https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index ${session.getAttribute("locale")} 5 https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:55724 2 x the threshold for minimal clinically important change (2 x MCIC) for each domain. Results: At 5, 17, and 29 months after radiation therapy, the EBRT+BT group had 2.5 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.2; P < .001), 2.9 times (95% CI, 1.7-4.9; P < .001), and 2.6 times (95% CI, 1.4-4.6; P = .002) greater odds of reporting 2 x MCIC in urinary QOL score compared with EBRT. There were no differences beyond 29 months. EBRT+BT led to a slower rate of urinary QOL symptom score resolution up to 17 months after radiation therapy compared with EBRT (P < .001) but not at later intervals. In contrast, at the end of the radiation therapy period and at 53 months after radiation therapy, the EBRT+BT group had 0.65 times (95% CI, 0.44-0.96; P = .03) and 0.51 times (95% CI, 0.32-0.79; P = .003) the odds of reporting 2 x MCIC in bowel QOL symptom scores compared with EBRT. There were no significant differences in the rate of bowel QOL score resolution. There were no significant differences in global health status or sexual activity scores between the 2 groups. Conclusions: There were no persistent differences in patient-reported QOL measures between EBRT alone and EBRT+BT. BT boost does not appear to negatively affect long-term, patient-reported QOL.]]> Wed 19 Jun 2024 09:41:14 AEST ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:40374 Wed 13 Mar 2024 08:55:36 AEDT ]]>