Literature DB >> 31631745

Selecting Active Surveillance: Decision Making Factors for Men with a Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Richard M Hoffman1,2, Tania Lobo3, Stephen K Van Den Eeden4, Kimberly M Davis3, George Luta5, Amethyst D Leimpeter4, David Aaronson6, David F Penson7, Kathryn Taylor3.   

Abstract

Background. Men with a low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) should consider observation, particularly active surveillance (AS), a monitoring strategy that avoids active treatment (AT) in the absence of disease progression. Objective. To determine clinical and decision-making factors predicting treatment selection. Design. Prospective cohort study. Setting. Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). Patients. Men newly diagnosed with low-risk PCa between 2012 and 2014 who remained enrolled in KPNC for 12 months following diagnosis. Measurements. We used surveys and medical record abstractions to measure sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and psychological and decision-making factors. Men were classified as being on observation if they did not undergo AT within 12 months of diagnosis. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results. The average age of the 1171 subjects was 61.5 years (s = 7.2 years), and 81% were white. Overall, 639 (57%) were managed with observation; in adjusted analyses, significant predictors of observation included awareness of low-risk status (odds ratio 1.75; 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.94), knowing that observation was an option (3.62; 1.62-8.09), having concerns about treatment-related quality of life (1.21, 1.09-1.34), reporting a urologist recommendation for observation (8.20; 4.68-14.4), and having a lower clinical stage (T1c v. T2a, 2.11; 1.16-3.84). Conversely, valuing cancer control (1.54; 1.37-1.72) and greater decisional certainty (1.66; 1.18-2.35) were predictive of AT. Limitations. Results may be less generalizable to other types of health care systems and to more diverse populations. Conclusions. Many participants selected observation, and this was associated with tumor characteristics. However, nonclinical decisional factors also independently predicted treatment selection. Efforts to provide early decision support, particularly targeting knowledge deficits, and reassurance to men with low-risk cancers may facilitate better decision making and increase uptake of observation, particularly AS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Decision making; Prostatic neoplasms; Risk assessment; Watchful waiting

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31631745      PMCID: PMC6895433          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19883242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  68 in total

1.  The Control Preferences Scale.

Authors:  L F Degner; J A Sloan; P Venkatesh
Journal:  Can J Nurs Res       Date:  1997

2.  Factors influencing patients' acceptance and adherence to active surveillance.

Authors:  David F Penson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-12

3.  Changing Trends in Surgical Management of Prostate Cancer: The End of Overtreatment?

Authors:  Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Disease insight and treatment perception of men on active surveillance for early prostate cancer.

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

5.  Prostate cancer, version 2.2014.

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

6.  Variation in the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Björn Löppenberg; David F Friedlander; Anna Krasnova; Andrew Tam; Jeffrey J Leow; Paul L Nguyen; Hawa Barry; Stuart R Lipsitz; Mani Menon; Firas Abdollah; Jesse D Sammon; Maxine Sun; Toni K Choueiri; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  A hospital-based study of initial observation for low-risk prostate cancer and its predictors in the United States.

Authors:  Matthew J Maurice; Hui Zhu; Robert Abouassaly
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer.

Authors:  Roderick C N van den Bergh; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Monique J Roobol; Tineke Wolters; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  'What is this active surveillance thing?' Men's and partners' reactions to treatment decision making for prostate cancer when active surveillance is the recommended treatment option.

Authors:  Clare O'Callaghan; Tracey Dryden; Amelia Hyatt; Joanne Brooker; Sue Burney; Addie C Wootten; Alan White; Mark Frydenberg; Declan Murphy; Scott Williams; Penelope Schofield
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2014-05-16       Impact factor: 3.894

10.  Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; Peter C Albertsen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-08-31       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  4 in total

1.  Comparing the clinical impact of pancreatic cyst surveillance programs: A trial of the ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group (EA2185).

Authors:  David S Weinberg; Constantine Gatsonis; Herbert J Zeh; Ruth C Carlos; Peter J O'Dwyer
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  Factors that influence clinicians' decisions to decrease active surveillance monitoring frequency or transition to watchful waiting for localised prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Lisa M Lowenstein; Noah J Choi; Karen E Hoffman; Robert J Volk; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study.

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

4.  Trends and practices for managing low-risk prostate cancer: a SEER-Medicare study.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Sarah L Mott; Bradley D McDowell; Sonia T Anand; Kenneth G Nepple
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 5.455

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.