Karen A Scherr1, Angela Fagerlin2, Timothy Hofer3, Laura D Scherer4, Margaret Holmes-Rovner5, Lillie D Williamson6, Valerie C Kahn7, Jeffrey S Montgomery8, Kirsten L Greene9, Biqi Zhang10, Peter A Ubel11. 1. Fuqua School of Business and School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA (KAS). 2. Departments of Internal Medicine and Psychology, Center for Bioethics and Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, The Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (AF). 3. Division of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, The Ann Arbor VA HSR&D Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (TH). 4. Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA (LDS). 5. Department of Medicine and Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA (MH-R). 6. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA (LDW). 7. Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (VCK). 8. Department of Urology, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Department of Surgery, Ann Arbor VA, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (JSM). 9. Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, Department of Urology, San Francisco VA, San Francisco, CA, USA (KLG). 10. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA (BZ). 11. Fuqua School of Business, School of Medicine and Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA (PAU).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients' baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients' interest in sex. RESULTS: Patients' initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, Δχ2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists' recommendations, Δχ2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists' recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, Δχ2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients' interest in sex (<15% of appointments). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' treatment decisions were based largely on urologists' recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients' personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients' baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients' interest in sex. RESULTS:Patients' initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, Δχ2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists' recommendations, Δχ2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists' recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, Δχ2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients' interest in sex (<15% of appointments). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' treatment decisions were based largely on urologists' recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients' personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.
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: Karen E Hoffman; Jiangong Niu; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; John W Davis; Jeri Kim; Deborah A Kuban; George H Perkins; Jay B Shah; Grace L Smith; Robert J Volk; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Clement K Gwede; Julio Pow-Sang; John Seigne; Randy Heysek; Mohamed Helal; Kristin Shade; Alan Cantor; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Eva Johansson; Gunnar Steineck; Lars Holmberg; Jan-Erik Johansson; Tommy Nyberg; Mirja Ruutu; Anna Bill-Axelson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Lixin Song; Ronald C Chen; Jeannette T Bensen; George J Knafl; Matthew E Nielsen; Laura Farnan; Eric M Wallen; Merle Mishel; Raj S Pruthi; James L Mohler; Paul A Godley Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Hans Garmo; Jennifer R Rider; Kimmo Taari; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Anders Spångberg; Ove Andrén; Juni Palmgren; Gunnar Steineck; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Donna L Berry; Fangxin Hong; Traci M Blonquist; Barbara Halpenny; Christopher P Filson; Viraj A Master; Martin G Sanda; Peter Chang; Gary W Chien; Randy A Jones; Tracey L Krupski; Seth Wolpin; Leslie Wilson; Julia H Hayes; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Mitchell Sokoloff; Prabhakara Somayaji Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sheila N Garland; Whitney Eriksen; Sarah Song; Joshua Dearing; Frances K Barg; Philip Gehrman; Jun J Mao Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-08 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