Part 2: Patient information, informed decision-making and the psycho-social impact of prostate-specific antigen testing

Clinical practice guidelines of the French Association for Supportive Care in Cancer and the French Society for Psycho-oncology: refusal of treatment by adults afflicted with cancer

PURPOSE

The study's purpose was to develop practical guidelines for assessment and management of refusal of treatment by adults afflicted with cancer.

METHODS

The French Association for Supportive Care in Cancer and the French Society for Psycho-oncology gathered a task force that applied a consensus methodology to draft guidelines studied predisposing situations, the diagnosis, regulatory aspects, and the management of refusal of treatment by adults afflicted with cancer.

RESULTS

We propose five guidelines: (1) be aware of the conditions/profiles of patients most often associated with refusal of treatment so as to adequately underpin the care and support measures; (2) understand the complexity of the process of refusal and knowing how to accurately identify the type and the modalities of the refused treatments; (3) apply a way to systematically analyze refusal, thereby promoting progression from a situation of disaccord toward a consensual decision; (4) devise procedures, according to the legal context, to address refusal of treatment that safeguards the stakeholders in situations of sustained disaccord; and (5) know the indications for ethical collective decision-making.

CONCLUSION

The quality of the relationship between patients and health professionals, and the communication between them are essential components involved in reaching a point of consent or refusal of treatment. A process of systematic analysis of refusal is recommended as the only way to ensure that all of the physiological, psychological, and contextual elements that are potentially involved are taken into account.

Biomarkers, the molecular gaze and the transformation of cancer survivorship

Over the past two decades, molecular technologies have transformed the landscape of cancer diagnosis, treatment and disease surveillance. However, although the effects of these technologies in the areas of primary and secondary cancer prevention have been the focus of growing study, their role in tertiary prevention remains largely unexamined. Treating this topic as a problematic to be conceptually explored rather than empirically demonstrated, this article focuses on the molecularisation of tertiary prevention, especially the growing use of molecular biomarkers to monitor disease recurrence. Taking a semiotic approach, I speculate on the potential meanings of molecular biomarkers for people living with and beyond cancer and suggest the meanings of these technologies may differ in important ways for those on both sides of the risk divide: that is, those 'at risk' for cancer and those living with realised risk. Although molecular biomarkers may intensify a sense of 'measured vulnerability', by indexing cancer's presence they may also prove reassuring. Moreover, as an invisible but ostensibly 'transparent' sign, in some contexts they appear to enable cancer survivors to challenge biomedical decision making. In the light of recent oncological debates about the value of these biomarkers in tertiary prevention, I conclude by suggesting that signs can never be reduced to their 'objective' biomedical denotation in spite of professional attempts to expunge meaning and value from care.

Informed decision-making in colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy or CT-colonography

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the level of informed decision making in a randomized controlled trial comparing colonoscopy and CT-colonography for colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

8844 citizens aged 50-75 were randomly invited to colonoscopy (n=5924) or CT-colonography (n=2920) screening. All invitees received an information leaflet. Screenees received a questionnaire within 4 weeks before the planned examination, non-screenees 4 weeks after the invitation. A decision was categorized as informed when characterized by sufficient decision-relevant knowledge and consistent with personal attitudes toward participation in screening.

RESULTS

Knowledge and attitude items were completed by 1032/1276 colonoscopy screenees (81%), by 698/4648 colonoscopy non-screenees (15%), by 824/982 CT-colonography screenees (84%) and by 192/1938 CT-colonography non-screenees (10%). 1027 colonoscopy screenees (>99%) and 815 CT-colonography screenees (99%) had adequate knowledge; 915 (89%) and 742 (90%) had a positive attitude. 675 non-screenees invited to colonoscopy (97%) and 182 invited to CT-colonography (95%) had adequate knowledge; 344 (49%) and 94 (49%) expressed a negative attitude.

CONCLUSION

A large majority of screenees made an informed decision on participation. Almost half of responding non-screenees, made an uninformed decision, suggesting additional barriers to participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Efforts to understand the additional barriers will create opportunities to facilitate informed participation to colorectal cancer screening.

Assessing knowledge and attitudes towards screening among users of Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)

BACKGROUND

Informed decision making is recognized as important in screening. Invitees should be provided with relevant information, enabling them to make an informed decision. This may be more difficult in ethnic minority and low socio-economic status groups. We aimed to assess the proportion of informed decisions to participate in a faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening pilot and to explore differences in knowledge and attitude across various subgroups.

