Richard M Hoffman1,2, Stephen K Van Den Eeden3, Kimberly M Davis4, Tania Lobo5, George Luta5, Jun Shan3, David Aaronson6, David F Penson7, Amethyst D Leimpeter3, Kathryn L Taylor4. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA. 2. Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 3. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA. 4. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. 6. Department of Urology, Kaiser Permanente East Bay, Oakland, CA, USA. 7. Department of Urological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize decision-making processes and outcomes among men expressing early-treatment preferences for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted telephone surveys of men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer in 2012 to 2014. We analyzed subjects who had discussed prostate cancer treatment with a clinician and expressed a treatment preference. We asked about decision-making processes, including physician discussions, prostate-cancer knowledge, decision-making styles, treatment preference, and decisional conflict. We compared the responses across treatment groups with χ2 or ANOVA. RESULTS: Participants (n = 761) had a median age of 62; 82% were white, 45% had a college education, and 35% had no comorbidities. Surveys were conducted at a median of 25 days (range 9-100) post diagnosis. Overall, 55% preferred active surveillance (AS), 26% preferred surgery, and 19% preferred radiotherapy. Participants reported routinely considering surgery, radiotherapy, and AS. Most were aware of their low-risk status (97%) and the option for AS (96%). However, men preferring active treatment (AT) were often unaware of treatment complications, including sexual dysfunction (23%) and urinary complications (41%). Most men (63%) wanted to make their own decision after considering the doctor's opinion, and about 90% reported being sufficiently involved in the treatment discussion. Men preferring AS had slightly more uncertainty about their decisions than those preferring AT. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects were actively engaged in decision making and considered a range of treatments. However, we found knowledge gaps about treatment complications among those preferring AT and slightly more decisional uncertainty among those preferring AS, suggesting the need for early decision support.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize decision-making processes and outcomes among men expressing early-treatment preferences for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted telephone surveys of men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer in 2012 to 2014. We analyzed subjects who had discussed prostate cancer treatment with a clinician and expressed a treatment preference. We asked about decision-making processes, including physician discussions, prostate-cancer knowledge, decision-making styles, treatment preference, and decisional conflict. We compared the responses across treatment groups with χ2 or ANOVA. RESULTS:Participants (n = 761) had a median age of 62; 82% were white, 45% had a college education, and 35% had no comorbidities. Surveys were conducted at a median of 25 days (range 9-100) post diagnosis. Overall, 55% preferred active surveillance (AS), 26% preferred surgery, and 19% preferred radiotherapy. Participants reported routinely considering surgery, radiotherapy, and AS. Most were aware of their low-risk status (97%) and the option for AS (96%). However, men preferring active treatment (AT) were often unaware of treatment complications, including sexual dysfunction (23%) and urinary complications (41%). Most men (63%) wanted to make their own decision after considering the doctor's opinion, and about 90% reported being sufficiently involved in the treatment discussion. Men preferring AS had slightly more uncertainty about their decisions than those preferring AT. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects were actively engaged in decision making and considered a range of treatments. However, we found knowledge gaps about treatment complications among those preferring AT and slightly more decisional uncertainty among those preferring AS, suggesting the need for early decision support.
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Jackson L Davis; Ralph O Turner; Lenora Johnson; Marc D Schwartz; Jon F Kerner; Chikarlo Leak Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.254
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: 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: France Légaré; Stephen Kearing; Kate Clay; Susie Gagnon; Denis D'Amours; Michel Rousseau; Annette O'Connor Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Philippe D Violette; Thomas Agoritsas; Paul Alexander; Jarno Riikonen; Henrikki Santti; Arnav Agarwal; Neera Bhatnagar; Philipp Dahm; Victor Montori; Gordon H Guyatt; Kari A O Tikkinen Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: James L Mohler; Philip W Kantoff; Andrew J Armstrong; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Cohen; Anthony Victor D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Thomas A Farrington; Celestia S Higano; Eric Mark Horwitz; Christopher J Kane; Mark H Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Timothy M Kuzel; Richard J Lee; Arnold W Malcolm; David Miller; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; David Raben; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Stan Rosenfeld; Edward Schaeffer; Eric J Small; Guru Sonpavde; Sandy Srinivas; Cy Stein; Seth A Strope; Jonathan Tward; Dorothy A Shead; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Randi M Williams; Kimberly Davis; George Luta; Sofiya Penek; Samantha Barry; Scott Kelly; Catherine Tomko; Marc Schwartz; Alexander H Krist; Steven H Woolf; Mary B Fishman; Carmella Cole; Edward Miller Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Kimberly Davis; Paula Bellini; Charlotte Hagerman; Riley Zinar; Daniel Leigh; Richard Hoffman; David Aaronson; Stephen Van Den Eeden; George Philips; Kathryn Taylor Journal: Urology Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Paolo Capogrosso; Luca Boeri; Eugenio Ventimiglia; Ilenya Camozzi; Walter Cazzaniga; Francesco Chierigo; Roberta Scano; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Andrea Salonia Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; George Luta; Vasiliki Zotou; Tania Lobo; Richard M Hoffman; Kimberly M Davis; Arnold L Potosky; Tengfei Li; David Aaronson; Stephen K Van Den Eeden Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-12-14