOL, thus extending QOL assessment beyond factors that are restricted only to direct concerns about disease and symptoms [19]. The subjective elements that are assessed by the WHOQOL tools distinguish them from more objective instruments, such as the SF-36. This means, for example, that the WHOQOL is able to differentiate between two prostate cancer survivors who may experience similar side-effects and symptoms, but who may have very different perceptions on how these impairments affect their QOL [18].
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use a cross-sectional design to examine the effects of current ADT usage on prostate cancer survivors’ QOL as assessed by the WHOQOL. Based on the prostate cancer QOL literature and the direct effects of ADT, it was hypothesised that the ADT group would exhibit reduced QOL across some domains, with the most likely difference being for physical QOL.
MethodsTop
Design
This study was a cross-sectional comparison of the QOL of prostate cancer survivors
currently on ADT for a minimum of six months and those who have never been on ADT.
All individuals who met these inclusions criteria were mailed a letter of invitation,
with no individuals with bone metastasis excluded. The inclusion of men with metastases
was done as national registry data suggests that 5% of men on ADT are diagnosed
with metastatic cancer within 18 months of starting ADT [21] and 12% of all prostate
cancer survivors will have metastatic disease by 2 years post-diagnosis [22]. The
results reported here compares the new data for prostate cancer survivors not using
ADT (non-ADT group) to previously published data for those using ADT (ADT group)
[23]. The same data collection procedures were used for the non-ADT group and the
previously published ADT group [23]. Both components of this study had approval
from the Auckland Regional Ethics Review Board (formerly known as Northern Y Ethics
Committee).
Participants and procedures
Non-ADT group:Using the database of the North Shore Hospital in Auckland,
New Zealand, all prostate cancer survivors who were not currently, and have never
been, on ADT were sent a letter inviting them to participate in the present study.
Of the 143 survivors who were identified and sent an invitation letter, 57 agreed
to participate and returned a questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 40%. The
initial letter of invitation included a cover letter that explained the study and
how they could participate. One week later, another letter was sent including an
information sheet, the WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-OLD questionnaires and a stamped return-addressed
envelope. In an attempt to improve the response rates [24], another letter package
including the WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-OLD was dispatched 2-4 weeks later thanking
those who had responded and encouraging those who had not returned the questionnaires
to do so. The mean age of this group was 67.9 years (SD=8.7).
ADT Group:Of the 205 survivors who were identified as being on ADT for longer than six months and sent an invitation letter to participate in the study, 84 men returned the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 41% [23]. This group had a mean age of 78.4 years (SD=8.2).
Measures
WHOQOL-BREF:The WHOQOL-BREF is the brief version of the World Health Organisation’s
QOL instrument, with items contributing to a score on the following QOL domains:
physical (7 items), psychological (6 items), social (3 items), and environmental
(8 items). The WHOQOL-BREF has been validated for use in older adults [25] and for
the New Zealand population [26].
WHOQOL-OLD: The WHOQOL-OLD is an optional add-on module to other WHOQOL measures to assess facets of QOL that are pertinent to older adults [27]. The original scale contains six facets of four items each. However, to minimize response burden, only items that were judged by the researchers as being most relevant were included. These were three of the six WHOQOL-OLD facets, namely autonomy, social participation, and death and dying. Only three of the four items of the facet death and dying were used in the present study to minimise participant burden. Prior to statistical analyses, these items were reverse coded so that a higher score represented elevated QOL, consistent with the other facets.
Statistical analyses
All data analyses were conducted using the program Statistics
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v.19. In total, 0.01 of all responses were
missing. Given the sample size, missing items on the WHOQOL-BREF were imputed by
the mean score on the other items that the participant rated on the same domain.
To maintain the ordinal structure of the scale, imputed scores were rounded. Missing
items were not imputed when more than half of the items on the sub-scale were missing,
in which case no sub-scale score was calculated for that respondent.
