OBJECTIVE: In the past decade, localised prostate cancer (LPC) management has been shifting from three radical treatment options (radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy) to also include active surveillance (AS). This study examines men with LPC and partners' experiences of choosing between AS and radical treatments, and their experiences of AS when selected. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive research design was used. Interviewed participants were men, and partners of men, who either had chosen radical treatment immediately following diagnosis or had been on AS for at least 3 months. AS was the recommended treatment. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed and inter-rater reliability integrated. RESULTS: Twenty-one men and 14 partners participated. Treatment decisions reflected varied reactions to prostate cancer information, regularly described as contradictory, confusing, and stressful. Men and partners commonly misunderstood AS but could describe monitoring procedures. Partners often held the perception that they were also on AS. Men and partners usually coped with AS but were sometimes encumbered by treatment decision-making memories, painful biopsies, ongoing conflicting information, and unanswered medical questions. Radical treatment was selected when cancer progression was feared or medically indicated. Some preferred doctors to select treatments. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce distress frequently experienced by men diagnosed with LPC and their partners during treatment decision making and ongoing AS monitoring, the following are needed: improved community and medical awareness of AS; consistent information about when radical treatment is required; and consistent, unbiased information on treatment options, prognostic indicators, and side effects. Regularly updated decisional support information/aids incorporating men's values are imperative.
OBJECTIVE: In the past decade, localised prostate cancer (LPC) management has been shifting from three radical treatment options (radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy) to also include active surveillance (AS). This study examines men with LPC and partners' experiences of choosing between AS and radical treatments, and their experiences of AS when selected. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive research design was used. Interviewed participants were men, and partners of men, who either had chosen radical treatment immediately following diagnosis or had been on AS for at least 3 months. AS was the recommended treatment. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed and inter-rater reliability integrated. RESULTS: Twenty-one men and 14 partners participated. Treatment decisions reflected varied reactions to prostate cancer information, regularly described as contradictory, confusing, and stressful. Men and partners commonly misunderstood AS but could describe monitoring procedures. Partners often held the perception that they were also on AS. Men and partners usually coped with AS but were sometimes encumbered by treatment decision-making memories, painful biopsies, ongoing conflicting information, and unanswered medical questions. Radical treatment was selected when cancer progression was feared or medically indicated. Some preferred doctors to select treatments. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce distress frequently experienced by men diagnosed with LPC and their partners during treatment decision making and ongoing AS monitoring, the following are needed: improved community and medical awareness of AS; consistent information about when radical treatment is required; and consistent, unbiased information on treatment options, prognostic indicators, and side effects. Regularly updated decisional support information/aids incorporating men's values are imperative.
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Kimberly M Davis; Tania Lobo; George Luta; Jun Shan; David Aaronson; David F Penson; Amethyst D Leimpeter; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Nicole Collaço; Carol Rivas; Lauren Matheson; Johana Nayoan; Richard Wagland; Obrey Alexis; Anna Gavin; Adam Glaser; Eila Watson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 3.603
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: Stacy Loeb; Caitlin Curnyn; Angela Fagerlin; Ronald Scott Braithwaite; Mark D Schwartz; Herbert Lepor; Herbert Ballentine Carter; Erica Sedlander Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-10-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Caitlin Curnyn; Angela Fagerlin; R Scott Braithwaite; Mark D Schwartz; Herbert Lepor; H Ballentine Carter; Shannon Ciprut; Erica Sedlander Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-09-01
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