Treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer: what younger men choose and why

Sidana, Abhinav; Hernandez, David J.; Partin, A.; Trock, BJ; Saha, Surajit; Ji, Epstein

doi:10.1590/s1677-55382011000300022

Cited by 17 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…33,34 Younger men may be more likely to seek information from different sources, 34 including consultation from 3 physicians. 35 These activities may better equip patients to make decisions on their own and/or to communicate with physicians regarding their needs and treatment preferences. The findings of the current study confirm that clinicians need to engage different strategies to facilitate treatment decision-making for prostate cancer patients of different ages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who makes the decision regarding the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer–the patient or physician?

Song

Chen

Bensen

et al. 2012

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:The current study examined how patients' sociodemographic, cancer-related, and subjective affective factors impacted their role in treatment decision-making. METHODS: The patient sample (N ¼ 788) was taken from a prospective follow-up study of a population-based cohort. Participants included 343 African American and 445 Caucasian-American patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate relations between the explanatory variables and the nominal 3-level decision-making variable: patient-only, patient-physician shared, and physician-only. RESULTS: Approximately 41% of patients reported patient-only decision-making, 45% reported shared decision-making, and 13% reported physician-only decisionmaking. The odds of patient-only over physician-only decision-making were greater for younger men (vs those aged 65 years) (odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.03-2.74), and were less for men with high (vs low) cancer aggressiveness (OR,0.29; 95% CI, 0.15-0.55). The odds of shared over physician-only decision-making were less for men with high (vs low) cancer aggressiveness (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.73). Greater odds of patient-only and shared decision-making also were found to be associated with greater concerns about the physical impact of treatment and having enough time for decision-making and lower scores of receiving advice from others. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study indicate that, to facilitate a more patient-oriented decision-making process regarding treatment in those with clinically localized prostate cancer, clinicians need to tailor their interventions according to patient age and cancer aggressiveness, help reduce patient concerns and misconceptions regarding the physical impact of treatments, allow sufficient time for patients to consider treatment options, and assist patients in balancing advice and information received from different sources. Cancer 2013;119:421-8.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who makes the decision regarding the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer–the patient or physician?

Song

Chen

Bensen

et al. 2012

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Figure 1) These include, 1 study examining influences of partners (Zeliadt, Penson et al 2011), 2 studies examining influence of physicians (Fowler, McNaughton Collins et al 2000, Stalmeier, van Tol-Geerdink et al 2007, 16 studies comparing treatment preferences (Mazur and Hickam 1996, Hall, Boyd et al 2003, Auvinen, Hakama et al 2004, Berry, Ellis et al 2006, Zeliadt, Ramsey et al 2006, Block, Erickson et al 2007, Cox and Amling 2008, van den Bergh, van Vugt et al 2010, Davison and Goldenberg 2011, Ihrig, Keller et al 2011, Hamilton, Wu et al 2012, Penson 2012, Sidana, Hernandez et al 2012, van TolGeerdink, Willem Leer et al 2013, 4 studies on decision aids (Lin, Aaronson et al 2009, Adsul, Wray et al 2015, Violette, Agoritsas et al 2015, van Tol-Geerdink, Leer et al 2016, 7 studies (Cohen and Britten 2003, Davison, Goldenberg et al 2003, Davison, Parker et al 2004, Fischer, Visser et al 2006, Deber, Kraetschmer et al 2007, Pieterse, Henselmans et al 2011, Song, Chen et al 2013, 4 studies related to psychosocial issues of decision making (Wong, Stewart et al 2000, Kraetschmer, Sharpe et al 2004, Steginga, Turner et al 2008, Birnie and Robinson 2010, 3 studies on demographic differences in decision making (Meyer, Talbot et al 2007, Xu, Dailey et...…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Percentage of patients choosing radical prostatectomy have been quoted to be between 29-81.4%; 10.7 -42% of patients elected to have radiation treatment and rate of active surveillance has been reported up to 42% (Mazur and Hickam 1996, Hall, Boyd et al 2003, Fischer, Visser et al 2006, Ihrig, Keller et al 2011, Sidana, Hernandez et al 2012.…”

Section: Reasons For Selecting a Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The decision-making role of the patient in localised prostate cancer treatment

Wang

Ranasinghe

2017

AJIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our objective was to review the current literature on patient participation and decision-making in the treatment selection process for localised prostate cancer, and to evaluate capacity for improvement. Methods: 42 articles from our literature search were deemed eligible and relevant for review. We reviewed studies on all facets of the treatment decision-making process with most number of articles (16) on treatment preferences. Results: The majority of the patients prefer an active or collaborative role in decision-making. Patients are seeking information from a myriad of sources but the recommendation from their treating physician is often the most influential on the final decision. Radical prostatectomy is more likely to be selected in patients who view a cure for cancer as being of the utmost importance and radiation therapy is preferred in patients who are concerned about treatment side effects. Conclusion: Currently no ideal tool exists to assist patients in making informed treatment decisions that also takes into account patients' values and preferences. We encourage collaborative partnership in a multidisciplinary setting to optimise this process and individualised riskbased decision-making tools may provide a better pathway to assist patients reach decisions.

show abstract

“…The incidence of postoperative ED varies widely -between 14% and 90% [9,10]. This is a signi cant problem for the physician and the patient, since prostate cancer is diagnosed in sexually active young men who wish to maintain the same quality of life after surgery [11,12]. Preoperative characteristics of patients are known to play a key role in the recovery of erectile function (EF) after surgery, in which case young and healthy patients have signi cantly higher rates of recovery than old and diseased patients [13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preoperative Evaluation of Sexual Function in Patients Undergoing Bilateral Nerve-Sparing Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy

Stoykov

Kolev

Kotsev

et al. 2017

Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryDuring the last few years, prostate cancer is more frequently diagnosed in young patients. This lays emphasis on the necessity to preoperatively evaluate the sexual function in patients undergoing bilateral nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy (BNSRRP). The aim of our study was to make an objective evaluation of the basic sexual function in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and candidates for BNSRRP, using internationally validated questionnaires. We also tried to find a correlation between these questionnaires and the individual assessment of candidates, on one hand, and between comorbidities of the patients and degree of erectile dysfunction (ED), on the other hand. From January 2014 to March 2017, at the urology clinic of University Hospital – Pleven, 64 patients opted BNSRRP and reported to have preserved erectile function (EF), wishing to maintain this function after surgery. The patients’ histories and comorbidities were recorded on the day of hospitalization. The subjective assessment of the patients’ potency was compared with International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). According to the EF domain of the IIEF, baseline EF was assessed in 28 patients. Twelve patients had mild ED, 9 patients had mild to moderate ED, seven patients had moderate, and eight had severe ED. The results showed that a significant number of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were candidates for BNSRRP reported to be fully potent but actually had impaired EF preoperatively. There was also a pronounced correlation between concomitant diseases and EF.

show abstract

Treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer: what younger men choose and why

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Who makes the decision regarding the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer–the patient or physician?

Who makes the decision regarding the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer–the patient or physician?

The decision-making role of the patient in localised prostate cancer treatment

Preoperative Evaluation of Sexual Function in Patients Undergoing Bilateral Nerve-Sparing Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About