Differences between the ADT and non-ADT groups in terms of the WHOQOL-BREF domains and the three WHOQOL-OLD facets were tested using a MANCOVA, controlling for age and time since diagnosis. A significant difference in one of the domains was then followed up by an additional analysis that included an ageand gender matched general population sample collected one year earlier [26]. This reference group was further divided into participants who self-identified as unwell and well, thus yielding a total of four groups to be compared (non-ADT, ADT, general population Well, and general population Unwell). Because no WHOQOL-OLD scores were available for the Unwell and Well groups, and there was no variable time since diagnosis for these groups, this comparison was made using an ANCOVA, controlling for age, and followed up with post-hoc tests. To minimize inflation of Type-1 error, the ANCOVA was only conducted to explore differences in the WHOQOL-BREF domain that yielded a significant difference in the above MANCOVA. The mean ages of the Well and Unwell groups were 65.2 years (SD=9.6) and 70.2 years (SD=10.1), respectively. The minimum age was 51 years for the Well, Unwell, and non-ADT groups, and 58 years for the ADT group.
ResultsTop
A description of the two cancer samples is given in Table 1. Both groups were similar in ethnicity and time since diagnosis, although the ADT group were significantly older and had a higher prostate specific antigen (PSA) level.
ADT (n81 | Non-ADT (n57) | |
Age (yrs)* | 78.4(8.2) | 67.9(8.7) |
Ethnicity | 70 (84%) | 47 (82%) |
European other | 11 (16%) | 10 (18%) |
PSA (ng/mL)* | 9.2 (22.1) | 2.4 (6.6) |
Time since diagnosis (yrs) | 5.5 (3.8) | 5.5 (2.9) |
Duration of ADT (yrs) | 3.9 (3.6) | 0.0 (0.0) |
Average number of comorbidities | 0.7 (0.9) | 0.6 (0.5) |
Except for ethnicity, all values shown in parentheses are standard deviations.
*Significant difference between the two groups.
Table 2 shows the mean scores of the four WHOQOL-BREF domains as well as the WHOQOL-OLD facet scores autonomy, social participation, and death and dying. A multivariate analysis of co-variance, comparing the ADT with the non-ADT group on all of the seven dependent variables shown in Table 2 and controlling for age and time since diagnosis, revealed no significant group effect overall (F(7, 110)=0.36, p<.05). However, the difference on physical QOL was significant (F(1, 116)=5.86, p<.05). This difference was not driven by a limited number of items, but the ADT group had lower scores on every item of the physical domain. This difference was also significant, when PSA levels were controlled for instead of time since diagnosis (F(1, 106)=5.21, p<.05). Only the ADT and non-ADT groups had data for all seven dependent variables in Table 2, and therefore the Well and Unwell groups were not included in the above MANCOVA. To provide a comparison with the Well and Unwell groups, a subsequent univariate analysis of co-variance with age as a co-variate was conducted to explore group differences on the physical QOL domain. The group effect was significant (F(1, 299)=20.24, p<.001). Except for the comparison between the non-ADT versus Reference Values Well, all Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analyses yielded a significant result (Table 2).
ADT (n81) | non-ADT (n57) | Reference Values Well (n40) | Reference Values Unwell (n128) | |
WHOQOL-BREF | ||||
Physical | 24.67 (4.91) | 27.39 (4.38) | 27.80 (3.83) | 21.98 (5.85) |
Psychological | 23.21 (3.51) | 23.47 (3.45) | 23.43 (3.76) | 21.00 (3.73) |
Social | 11.38 (2.72) | 11.93 (2.26) | 11.77 (2.04) | 10.83 (2.02) |
Environmental | 32.58 (4.51) | 32.60 (4.20) | 32.59 (4.19) | 30.53 (4.53) |
WHOQOL-OLD | ||||
Autonomy | 16.01 (2.86) | 16.02 (2.42) | ||
Social Participation | 14.18 (3.68) | 14.63 (2.66) | ||
Death and Dying | 12.01 (3.39) | 11.98 (3.07) |
Values in parentheses are standard deviations. For two reference values groups (age and gender matched data from the New Zealand general population, divided into self-identified well versus unwell; Krägeloh et al. [26] only domain scores were available.