METHODS

Asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 were invited to a second round of a Dutch FIT-based pilot screening programme for CRC. An information leaflet containing all information relevant to enable informed decision making accompanied the invitation. Informed choice was assessed by a mailed questionnaire. Knowledge was elicited through 18 items and attitude towards screening through four items. Main outcome measure was the proportion of informed decision makers among participants. Differences between subgroups were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 5367 screening participants, 2774 (52%) completed the questionnaire. Knowledge was adequate in 2554 (92%); 2736 (99%) showed a positive attitude towards screening. A total of 2525 persons had made an informed choice (91%); male gender, low education level, non-Dutch ethnicity and not speaking Dutch at home were negatively associated with having adequate knowledge in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

In FIT-based screening for CRC, the majority of responders made an informed decision to participate. However, we did not succeed in equally providing all population subgroups with sufficient information. Future initiatives should be aimed at reaching these groups to further enable informed decision making.

Reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial of colonoscopy and CT colonography

OBJECTIVES

We compared reported reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between colonoscopy and computed tomographic (CT) colonography in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

We randomly invited 8,844 people for screening by colonoscopy or CT colonography. On a questionnaire, invitees indicated reasons for participation or nonparticipation and indicated the most decisive reason.

RESULTS

The most frequently cited reasons to accept screening were early detection of precursor lesions and CRC, and contribution to science. The most frequently cited reasons to decline were the unpleasantness of the examination, the inconvenience of the preparation, a lack of symptoms, and "no time/too much effort." Among colonoscopy nonparticipants, elderly invitees cited inconvenience less often, and absence of symptoms more often, than did the group overall. The reason reported most frequently as the most decisive reason not to participate was the unpleasantness of the examination among colonoscopy nonparticipants, and "no time/too much effort" and lack of symptoms among CT colonography nonparticipants.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of these results, future screening programs could tailor the information provided to invitees.

The provision of information and informed decision-making on prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a questionnaire- and register-based survey in a non-selected population

OBJECTIVE

Evaluating the information provision procedure about prenatal screening for Down syndrome, using informed decision-making as a quality-indicator.

METHODS

Questionnaire- and register-based surveys. Midwives associated with 59 midwifery practices completed process data for 6435 pregnancies. Pregnant women (n=510) completed questionnaires on informed decision-making.

RESULTS

Midwives offered information to 98.5% of women; 62.6% of them wished to receive information, of these, 81.9% actually received information. Decision-relevant knowledge was adequate in 89.0% of responding women. Knowledge about Down syndrome was less adequate than knowledge about the screening program. Participants in the screening program had higher knowledge scores on Down syndrome and on the screening program than non-participants. Of the women who intended to participate (35.8%), 3.1% had inadequate knowledge. A total of 75.5% of women made an informed decision; 94.3% of women participating in the screening program, and 64.9% of women not participating.

CONCLUSION

This quality assurance study showed high levels of informed decision-making and a relatively low participation rate in the national screening program for Down syndrome in the Netherlands. Knowledge of the Down syndrome condition needs to be improved.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This evaluation may serve as a pilot study for quality monitoring studies at a national level.

Addressing the challenge of informed decision making in prostate cancer community outreach to African American men

African American men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer. This project adopted a community-based participatory approach to design and pilot test an educational outreach strategy that promotes informed decision making about screening among African American men in community settings in St. Louis, Missouri. Interviews with local subject matter experts informed the design of the strategy. The revised curriculum was pilot tested in 2009 with 63 men who completed pre- and posttest surveys that measured knowledge, norms, beliefs, decision self-efficacy, and screening intention. The intervention resulted in statistically significant improvement in prostate cancer knowledge, decreased perceived risks and barriers, and increased screening decision self-efficacy. The educational outreach strategy offered in community settings was effective in improving knowledge, beliefs, and decision self-efficacy related to prostate cancer screening. This project sought to devise a screening outreach strategy that struck a balance between the imperatives of informed decision-making goals and the pragmatics of community settings. The findings suggest the need for further research to assess the effectiveness of community-based outreach efforts in enhancing engagement of men in decision making related to screening, diagnostics, and treatment.

