BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The literature lacks knowledge about information preferences and decision-making in young prostate cancer patients. This study provides insight into information sources consulted and factors dictating treatment decision-making in young prostate cancer patients. METHODS: Subjects were identified from pathology consult service of a National Center of Excellence. Questionnaires were mailed to 986 men, under 50 years of age, diagnosed with Gleason score 6 prostate cancer between 2001 and 2005. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-three men responded. The most common primary therapies were surgery 397 (81.4%), radiation 52 (10.7%), and active surveillance (AS) 26 (5.3%). Participants with at least some college education (P = 0.003) or annual income >$100,000 (P = 0.003) were more likely to consult three or more doctors. Amongst all treatments, "doctor's recommendation" was the most influential information source, although relatively less important in the AS group. Internet was the second most frequent information source. Participants with higher education (P = 0.0003) and higher income (P = 0.002) considered sexual function more important while making a treatment choice. Only 2% of the men preferred a passive role in the decision-making. Informed decision-making was preferred more by patients who chose radiation and AS while shared decision-making was preferred more by surgery patients (P < 0.05). The majority (89%) of the respondents did not regret their decision. No difference in satisfaction levels was found between different treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into information sources consulted, such as the greater internet use, and various factors dictating treatment decision-making in young prostate cancer patients. There was an overall very high satisfaction rate regardless of the therapy chosen.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The literature lacks knowledge about information preferences and decision-making in young prostate cancerpatients. This study provides insight into information sources consulted and factors dictating treatment decision-making in young prostate cancerpatients. METHODS: Subjects were identified from pathology consult service of a National Center of Excellence. Questionnaires were mailed to 986 men, under 50 years of age, diagnosed with Gleason score 6 prostate cancer between 2001 and 2005. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-three men responded. The most common primary therapies were surgery 397 (81.4%), radiation 52 (10.7%), and active surveillance (AS) 26 (5.3%). Participants with at least some college education (P = 0.003) or annual income >$100,000 (P = 0.003) were more likely to consult three or more doctors. Amongst all treatments, "doctor's recommendation" was the most influential information source, although relatively less important in the AS group. Internet was the second most frequent information source. Participants with higher education (P = 0.0003) and higher income (P = 0.002) considered sexual function more important while making a treatment choice. Only 2% of the men preferred a passive role in the decision-making. Informed decision-making was preferred more by patients who chose radiation and AS while shared decision-making was preferred more by surgery patients (P < 0.05). The majority (89%) of the respondents did not regret their decision. No difference in satisfaction levels was found between different treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into information sources consulted, such as the greater internet use, and various factors dictating treatment decision-making in young prostate cancerpatients. There was an overall very high satisfaction rate regardless of the therapy chosen.
Authors: D Feldman-Stewart; M D Brundage; C Hayter; P Groome; J C Nickel; H Downes; W J Mackillop Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2000 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Scott D Ramsey; David F Penson; Ingrid J Hall; Donatus U Ekwueme; Leonard Stroud; Judith W Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Donna L Berry; William J Ellis; Nancy Fugate Woods; Christina Schwien; Kristin H Mullen; Claire Yang Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Donald J Cegala; Robert R Bahnson; Steven K Clinton; Prabu David; Michael Chi Gong; J Paul Monk; Subir Nag; Kamal S Pohar Journal: Health Commun Date: 2008
Authors: W Demark-Wahnefried; J M Schildkraut; C E Iselin; E Conlisk; A Kavee; T E Aldrich; E J Lengerich; P J Walther; D F Paulson Journal: Cancer Date: 1998-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Demetrios Moris; Jeffery Chakedis; Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Ana Wilson; Mairead Marion Hennessy; Antonios Athanasiou; Eliza W Beal; Chrysoula Argyrou; Evangelos Felekouras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Renda Soylemez Wiener; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Jack A Clark Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-12-16 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Louie E Ross; Daniel L Howard; Janice V Bowie; Roland J Thorpe; Ballington L Kinlock; Carol Burt; Thomas A LaVeist Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Johannes Huber; Tanja Muck; Philipp Maatz; Bastian Keck; Paul Enders; Imad Maatouk; Andreas Ihrig Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Anand Shah; Jonathan J Paly; Jason A Efstathiou; Justin E Bekelman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeri Kim; James Ebertowski; Matthew Janiga; Jorge Arzola; Gayle Gillespie; Michael Fountain; Douglas Soderdahl; Edith Canby-Hagino; Sally Elsamanoudi; Jennifer Gurski; John W Davis; Patricia A Parker; Douglas D Boyd Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 5.588