Decision Regret and Quality of Life after Focal Therapy with Vascular-Targeted Photodynamic Therapy (TOOKAD®) for Localized Prostate Cancer

Decision regret after prostate biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: a Korean multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Many people struggle with the choice in a series of processes, from prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis to treatment. We investigated the degree of regret after the prostate biopsy (PBx) and relevant factors in patients recommended for biopsy for suspected PCa.

METHODS

From 06/2020 to 05/2022, 198 people who performed PBx at three institutions were enrolled and analyzed through a questionnaire before and after biopsy. Before the biopsy, a questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the sociodemographic information, anxiety scale, and health literacy, and after PBx, another questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the decision regret scale. For patients diagnosed as PCa after biopsy, a questionnaire was conducted when additional tests were performed at PCa staging work-up.

RESULTS

190 patients answered the questionnaire before and after PBx. The mean age was 66.2 ± 7.8 years. Overall, 5.5% of men regretted biopsy, but there was no significant difference between groups according to the PCa presence. Multivariate analysis, to identify predictors for regret, revealed that the case when physicians did not properly explain what the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test was like and what PSA elevation means (OR 20.57, [95% CI 2.45-172.70], p = 0.005), low media literacy (OR 10.01, [95% CI 1.09-92.29], p = 0.042), and when nobody to rely on (OR 8.49, [95% CI 1.66-43.34], p = 0.010) were significantly related.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall regret related to PBx was low. Decision regret was more significantly related to media literacy rather than to educational level. For patients with relatively low media literacy and fewer people to rely on in case of serious diseases, more careful attention and counseling on PBx, including a well-informed explanation on PSA test, is helpful.

Decision Regret in Patients with Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Treatment choice for localised prostate cancer remains a significant challenge for patients and clinicians, with uncertainty over decisions potentially leading to conflict and regret. There is a need to further understand the prevalence and prognostic factors of decision regret to improve patient quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To generate the best estimates for the prevalence of significant decision regret localised prostate cancer patients, and to investigate prognostic patient, oncological, and treatment factors associated with regret.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO databases including studies evaluating the prevalence or patient, treatment, or oncological prognostic factors in localised prostate cancer patients. A pooled prevalence of significant regret was calculated with the formal prognostic factor evaluation conducted per factor identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Significant decision regret was present in a pooled 20% (95% confidence interval 16-23) of patients across 14 studies and 17883 patients. This was lower in active surveillance (13%), with little difference between those who underwent radiotherapy (19%) and those who underwent prostatectomy (18%). Evaluation of individual prognostic factors demonstrated higher regret in those with poorer post-treatment bowel, sexual, and urinary function; decreased involvement in the decision-making process; and Black ethnicity. However, evidence remains conflicting, with low or moderate certainty of findings.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of men experience decision regret after a localised prostate cancer diagnosis. Monitoring those with increased functional symptoms and improving patient involvement in the decision-making process through education and decision aids may reduce regret.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at how common regret in treatment decisions is after treatment for early-stage prostate cancer and factors linked with this. We found that one in five regret their decision, with those who had experienced side effects or were less involved in the decision-making process more likely to have regret. By addressing these, clinicians could reduce regret and improve quality of life.

Quality of life and decisional regret after total glossectomy with laryngectomy: A single-institution case series

OBJECTIVES

Total glossectomy with total laryngectomy is a life-altering procedure reserved for extensive or recurrent head and neck cancer. There is minimal literature describing quality of life in these patients, partly due to high mortality rates.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone a total glossectomy with laryngectomy between 2014 and 2021 at our institution, identified by chart review, were eligible. Four validated scales were used to assess quality of life and satisfaction with decision.

RESULTS

Four of five survivors agreed to participate. The average scores for the Satisfaction with Decision scale and the University of Washington Quality of Life scale were 4.4/5 and 70/100, respectively, showing that patients were satisfied with their decision and quality of life. However, the average function score for the UW-QoL scale, 36.4/100, highlights negative effects of the procedure on mood, oral function, and activity.

CONCLUSIONS

This case description provides a picture of patients' quality of life after total glossectomy with laryngectomy, which may be useful for counseling future patients.

Patient-reported Satisfaction and Regret Following Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation

Background

Several reports are available regarding the treatment decision regret of patients receiving conventional treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa); yet data on patients undergoing focal therapy (FT) are sparse.

Objective

To evaluate the treatment decision satisfaction and regret among patients who underwent FT for PCa with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) or cryoablation (CRYO).

