Factors Associated with Men's Assessment of Prostate Cancer Treatment Choice

Treatment decision-making in men with localized prostate cancer living in a remote area: A cross-sectional, observational study

INTRODUCTION

For the management of localized prostate cancer, patient treatment choice is poorly documented among people living in remote areas, where access to certain treatments offered in large centers involves travelling several hundred kilometres. This study aimed to describe and identify the determinants of treatment decision-making in men with localized prostate cancer living in remote areas.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, patients with prostate cancer were recruited from Rouyn-Noranda's urology clinic (Quebec, Canada) between 2017 and 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 127 men (mean age 68.34±7.23 years) constituted the study sample. Radiotherapy, a treatment not available locally, was chosen most frequently (67.7%), followed by options available locally, such as surgery (22.8%) and active surveillance (9.4%). Most patients preferred to play an active role in this choice (53.5%) and agreed with the statement, "I chose that treatment because it gives the best chance for a cure" (86.6%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that cancer stage (odds ratio [OR] 10.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.18-32.40) was the only factor associated with radiotherapy choice (patients with lower stage cancer were more likely to choose radiotherapy). The socioeconomic status was not associated with treatment choice.

CONCLUSIONS

While radiotherapy was not available locally, it was the most frequently chosen treatment, even though the available literature suggests that no one treatment option is superior in terms of cancer control. The choice of radiotherapy is not associated with patient income, but rather the cancer stage. This result could be explained by the patients' desire to avoid surgery and its adverse effects.

Overview of potential determinants of radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy in management of clinically localized prostate cancer: results from an Italian, prospective, observational study (the Pros-IT CNR study)

BACKGROUND

We assessed patients and tumor characteristics, as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) items, associated with curative intent treatment decision-making in clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

METHODS

Clinically localized PCa treated with either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT) within 12 months from diagnosis were abstracted from The PROState cancer monitoring in ITaly, from the National Research Council (Pros-IT CNR) database. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) models predicting RT vs. RP were fitted, after adjustment for HRQoL items, patients and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 1041 patients, 631 (60.2%) were treated with RP and 410 (39.8%) with RT. Relative to RT, RP patients were younger age (mean age 64.5±6.6 vs. 71.4±4.9, P<0.001) and had higher rates of D'Amico low-intermediate risk groups (31.8 vs. 21.9% low, 46.3% vs. 43.5% intermediate and 21.9% vs. 34.6% high risk, P<0.001). Overall, 93.2% of RP patients were enrolled by urologists and 82.7% of RT patients by radiation oncologists. RP patients had generally higher means values of HRQoL items. In MLR models, higher RT rates were independently associated with more advanced age (odds ratio [OR] 6.14, P<0.001) and BMI≥30 kg/m² (OR 1.78, P<0.001). Conversely, lower rates of RT were independently associated with married (OR 0.55, P=0.01) and worker status (OR 0.52, P=0.004), enrollment in academic centers (OR 0.59, P=0.005) and higher physical composite score (OR 0.88, P=0.03) and baseline sexual function items (OR 0.92, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with clinically localized prostate cancer undergoing definitive treatment at Italian institutions receive RP instead of RT. Moreover, those who are younger, married, working, as well as those with better physical and sexual function are more likely to undergo surgery.

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

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.

Factors underlying treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer in the U.S. and Canada: A scoping review using principal component analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research is to gather, collate, and identify key factors commonly studied in localized prostate cancer (LPC) treatment decision-making in Canada and the U.S.

METHODS

This scoping review uses five databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycInfo) to identify relevant articles using a list of inclusion and exclusion criteria applied by two reviewers. A list of topics describing the themes of the articles was extracted and key factors were identified using principal component analysis (PCA). A word cloud of titles and abstracts of the relevant articles was created to identify complementary results to the PCA.

RESULTS

This review identified 77 relevant articles describing 32 topics related to LPC treatment decision-making. The PCA grouped these 32 topics into five key factors commonly studied in LPC treatment decision-making: 1) treatment type; 2) socioeconomic/demographic characteristics; 3) personal reasons for treatment choice; 4) psychology of treatment decision experience; and 5) level of involvement in the decision-making process. The word cloud identified common phrases that were complementary to the factors identified through the PCA.

CONCLUSIONS

This research identifies several possible factors impacting LPC treatment decision-making. Further research needs to be completed to determine the impact that these factors have in the LPC treatment decision-making experience.

Prevalence and Correlates of Major Depressive Symptoms among Black Men with Prostate Cancer

Objectives

The objectives of our study were to determine the prevalence of major depressive symptoms and identify factors that are associated with major depressive symptoms among Black men with prostate cancer (PCa).

Design

This study consisted of 415 Black men aged 40-81 years that entered the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry during the years 2007-2008. The primary outcome variable was depressive symptoms (CES-D). Factors included age, income, education, insurance status, treatment received, time between diagnosis and treatment, Gleason score, medical mistrust and experience with racism/discrimination. Logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with the odds of having major depressive symptoms.

