Background and Objectives: Lifestyle and dietary behaviors are increasingly recognized as important factors influencing symptom management and quality of life (QoL) in patients with rheumatic diseases. However, evidence remains limited regarding how specific lifestyle patterns interact with sociodemographic and clinical variables to shape patient-reported outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between diet, lifestyle behaviors, and self-perceived QoL in a cohort of patients with rheumatic conditions. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 350 adults with rheumatic diseases completed a structured questionnaire covering sociodemographic data, rheumatologic diagnosis and treatment, dietary behaviors, lifestyle factors (physical activity, sleep, smoking, alcohol), and QoL assessments (scales 1–10). Statistical analyses included descriptive measures, Chi-square tests, correlation analyses, logistic regression, and linear regression models to identify predictors of QoL. Results: The majority of participants were female (86.9%) and aged between 26 and 55 years. Urban patients were more likely to attribute a positive influence of diet on QoL, while rural participants reported stronger disease burden. Logistic regression showed that adherence to a special diet significantly increased the odds of reporting good QoL. Linear regression identified sleep quality (β = 0.42), perceived dietary influence (β = 0.29), and physical activity (β = 0.18) as independent predictors of QoL (adjusted R² = 0.47, all p < 0.001). Correlation analyses further revealed that disease burden negatively impacted emotional well-being and sleep, while dietary influence correlated positively with QoL. Conclusions: This study highlights the multidimensional role of diet and lifestyle in shaping QoL in patients with rheumatic diseases. Alongside pharmacological treatment, targeted lifestyle interventions focusing on nutrition, physical activity, and sleep hygiene may substantially improve patient outcomes. Future longitudinal studies are warranted to confirm these associations and explore causal mechanisms.

Introduction: Prostate cancer is one of the most common neoplasia in men, and its clinical evolution is highly influenced by psycho-emotional factors, especially in elderly patients. Comorbidities, the perception of one’s identity and its impact on life quality become relevant variables in the therapeutic decision. Sexual dysfunction after treatment along with decreased libido, erectile dysfunction and ejaculatory dysfunction are significant problems in patients with prostate cancer. Case presentation: The present study presents the oncological evolution of an elderly patient with a dual diagnosis, prostate adenocarcinoma and lung squamous cell carcinoma, who faced a significant amount of medical and psychological challenges. Reluctance to hormone therapy was closely linked to the fear of sexual dysfunction, a very common reaction in elderly men concerned with maintaining autonomy and intimacy. The peculiarity of the case consists in the interaction between the evolution of the disease, the therapeutic decisions and the psychological impact on the patient. Discussion: Androgen deprivation therapy negatively influences multiple aspects of sexual function, significantly impairing the life quality of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. In this context, therapy through acceptance and commitment is the appropriate one, its main purpose being to change the patient’s relationship with suffering—from struggle and rejection to active acceptance and value of the present. The intervention of the psychologist or the psychotherapist is essential in decision-making counseling, using coping techniques, the clarification of personal values and the involvement of the family in the decision-making process. Oncological psychology helps the patient redefine their life goals and priorities, not just to choose a treatment. Conclusions: Sexuality and psychological health are deeply affected by prostate cancer. Psychological flexibility and emotional support can mitigate this negative impact. The integration of therapy through acceptance and commitment in the rehabilitation after treatment increases effectiveness and patient satisfaction.

Background: Despite advances in prostate cancer (PC) radiotherapy, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities remain important complications. Identifying reliable predictors is essential for personalized treatment. Objective: The aim of this study was to summarize current evidence on clinical, dosimetric, immunological, and genetic predictors of acute and late GU and GI toxicities after PC radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: A structured literature review of studies published between 2000 and 2026 was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Europe PMC. Eligible studies included clinical investigations, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and reviews assessing toxicity according to RTOG and/or CTCAE criteria. Results: GU toxicity was associated with pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), large prostate volume, prior TURP, smoking, alpha-blocker use, and bladder/urethral dose. GI toxicity correlated with rectal dose–volume parameters, anorectal irradiation, anticoagulant therapy, and cardiovascular comorbidities. Acute grade ≥ 2 toxicity predicts late toxicity. Preliminary data from small single-center cohorts associate elevated IL-6, TGF-β1, TNF-α, and systemic immune-inflammation index with higher toxicity risk, and higher lymphocyte counts with lower risk; these findings require prospective validation. The PROSTOX radiogenomic signature is promising for the prediction of late GU toxicity but still requires independent external validation in larger, ethnically diverse cohorts with longer follow-up, and is not currently suitable for routine clinical decision-making. Conclusions: GU and GI toxicities have distinct predictive profiles. Integrating clinical, dosimetric, immunological, and genetic factors may improve personalized radiotherapy, although prospective multicenter validation remains necessary.