Literature DB >> 29333577

Prostate Cancer Patients' Understanding of the Gleason Scoring System: Implications for Shared Decision-Making.

Erin K Tagai1, Suzanne M Miller2, Alexander Kutikov1, Michael A Diefenbach3, Ronak A Gor1, Tahseen Al-Saleem1, David Y T Chen1, Sara Fleszar3, Gem Roy1.   

Abstract

The Gleason scoring system is a key component of a prostate cancer diagnosis, since it indicates disease aggressiveness. It also serves as a risk communication tool that facilitates shared treatment decision-making. However, the system is highly complex and therefore difficult to communicate: factors which have been shown to undermine well-informed and high-quality shared treatment decision-making. To systematically explore prostate cancer patients' understanding of the Gleason scoring system (GSS), we assessed knowledge and perceived importance among men who had completed treatment (N = 50). Patients were administered a survey that assessed patient knowledge and patients' perceived importance of the GSS, as well as demographics, medical factors (e.g., Gleason score at diagnosis), and health literacy. Bivariate analyses were conducted to identify associations with patient knowledge and perceived importance of the GSS. The sample was generally well-educated (48% with a bachelor's degree or higher) and health literate (M = 12.9, SD = 2.2, range = 3-15). Despite this, patient knowledge of the GSS was low (M = 1.8, SD = 1.4, range = 1-4). Patients' understanding of the importance of the GSS was moderate (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0, range = 0-4) and was positively associated with GSS knowledge (p < .01). Additionally, GSS knowledge was negatively associated with years since biopsy (p < .05). Age and health literacy were positively associated with patients' perceived importance of the GSS (p < .05), but not with GSS knowledge. Patient knowledge is thus less than optimal and would benefit from enhanced communication to maximize shared treatment decision-making. Future studies are needed to explore the potential utility of a simplified Gleason grading system and improved patient-provider communication.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gleason scoring system; Prostate cancer; Shared decision-making

Year:  2019        PMID: 29333577      PMCID: PMC6557691          DOI: 10.1007/s13187-018-1320-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  24 in total

Review 1.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Will the modification of the Gleason grading system affect the urology practice?

Authors:  Hakki Ugur Ozok; Levent Sagnak; Can Tuygun; Murat Oktay; Nihat Karakoyunlu; Hamit Ersoy; Murat Alper
Journal:  Int J Surg Pathol       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 1.271

4.  Physician notification of their diabetes patients' limited health literacy. A randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Hilary K Seligman; Frances F Wang; Jorge L Palacios; Clifford C Wilson; Carolyn Daher; John D Piette; Dean Schillinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 5.  Health literacy and cancer communication.

Authors:  Terry C Davis; Mark V Williams; Estela Marin; Ruth M Parker; Jonathan Glass
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Assessing anxiety in men with prostate cancer: further data on the reliability and validity of the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC).

Authors:  Andrew Roth; Christian J Nelson; Barry Rosenfeld; Adam Warshowski; Noelle O'Shea; Howard Scher; Jimmie C Holland; Susan Slovin; Tracy Curley-Smart; Thomas Reynolds; William Breitbart
Journal:  Psychosomatics       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.386

7.  Shared decision making in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a model for treatment education and support.

Authors:  Kathleen M Colella; Gail DeLuca
Journal:  Urol Nurs       Date:  2004-06

8.  Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

Authors:  Lisa D Chew; Katharine A Bradley; Edward J Boyko
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.756

9.  Physicians' communication and perceptions of patients: is it how they look, how they talk, or is it just the doctor?

Authors:  Richard L Street; Howard Gordon; Paul Haidet
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2007-04-25       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Norbert Hootsmans; Michael Neilson; Bethany Roy; Terence Kungel; Caitlin Gutheil; Michael Diefenbach; Moritz Hansen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  2 in total

1.  Survey of Radiation Oncologists to Assess Interest and Potential Use of a Genetic Test Predicting Susceptibility for the Development of Toxicities After Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy.

Authors:  Kayla Collado; Sarah L Kerns; Michael A Diefenbach; Elizabeth Peterson-Roth; Raymond Koski; Harry Ostrer; Richard G Stock; Martin Mattessich; Paul Kaplan; Barry S Rosenstein
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-04-18

2.  Prostate cancer grading, time to go back to the future.

Authors:  Lars Egevad; Brett Delahunt; David G Bostwick; Liang Cheng; Andrew J Evans; Troy Gianduzzo; Markus Graefen; Jonas Hugosson; James G Kench; Katia R M Leite; Jon Oxley; Guido Sauter; John R Srigley; Pär Stattin; Toyonori Tsuzuki; John Yaxley; Hemamali Samaratunga
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 5.588

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.