Localized prostate cancer in Norway, the United States, and Spain: between-country differences of variables before treatment among patients eligible for curative treatment

Between-country differences in medical and sociodemographic variables, and patient-related outcomes (PROs) before treatment might explain published variations of side effects after radical prostatecomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RAD) for prostate cancer (PCa). This hypothesis was tested among 1908 patients from the United States, Spain, and Norway. Significant between-country differences were observed for most factors investigated before treatment. The observations should be considered in comparison of the frequency and severity of internationally published studies. Background: In men with PCa, large variations of PROs after RP or high-dose RAD might be related to betweencountry differences of medical and sociodemographic variables, and differences in PROs before treatment in the sexual and urinary domains. Patients and Methods: In 1908 patients with localized PCa from Norway, the United States, or Spain, the relation between medical (prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, cT-category) and sociodemographic variables (age, education, marital status) before treatment was investigated. Using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire, PROs before treatment within the sexual and urinary domains were also considered. Results: Compared with the European patients, American patients were younger, fewer had comorbid conditions, and more had a high education level. Fifty-three percent of the US men eligible for RP had low-risk tumors compared with 42% and 31% among the Norwegian and the Spanish patients, respectively. Among the Spanish RAD patients, 54% had had low-risk tumors compared with 34% of the American and 21% of the Norwegian men planned for RAD, respectively. Compared with the European patients, significantly fewer US patients reported moderate or severe sexual dysfunction and related problems. In most subgroups, the number of patients with sexual or urinary dysfunction exceeded that of patients with bother related to the reported dysfunction. Conclusion: Statistically significant between-country differences were observed in medical and sociodemographic variables, and in PROs before treatment within the sexual and urinary domains. Large differences between reported dysfunction and related problems within the sexual and urinary domains indicate that dysfunction and bother should be reported separately in addition to calculation of summary scores. The documented differences, not at least regarding PROs, might in part explain the large variation of side effects after treatment evident in the medical literatur