*p<.05 (MANCOVA, ADT vs non-ADT); the results from an ANCOVA, including all four groups and with physical QOL as the dependent variable, yielded the following significant post-hoc comparisons: p<.01 (ANCOVA, ADT vs non-ADT); p<.01 (ANCOVA, ADT vs Well); p<.05 (ANCOVA, ADT vs Unwell); n.s. (ANCOVA, non-ADT vs Well); p<.01 (ANCOVA, non-ADT vs Unwell); p<.01 (ANCOVA, Well vs Unwell).
DiscussionTop
Due to the very high 5 year survival rates for a number of cancers including that of the prostate [2], a greater amount of research is now focusing on the wider issues of cancer survivorship rather than just how to reduce mortality rates. A major focus of this survivorship research is concerned with gaining an insight into the effect of long-term usage of common treatments on various aspects of QOL and how traditional and complementary therapies may offset these treatment-related issues. This study extends some of the literature in this area as the mean duration of ADT usage in this study of 4 years was substantially greater than the durations of 0.5-2 years ADT cited previously.
The main findings of the current study were that the ADT and non-ADT groups had very similar QOL. Of the four WHOQOL-BREF domains (Psychological, Social and Environmental) and three WHOQOL-OLD facets (autonomy, social participation or death and dying), the only significant difference was that the ADT group had significantly reduced physical QOL compared to the non-ADT and general population Well groups. The significantly reduced physical QOL for the ADT group was consistent with older North American [11] and European [12] studies’ findings and likely reflects the significant physical side-effects and symptoms seen with prolonged ADT usage [6–8].
In contrast to the results for physical QOL, no significant differences in other three QOL domains and three facets were observed between the ADT and all other groups. While such a result is consistent with several other studies [9–11], it appeared substantially different to van Andel and Kurth [12] who observed significant reductions in several EORTC-C30 (emotional function and global QOL) and SBQ domains (erectile dysfunction, sexual interest, sexual activity, sexual pleasure) QOL domains as well as increase in fatigue and hot flushes for the ADT group. However, the EORTC-C30 and some domains of the SBQ may be criticised as being more of a symptom checklist than a true assessment of an individual’s perceptions of their QOL [28]. Therefore it is quite possible that since the ADT group had been on ADT for a mean of approximately 4 years that they may have become accustomed to these side-effects and symptoms, so that they no longer perceived them as reducing their QOL, but that they were a regular part of their everyday life. Such a view is consistent with Potosky et al. [29] who observed that men with prostate cancer who were 2 years post-radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy had significant differences in several symptoms but no significant differences in QOL. Collectively, these results further support the contention of QOL researchers that assessing symptoms does not necessarily correlate to individuals’ perceptions of their QOL, especially if such symptoms have existed for an extended period of time.
The significant loss of physical but no other QOL domains and facets in the ADT group suggest that cancer clinicians and allied health professionals should monitor and regularly devote some time to discussing issues affecting physical QOL with their patients on ADT [30]. While considerable research has focused on improving chemo-radiation, surgical and pharmacological techniques to reduce side-effects and symptoms and/or maintain physical QOL in prostate cancer survivors on ADT [31, 32], cancer patients and survivors may also benefit from research examining complementary therapies focusing on increasing physical activity levels or improving nutritional intake. Physical activity programs, especially those involving resistance training show much promise in improving various domains of QOL as well as body composition and physical function, thereby reducing the risk of osteoporosis, falls related fracture and cardio metabolic syndrome [33].
This study is not without its limitations. Its sample size per group was moderate in comparison to the literature, being considerably greater than some studies [11, 12] but substantially less than others [9, 10]. However, as these larger studies involved North American data sets from 1994 and 1995, the applicability of their results to how ADT is currently used in the southern hemisphere is somewhat unclear. This potential lack of applicability of these older studies to the current situation in the southern hemisphere may reflect changes in ADT procedures over this period of time, potential northern vs southern hemisphere difference in treatment approaches as well as differences in cultural attitudes between these countries. As with other survey based studies, the issue of how representative this sample of prostate cancer survivors are of the population is always some concern. However, the responses rates of ~40% in the current study were comparable to other studies in this area [13, 34]. Further, as a cross-sectional comparison, it is not possible to determine causation, so that these differences in QOL may have been influenced by differences in these groups’ perceptions of their QOL prior to the cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. Additionally, the ADT and non-ADT were not matched according to disease characteristics such as prevalence of bone metastases, and comparisons therefore relied on statistical control of covariates.