Results

The prevalence of major depressive symptoms (≥16 on CES-D) among our sample of Black men with PCa was approximately 33%. Approximately 15% of the study participants underwent radiation beam treatment. Age was significantly associated with the odds of reporting major depressive symptoms (OR= .95, CI .91-.99) among Black men. In addition, compared with all other forms of treatment, Black men who underwent radiation beam treatment had higher odds (OR=2.38, CI 1.02- 5.51) of reporting major depressive symptoms.

Conclusion

Nearly one-third of Black men with PCa in this study reported major depressive symptoms. Clinicians should pay closer attention to the mental health status of Black men with PCa, especially those who are younger and those who have undergone radiation beam treatment. Cancer survivorship, particularly quality of life, may be enhanced by opportunities for assessment, evaluation and intervention of depressive symptoms among these men disproportionately affected by PCa.

Health Literacy Is an Independent Predictor of Cancer Patients' Hospitalizations

Background

Lower levels of health literacy predict higher hospitalization rates. Hospitalization is expensive and many admissions are potentially avoidable. Research examining the relationship between health literacy and health outcomes for cancer patients is limited, and no published studies to date have focused on hospitalization and health literacy in cancer patients.

Objective

This study examined the ability of health literacy to predict hospitalization of cancer patients.

Methods

This secondary data analysis investigated the relationship between health literacy and hospitalization rates of adult cancer patients in the first 5 years after their diagnosis. The sample included a diverse selection of cancer diagnoses and all stages of cancer were represented. Health literacy was assessed using the Cancer Health Literacy Test 30 (CHLT-30), a psychometrically sound measure of health literacy validated in a cancer patient population. Health literacy's ability to predict the number of times hospitalized, total days spent hospitalized, and number of 30-day readmissions was examined using multivariate negative binomial multiple regression to control for the outcomes and potentially confounding variables.

Key Results

When controlling for potentially confounding variables, a negative relationship was found between health literacy and the number of inpatient hospitalizations (β = -0.041, p = .009) and the total number of days spent hospitalized (β = -0.028, p = .023) independently, whereas the relationship between health literacy and the number of 30-day readmissions failed to reach significance (β = -0.002, p = .903).

Conclusions

Patients with lower health literacy need additional assistance to avoid unplanned hospitalizations. [Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2017;1(4):e153-e162.].

Plain Language Summary

Results from this study found that as cancer patients' health literacy scores decreased, the number of times hospitalized and the total number of days spent in the hospital increased. This relationship was significant when controlling for diagnosis, stage at diagnosis, receipt of chemotherapy, number of comorbidities, death, education, and race. Cancer patients with low health literacy are at a higher risk of being hospitalized.

The Missing Pieces in Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of External Beam Radiation Therapy Dose Escalation for Prostate Cancer

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most rigorous way of determining whether a cause-effect relation exists between treatment and outcome and for assessing the cost-effectiveness of a treatment. For many patients, cancer is a chronic illness; RCTs evaluating treatments for indolent cancers must evolve to facilitate medical decision-making, as "concrete" patient outcomes (eg, survival) will likely be excellent independent of the intervention, and detecting a difference between trial arms may be impossible. In this commentary, we articulate 9 recommendations that we hope future clinical trialists and funding agencies (including those under the National Cancer Institute) will take into consideration when planning RCTs to help guide subsequent interpretation of results and clinical decision making, based on RCTs of external beam radiation therapy dose escalation for the most common indolent cancer in men, that is, prostate cancer. We recommend routinely reporting: (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics (eg, number of centers involved, type of facilities, yearly hospital volumes). We discuss how these factors independently affect patient outcomes and toxicities; future clinicians and governing organizations should consider this information to plan RCTs accordingly (to maximize patient accrual and total n), select appropriate endpoints (eg, toxicity, quality of life, sexual function), actively monitor RCTs, and report results so as to identify the optimal treatment among subpopulations.

Religious Coping and Types and Sources of Information Used in Making Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions

Treatment experiences for prostate cancer survivors can be challenging and dependent on many clinical and psychosocial factors. One area that is less understood is the information needs and sources men utilize. Among these is the influence of religion as a valid typology and the value it may have on treatment decisions. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between race, religion, and cancer treatment decisions in African American men compared with White men. Data were from the Diagnosis and Decisions in Prostate Cancer Treatment Outcomes Study that consisted of 877 African American and White men. The main dependent variables sought respondents' use of resources or advisors when making treatment decisions. Questions also assessed men perceptions of prostate cancer from the perspective of religious coping. After adjusting for age, marital status, education, and insurance status, race differences in the number of sources utilized were partially mediated by cancer was a punishment from God (β = -0.46, SE = 0.012, p < .001), cancer was a test of faith (β = -0.49, SE = 0.013, p < .001), and cancer can be cured with enough prayer (β = -0.47, SE = 0.013, p < .001). Similarly, race differences in the number of advisors utilized in making the treatment decision were partially mediated by cancer was a punishment from God (β = -0.39, SE = 0.014, p = .006), and cancer was a test of faith (β = -0.39, SE = 0.014, p = .006). Religious views on prostate cancer may play an important role in explaining race differences in information used and the number of advisors utilized for treatment decision making for prostate cancer.