Psychological aspects of PSA testing

The process of PSA screening and subsequent monitoring of PSA levels may represent a great source of emotional distress to patients, the majority of whom are not adequately informed about the screening process and the implications of an abnormal result. The need remains for education of patients on the subject, but no consensus has been reached as to the content of information men should be offered. Helping patients to attribute a different meaning to a potentially stressful event can avoid the development of emotional distress, and physicians can have an important role in this process. Informing patients is essential to allow the development of positive coping styles, and establishing good doctor-patient communication leads to improved compliance and the improvement of patients' psychological wellbeing.

[What do men between 50 and 70 know about the effectiveness, the benefits, and the risks of prostate cancer screening?]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the understanding of the population on prostate cancer screening.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

SETTING

Primary care teams in the province of Barcelona, Spain, from april to september 2005.

PARTICIPANTS AND CONTEXT

Men between 50 and 70 years old without prostate symptoms and seen in the clinics of 12 primary care teams.

METHOD

Systematic sample.

VARIABLES

age, marital status, educational level, and self-perceived health status. Appraisal of knowledge through a 14-question questionnaire referring to the key ideas, previously defined by a group of experts, requisite before deciding on prostate cancer screening.

RESULTS

N=221. Mean age, 59.9 (SD, 5.9); educational level, primary or lower: 63.4%; 89.1% (95% CI, 84.4-92.6) did not have sufficient knowledge about prostate cancer screening. In the questions on what PSA is and what it is for, over 50% said they did not know; 63.3% recognised that prostate cancer was a highly prevalent illness; 84.6% replied that early detection of prostate cancer avoids deaths; 49.8% did not know whether the doctor had doubts on this question; and 38.9% thought he didn't. There were no differences in knowledge for any of the variables studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Although prostate cancer screening is widely known about, the information of the population is scant and often wrong. Existing scientific uncertainty on the use of screening is the aspect that is least known by users.

Why men in the United Kingdom still want the prostate specific antigen test

The prostate specific antigen (PSA) test is widely used to screen men for prostate cancer, but its value in diagnosing prostate cancer in asymptomatic men is controversial. In 2001, the U.K. Department of Health introduced the Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme (PCRMP), through which men are given relatively detailed information before they make a final decision about a test. Little is known about men's experiences of the test since this program was introduced. We report an analysis of interviews with 30 men who were tested, or considered having a test, since the PCRMP was introduced. Our analysis suggests that men's views of the PSA test are dominated by their construction of testing as responsible health behavior and their perception of PSA as "just a blood test." Men's accounts also suggest that poor communication about the uncertainty of the test--and about treatment for prostate cancer--also persists.

Anxiety associated with prostate cancer screening with special reference to men with a positive screening test (elevated PSA) - Results from a prospective, population-based, randomised study

Levels of anxiety were assessed through questionnaires completed by 1781 screen-positive (PSA > or = 3 ng/mL) men attending the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in Gothenburg, Sweden. During the first visit (clinical examination, including biopsies), no anxiety whilst awaiting the PSA test results was reported by 66% and 2% reported high levels of anxiety. A multinomial logistics model for repeated measurements, adjusted for age, PSA level, heredity, biopsy finding and urinary symptoms, revealed that anxiety awaiting the PSA was only influenced (increased) by the existence of previously elevated PSA tests (p<.0001). No anxiety associated with biopsy was reported by 45%, while 6% experienced high levels of anxiety. Levels of anxiety decreased significantly with subsequent rounds of examinations (p<0.0001) and with increasing age (p=0.0016). Anxiety associated with prostate cancer screening in general is low to moderate, even in men with elevated PSA, and severe anxiety affects a smaller group of susceptible men.

Informed decision making and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer: a randomised controlled trial exploring the impact of a brief patient decision aid on men's knowledge, attitudes and intention to be tested

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of a brief patient decision aid (pDA) on men's knowledge, attitudes and intention to have a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test. To explore the important predictors of intention to be tested in men who received the brief pDA.

METHODS

A brief pDA designed to facilitate informed decision-making for men considering PSA testing was developed for the NHS Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme. Men aged 40-75 years selected from 11 General Practices in England and Wales were randomised to receive either a mailed copy of the brief pDA and a questionnaire (intervention group), or a questionnaire alone (control group). The questionnaire assessed knowledge, attitudes, perceived risk and intention to have a PSA test and, for the intervention group, their perceptions of the brief pDA.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and ninety of the men who were eligible for the study returned completed questionnaires (response rate=54%). Men who received the brief pDA had significantly higher knowledge scores (p<0.0001) and less positive attitudes (p<0.0001) regarding PSA testing than men in the control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in intention to be tested within the next 12 months. 87% of men found the brief pDA was easy to read, 94% considered it contained about the right amount of detail and 94% felt the information was presented in a balanced way. Multivariate analysis identified perceived risk (p<0.0001), perceived benefits of PSA testing (p<0.0001), knowledge (p=0.004), attitude (p=0.007) and age (p=0.01) as the most important independent predictors of intention to be tested amongst men in the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