ConclusionTop
Overall, the results of this study suggest that cancer clinicians and allied health professionals should strive to routinely monitor and discuss issues affecting the physical QOL of their prostate cancer patients on ADT as well as the more common outcomes including bone mineral density, PSA levels and risk of cardio-metabolic syndrome. While the lack of significant differences in the other QOL domains and facets was contrary to our hypothesis, it may reflect a combination of several factors. These could potentially include: 1) reduced side-effects of contemporary compared to historical ADT practices; 2) the men on ADT had become accustomed to ADT’s side-effects and symptoms over several years and therefore did not feel it affected many aspects of their QOL; or 3) the challenges of using quantitative questionnaires to assess QOL in clinical populations. Future research may wish to use longitudinal research designs involving mixed-method data collection approaches to better understand the effect of ADT on QOL in prostate cancer survivors and to examine the effect of traditional oncological and complementary therapies on improving their physical QOL and reducing the risk of developing additional comorbidities.
Funding
We wish to thank the Cancer Society of New Zealand who funded this project [grant
number 09/20].
Conflict of interest
The authors wish to express that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
We would also like to thank all of the men with prostate cancer who participated
in this project and to Miss Julia Osborne who assisted with data collection for
the non-ADT group.
ReferencesTop
[1] Ministry of Health (2010) Cancer: New registrations and deaths 2006. Ministry of Health, Wellington. Article
[2] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2010) Cancer in Australia: an overview. Article
[3] Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Szabo A, Falcon S, et al. (2008) Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer Causes Control 19:175–181. Article Pubmed
[4] Shahinian VB, Kuo YF, Freeman JL, Orihuela E, Goodwin JS (2005) Increasing use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for the treatment of localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 103:1615–1624. Article Pubmed
[5] Meng MV, Grossfeld GD, Sadetsky N, Mehta SS, Lubeck DP, et al. (2002) Contemporary patterns of androgen deprivation therapy use for newly diagnosed prostate cancer Urology 60:7–11. Article Pubmed
[6] Galvão DA, Taaffe DR, Spry N, Joseph D, Turner D, et al. (2009) Reduced muscle strength and functional performance in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen suppression: a comprehensive cross-sectional investigation. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 12:198–203. Article Pubmed
[7] Gomella LG (2007) Contemporary use of hormonal therapy in prostate cancer: managing complications and addressing quality-of-life issues. BJU Int 99:25–29. Article Pubmed
[8] Bylow K, Mohile SG, Stadler WM, Dale W (2007) Does androgen-deprivation therapy accelerate the development of frailty in older men with prostate cancer: a conceptual review. Cancer 110:2604–2613. Article Pubmed
[9] Penson DF, Feng Z, Kuniyuki A, McClerran D, Albertsen PC, et al. (2003) General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer: what influences outcomes? Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Clin Oncol 21:1147–1154. Article Pubmed
[10] Potosky AL, Reeve BB, Clegg LX, Hoffman RM, Stephenson RA, et al. (2002 Quality of life following localized prostate cancer treated initially with androgen deprivation therapy or no therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:430–437. Article Pubmed?
