Sexual Function Following Radical Prostatectomy

A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Cultural Differences Between Japanese and American Men

Published in: Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, v. 11, no. 3, Sep. 2008, p. 298-302

Posted on on January 01, 2008

by Shunichi Namiki, Lorna Kwan, Marjorie Kagawa-Singer, Tatsuo Tochigi, Naomasa Ioritani, Akito Terai, Yoichi Arai, Mark Litwin

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

The authors conducted a cross-cultural comparison of the recovery of sexual function and bother during the first 2 years after radical prostatectomy (RP) between American and Japanese men. A total of 275 Japanese and 283 American men who underwent RP alone were prospectively enrolled into longitudinal cohort studies of health-related quality of life outcomes. Sexual function and bother (distress) were estimated with English and validated Japanese versions of the UCLA Prostate Cancer Index before RP and 1, 2-3, 4-6, 12, 18 and 24 months after RP. Each subject served as his own control. Japanese men reported lower sexual function scores at baseline, even after adjusted for age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and comorbidity (38 vs 61, P<0.001). The two groups had similar baseline sexual bother (70 vs 69, P=0.84). Japanese men had a smaller improvement in sexual function (=0.8 vs =5.3) and bother (=0.2 vs =2.9) over time than did the American men postoperatively, after adjusting for baseline score, age, baseline PSA and nerve-sparing. American men were more likely than Japanese men to regain their baseline sexual function by 24 months after surgery (hazard ratio (HR)=1.60; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.06-2.42). In contrast, American men were less likely than Japanese men to return to baseline sexual bother (HR=0.57; 95% CI=0.44-0.75). This study demonstrates that Japanese and American men experience different patterns of recovery of their sexual function and bother after RP. Ethnicity may be a contributing factor.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.