BACKGROUND: Men with early-stage prostate carcinoma can choose aggressive treatment or conservative management. The authors used data from a population-based cohort of men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma to describe satisfaction with treatment decisions 24 months after diagnosis and to examine the association of demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics with treatment satisfaction. METHODS: The authors evaluated 2365 men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma, diagnosed between October 1994 and October 1995, in one of six Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results tumor registries and who were available for 24 month follow-up. Medical record review and patient-completed surveys provided demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical data and measured treatment satisfaction. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall, 59.2% of subjects were delighted or very pleased with their treatment selection. The perception of being cancer free (66.4%), maintaining urinary (64.2%) and bowel (60.5%) control and normal erectile function (65.9%), having good general health (71.3%), and preserving social relationships (68.1%) were significantly associated with being satisfied (P < 0.05). Men receiving no active treatment were less satisfied (50.5%, P < 0.001) than actively treated men, and Hispanic men were less satisfied than non-Hispanic white men after undergoing radical prostatectomy (50.1% vs. 58.0%, P = 0.05) or androgen deprivation (29.7% vs. 71.8%, P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of men were satisfied with their treatment selection for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Receiving an active treatment, believing oneself to be free of cancer, avoiding treatment complications, and having good overall health and social support were positively associated with satisfaction. Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.11233
BACKGROUND:Men with early-stage prostate carcinoma can choose aggressive treatment or conservative management. The authors used data from a population-based cohort of men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma to describe satisfaction with treatment decisions 24 months after diagnosis and to examine the association of demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics with treatment satisfaction. METHODS: The authors evaluated 2365 men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma, diagnosed between October 1994 and October 1995, in one of six Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results tumor registries and who were available for 24 month follow-up. Medical record review and patient-completed surveys provided demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical data and measured treatment satisfaction. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall, 59.2% of subjects were delighted or very pleased with their treatment selection. The perception of being cancer free (66.4%), maintaining urinary (64.2%) and bowel (60.5%) control and normal erectile function (65.9%), having good general health (71.3%), and preserving social relationships (68.1%) were significantly associated with being satisfied (P < 0.05). Men receiving no active treatment were less satisfied (50.5%, P < 0.001) than actively treated men, and Hispanic men were less satisfied than non-Hispanic white men after undergoing radical prostatectomy (50.1% vs. 58.0%, P = 0.05) or androgen deprivation (29.7% vs. 71.8%, P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of men were satisfied with their treatment selection for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Receiving an active treatment, believing oneself to be free of cancer, avoiding treatment complications, and having good overall health and social support were positively associated with satisfaction. Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.11233
Authors: Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Meredith M Regan; Matthew R Cooperberg; John T Wei; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Larry Hembroff; Natalia Sadetsky; Christopher S Saigal; Mark S Litwin; Eric Klein; Adam S Kibel; Daniel A Hamstra; Louis L Pisters; Deborah A Kuban; Irving D Kaplan; David P Wood; Jay Ciezki; Rodney L Dunn; Peter R Carroll; Martin G Sanda Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frank J Penedo; Lara Traeger; Jason Dahn; Ivan Molton; Jeffrey S Gonzalez; Neil Schneiderman; Michael H Antoni Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2007
Authors: Myung Kyung Lee; Byung Ho Son; Sook Yeon Hwang; Wonshik Han; Jung-Hyun Yang; Seeyoun Lee; Young Ho Yun Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-02-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Patricia I Moreno; Amelie G Ramirez; Sandra L San Miguel-Majors; Rina S Fox; Leopoldo Castillo; Kipling J Gallion; Edgar Munoz; Ryne Estabrook; Arely Perez; Thomas Lad; Courtney Hollowell; Frank J Penedo Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Young Kyung Do; William R Carpenter; Pamela Spain; Jack A Clark; Robert J Hamilton; Joseph A Galanko; Anne Jackman; James A Talcott; Paul A Godley Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Maria J Schymura; Amy R Kahn; Robert R German; Mei-Chin Hsieh; Rosemary D Cress; Jack L Finch; John P Fulton; Tiefu Shen; Erik Stuckart Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 4.430