BACKGROUND: Growing recognition that active surveillance (AS) is a reasonable management option for many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer led us to describe patients' conceptualizations of AS and reasons for their treatment decisions. METHODS: Men were patients of a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic at a large tertiary cancer center where patients are routinely briefed on treatment options, including AS. We conducted a thematic analysis of interviews with 15 men who had chosen AS and 15 men who received radiation or surgery. RESULTS: Men who chose AS described it as an organized process with a rigorous and reassuring protocol of periodic testing, with potential for subsequent and timely decision-making about treatment. AS was seen as prolonging their current good health and function with treatment still possible later. Rationales for choosing AS included trusting their physician's monitoring, 'buying time' without experiencing adverse effects of treatment, waiting for better treatments, and seeing their cancer as very low risk. Men recognized the need to justify their choice to others because it seemed contrary to the impulse to immediately treat cancer. Descriptions of AS by men who chose surgery or radiation were less specific about the testing regimen. Getting rid of the cancer and having a cure were paramount for them. CONCLUSIONS: Men fully informed of their treatment options for localized prostate cancer have a comprehensive understanding of the purpose of AS. Slowing the decision-making process may enhance the acceptability of AS.
BACKGROUND: Growing recognition that active surveillance (AS) is a reasonable management option for many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer led us to describe patients' conceptualizations of AS and reasons for their treatment decisions. METHODS:Men were patients of a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic at a large tertiary cancer center where patients are routinely briefed on treatment options, including AS. We conducted a thematic analysis of interviews with 15 men who had chosen AS and 15 men who received radiation or surgery. RESULTS:Men who chose AS described it as an organized process with a rigorous and reassuring protocol of periodic testing, with potential for subsequent and timely decision-making about treatment. AS was seen as prolonging their current good health and function with treatment still possible later. Rationales for choosing AS included trusting their physician's monitoring, 'buying time' without experiencing adverse effects of treatment, waiting for better treatments, and seeing their cancer as very low risk. Men recognized the need to justify their choice to others because it seemed contrary to the impulse to immediately treat cancer. Descriptions of AS by men who chose surgery or radiation were less specific about the testing regimen. Getting rid of the cancer and having a cure were paramount for them. CONCLUSIONS:Men fully informed of their treatment options for localized prostate cancer have a comprehensive understanding of the purpose of AS. Slowing the decision-making process may enhance the acceptability of AS.
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: L C Harlan; A Potosky; F D Gilliland; R Hoffman; P C Albertsen; A S Hamilton; J W Eley; J L Stanford; R A Stephenson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-12-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
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: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Heidi A van Vugt; Ida J Korfage; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Robert J Volk; Gianna T Kinsman; Yen-Chi L Le; Paul Swank; Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Stephanie L McFall; Theresa L Byrd; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Scott B Cantor Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2015-06-11
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Amy E Leader; Jean Hoffman Censits; Edouard J Trabulsi; Scott W Keith; Anett M Petrich; Anna M Quinn; Robert B Den; Mark D Hurwitz; Costas D Lallas; Sarah E Hegarty; Adam P Dicker; Charnita M Zeigler-Johnson; Veda N Giri; Hasan Ayaz; Leonard G Gomella Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Tania Lobo; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Amethyst D Leimpeter; David Aaronson; David F Penson; Kathryn Taylor Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Charlotte J Hagerman; Paula G Bellini; Kim M Davis; Richard M Hoffman; David S Aaronson; Daniel Y Leigh; Riley E Zinar; David Penson; Stephen Van Den Eeden; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2017-04-01
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Julia Wade; Sian Noble; Kirsty Garfield; Grace Young; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Jane Blazeby; Richard Bryant; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Owen Hughes; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Edgar Paez; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek Rosario; Edward Rowe; David Neal Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Susan C Pitt; Megan C Saucke; Elizabeth M Wendt; David F Schneider; Jason Orne; Cameron L Macdonald; Nadine P Connor; Rebecca S Sippel Journal: Thyroid Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 6.568