Patient-Reported Outcomes After Radiation Therapy in Men With Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Prognostic Tool Accuracy and Validity

Michael E. O’Callaghan, Elspeth Raymond, Jared M. Campbell, Andrew D. Vincent, Kerri Beckmann, David Roder, Sue Evans, John McNeil, Jeremy Millar, John Zalcberg, Martin Borg, Kim Moretti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)


Purpose To identify, through a systematic review, all validated tools used for the prediction of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients being treated with radiation therapy for prostate cancer, and provide a comparative summary of accuracy and generalizability. Methods and Materials PubMed and EMBASE were searched from July 2007. Title/abstract screening, full text review, and critical appraisal were undertaken by 2 reviewers, whereas data extraction was performed by a single reviewer. Eligible articles had to provide a summary measure of accuracy and undertake internal or external validation. Tools were recommended for clinical implementation if they had been externally validated and found to have accuracy ≥70%. Results The search strategy identified 3839 potential studies, of which 236 progressed to full text review and 22 were included. From these studies, 50 tools predicted gastrointestinal/rectal symptoms, 29 tools predicted genitourinary symptoms, 4 tools predicted erectile dysfunction, and no tools predicted quality of life. For patients treated with external beam radiation therapy, 3 tools could be recommended for the prediction of rectal toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, and erectile dysfunction. For patients treated with brachytherapy, 2 tools could be recommended for the prediction of urinary retention and erectile dysfunction. Conclusions A large number of tools for the prediction of PROMs in prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy have been developed. Only a small minority are accurate and have been shown to be generalizable through external validation. This review provides an accessible catalogue of tools that are ready for clinical implementation as well as which should be prioritized for validation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)318-337
Number of pages20
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2017

Cite this