The brief pDA was shown to dramatically increase men's knowledge of the benefits and risks of the PSA test. Men who received the brief pDA were significantly less positive about the PSA test, although there was no difference between the two groups regarding their intention to be tested within the next year.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This brief pDA could serve as an acceptable and low cost adjunct to counselling by the General Practitioner (GP), and should promote informed decision making regarding the PSA test. Further research is required to ascertain the utility of the decision aid during the consultation.

Measuring the psychosocial impact of population-based prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the psychosocial impact of participation in a population-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing programme, akin to screening, and to explore the relationship between urinary symptoms reported before PSA testing and the response to the subsequent PSA result.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective questionnaire study was nested within the case-finding component of the ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) feasibility study (ISRCTN20141297). Men aged 50-69 years from 18 general practices in three cities in the UK completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Health Survey, and the International Continence Society 'male' (ICSmale) questionnaires before giving consent for a PSA test in a community clinic (baseline). Men with an 'abnormal' PSA result returned for further investigation (including biopsy) and repeated these questionnaires before biopsy.

RESULTS

At baseline, study participants had similar levels of anxiety and depression to the general male population. There was no increase in the HADS scores, or reduction in the SF-12 mental health component summary score, on attendance at the biopsy clinic after receiving an 'abnormal' PSA result. Urinary symptoms were associated with levels of anxiety and depression before receiving a PSA result (baseline), but were not associated with anxiety and depression at biopsy independently of baseline scores. Therefore changes in anxiety or depression at biopsy did not appear to differ between those with and without urinary symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the findings of other studies that the deleterious effects of receiving an abnormal PSA result during population screening are not identified by generic health-status questionnaires. Comparisons with outcomes of studies measuring cancer-specific distress and using qualitative research methods raise the question of whether a prostate cancer screening-specific instrument is required. However, a standardized measure of anxiety identified differences at baseline between those who did and did not report urinary symptoms. These findings suggest that it might be advisable to better inform men undergoing PSA testing about the uncertain relationship between urinary symptoms and prostate cancer, to minimize baseline levels of psychological distress.

Ethical issues in epidemiologic research and public health practice

A rich and growing body of literature has emerged on ethics in epidemiologic research and public health practice. Recent articles have included conceptual frameworks of public health ethics and overviews of historical developments in the field. Several important topics in public health ethics have also been highlighted. Attention to ethical issues can facilitate the effective planning, implementation, and growth of a variety of public health programs and research activities. Public health ethics is consistent with the prevention orientation of public health. Ethical concerns can be anticipated or identified early and effectively addressed through careful analysis and consultation.

The feasibility and results of a population-based approach to evaluating prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer in men with a raised familial risk

The feasibility of a population-based evaluation of screening for prostate cancer in men with a raised familial risk was investigated by studying reasons for non-participation and uptake rates according to postal recruitment and clinic contact. The levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and the positive predictive values (PPV) for cancer in men referred with a raised PSA and in those biopsied were analysed. First-degree male relatives (FDRs) were identified through index cases (ICs): patients living in two regions of England and diagnosed with prostate cancer at age < or =65 years from 1998 to 2004. First-degree relatives were eligible if they were aged 45-69 years, living in the UK and had no prior diagnosis of prostate cancer. Postal recruitment was low (45 of 1687 ICs agreed to their FDR being contacted: 2.7%) but this was partly due to ICs not having eligible FDRs. A third of ICs in clinic had eligible FDRs and 49% (192 out of 389) agreed to their FDR(s) being contacted. Of 220 eligible FDRs who initially consented, 170 (77.3%) had a new PSA test taken and 32 (14.5%) provided a previous PSA result. Among the 170 PSA tests, 10% (17) were > or =4 ng ml(-1) and 13.5% (23) tests above the age-related cutoffs. In 21 men referred, five were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PPV 24%; 95% CI 8, 47). To study further the effects of screening, patients with a raised familial risk should be counselled in clinic about screening of relatives and data routinely recorded so that the effects of screening on high-risk groups can be studied.