[11] Dacal K, Sereika SM, Greenspan SL (2006) Quality of life in prostate cancer patients taking androgen deprivation therapy. J Am Geriatr Soc 54:85–90. Article Pubmed
[12] van Andel G, Kurth KH (2003) The impact of androgen deprivation therapy on health related quality of life in asymptomatic men with lymph node positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol 44:209–214. Article Pubmed
[13] Bestmann B, Loetters C, Diemer T, Weidner W, Küchler T, et al. (2007) Prostate-specific symptoms of prostate cancer in a German general population. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 10:52–59. Article Pubmed
[14] Organ M, Wood L, Wilke D, Skedgel C, Cheng T, et al. (2012) Intermittent LHRH Therapy in the Management of Castrate-resistant Prostate Cancer (CRPCa): Results of a Multi-institutional Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial. Am J Clin Oncol doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e31825d5664. Article Pubmed
[15] Al-Shamsi HO, Lau AN, Malik K, Alamri A, Ioannidis G, et al. (2012) The current practice of screening, prevention, and treatment of androgen-deprivation-therapy induced osteoporosis in patients with prostate cancer. J Oncol doi: 10.1155/2012/958596. Article Pubmed
[16] Spry NA, Kristjanson L, Hooton B, Hayden L, Neerhut G, et al. (2006) Adverse effects to quality of life arising from treatment can recover with intermittent androgen suppression in men with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 42:1083–1092. Article Pubmed
[17] WHOQOL Group. (1995) The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med 41:1403–1409. Pubmed
[18] Skevington SM (2002) Advancing cross-cultural research on quality of life: observations drawn from the WHOQOL development. World Health Organisation Quality of Life Assessment. Qual Life Res 11:135–144. Article Pubmed
[19] Bonomi AE, Patrick DL, Bushnell DM, Martin M (2000) Validation of the United States’ version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument. J Clin Epidemiol 53:1–12. Article Pubmed
[20] Hsiung PC, Fang CT, Chang YY, Chen MY, Wang JD (2005) Comparison of WHOQOL-bREF and SF-36 in patients with HIV infection. Qual Life Res 14:141–150. Article Pubmed
[21] Abouassaly R, Paciorek A, Ryan CJ, Carroll PR, Klein EA (2009) Predictors of clinical metastasis in prostate cancer patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy: results from CaPSURE. Cancer 115:4470–4476. Article Pubmed
[22] Nørgaard M, Jensen AØ, Jacobsen JB, Cetin K, Fryzek JP, et al. (2010) Skeletal related events, bone metastasis and survival of prostate cancer: a population based cohort study in Denmark (1999 to 2007). J Urol 184:162–167. Article Pubmed
[23] Keogh JWL, Shepherd D, Krägeloh CU, Ryan C, Masters J et al. (2010) Predictors of physical activity and quality of life in New Zealand prostate cancer survivors undergoing androgen-deprivation therapy. N Z Med J 123:20-29. Article Pubmed
[24] Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, et al. (2002) Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 324:1183. Article Pubmed
[25] von Steinbüchel N, Lischetzke T, Gurny M, Eid M (2006) Assessing quality of life in older people: psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF. Eur J Ageing 3:116–122. Article
[26] Krägeloh CU, Kersten P, Rex Billington D, Hsu PH, Shepherd D, et al. (2012) Validation of the WHOQOL-BREF quality of life questionnaire for general use in New Zealand: confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res.doi: 10.1007/s11136-11012-0265-0269. Article Pubmed
[27] Peel NM, Bartlett HP, Marshall AL. (2007) Measuring quality of life in older people: Reliability and validity of WHOQOL-OLD. Australas J Ageing 26:162–167. Article
[28] Dahele M, Fearon KH. (2006) Functional Parameters of Nutrition. In: Mantovani G, Anker S, Inui A, Morley J, Fanelli F et al., editors. Cachexia and Wasting: A Modern Approach. Milan: Springer pp 125–135.
[29] Potosky AL, Legler J, Albertsen PC, Stanford JL, Gilliland FD, et al. (2000) Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1582–1592. Article Pubmed
[30] Keogh JW, Jones L (2011) The importance of promoting physical activity for cancer survivorship. (invited editorial). N Z Med J 124:4–9. Article Pubmed
[31] Woodward EJ, Brown JE (2012) Denosumab in the treatment of bone metastases. Clin Invest 2:519–526. Article
[32] Loriot Y, Massard C, Fizazi K (2012) Recent developments in treatments targeting castration-resistant prostate cancer bone metastases. Ann Oncol 23:1085–1094. Article Pubmed
[33] Keogh JW, MacLeod RD (2012) Body composition, physical fitness, functional performance, quality of life, and fatigue benefits of exercise for prostate cancer patients: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 43:96–110. Article Pubmed
[34] Munch TN, Strömgren AS, Pedersen L, Petersen MA, Hoermann L, et al. (2006) Multidimensional measurement of fatigue in advanced cancer patients in palliative care: an application of the multidimensional fatigue inventory. J Pain Symptom Manage 31:533–541. Article Pubmed