Design setting and participants

We identified consecutive patients who underwent HIFU or CRYO FT as the primary treatment for localized PCa at three US institutions. A survey with validated questionnaires, including the five-question Decision Regret Scale (DRS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), was mailed to the patients. The regret score was calculated based on the five items of the DRS, and regret was defined as a DRS score of >25.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to assess the predictors of treatment decision regret.

Results and limitations

Of 236 patients, 143 (61%) responded to the survey. Baseline characteristics were similar between responders and nonresponders. During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 43 (26-68) mo, the treatment decision regret rate was 19.6%. On a multivariable analysis, higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at nadir after FT (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2, p = 0.009), presence of PCa on follow-up biopsy (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.5-10.6, p = 0.006), higher post-FT IPSS (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01-1.37, p = 0.03), and newly diagnosed impotence (OR 6.67, 95% CI 1.57-27, p = 0.03) were independent predictors of treatment regret. The type of energy treatment (HIFU/CRYO) was not a predictor of regret/satisfaction. Limitations include retrospective abstraction.

Conclusions

FT for localized PCa is well accepted by the patients, with a low regret rate. Higher PSA at nadir, presence of cancer on follow-up biopsy, bothersome postoperative urinary symptoms, and impotence after FT were independent predictors of treatment decision regret.

Patient summary

In this report, we looked at the factors affecting satisfaction and regret in patients with prostate cancer undergoing focal therapy. We found that focal therapy is well accepted by the patients, while presence of cancer on follow-up biopsy as well as bothersome urinary symptoms and sexual dysfunction can predict treatment decision regret.

Photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer: Recent advances, challenges and opportunities

Over the past two decades, there has been a tendency toward early diagnosis of prostate cancer due to raised awareness among the general public and professionals, as well as the promotion of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. As a result, patients with prostate cancer are detected at an earlier stage. Due to the risks of urine incontinence, erectile dysfunction, etc., surgery is not advised because the tumor is so small at this early stage. Doctors typically only advise active surveillance. However, it will bring negative psychological effects on patients, such as anxiety. And there is a higher chance of cancer progression. Focal therapy has received increasing attention as an alternative option between active monitoring and radical therapy. Due to its minimally invasive, oncological safety, low toxicity, minimal effects on functional outcomes and support by level 1 evidence from the only RCT within the focal therapy literature, photodynamic treatment (PDT) holds significant promise as the focal therapy of choice over other modalities for men with localized prostate cancer. However, there are still numerous obstacles that prevent further advancement. The review that follows provides an overview of the preclinical and clinical published research on PDT for prostate cancer from 1999 to the present. It focuses on clinical applications of PDT and innovative techniques and technologies that address current problems, especially the use of nanoparticle photosensitizers in PDT of prostate cancer.

Alternative- and focal therapy trends for prostate cancer: a total population analysis of in-patient treatments in Germany from 2006 to 2019

Purpose

Focal therapy (FT) offers an alternative approach for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment in selected patients. However, little is known on its actual establishment in health care reality.

Patients and methods

We defined FT as high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), hyperthermia ablation, cryotherapy, transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) or vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) TOOKAD^®. We analyzed the nationwide German hospital billing database for a PCa diagnosis in combination with FT. For analyses on the hospital level, we used the reimbursement.INFO tool based on hospitals’ quality reports. The study period was 2006 to 2019.

Results

We identified 23,677 cases of FT from 2006 to 2019. Considering all PCa cases with surgery, radiotherapy or FT, the share of FT was stable at 4%. The annual caseload of FT increased to a maximum of 2653 cases in 2008 (p < 0.001) and then decreased to 1182 cases in 2014 (p < 0.001). Since 2015, the cases of FT remained on a plateau around 1400 cases per year. The share of HIFU was stable at 92–96% from 2006 to 2017 and decreased thereafter to 75% in 2019 (p = 0.015). In 2019, VTP-TOOKAD^® increased to 11.5% and TULSA to 6%. In 2006, 21% (62/299) of urological departments performed FT and 20 departments reached > 20 FT procedures. In 2019, 16% (58/368) of urological departments performed FT and 7 departments reached > 20 FT. In 2019, 25 urological departments offered FT other than HIFU: 5 centers hyperthermia ablation, 11 centers VTP TOOKAD^®, 3 centers cryotherapy, 6 centers TULSA.

Conclusion

The FT development in Germany followed the Gartner hype cycle. While HIFU treatment is the most commonly performed FT, the share of newer FT modalities such as VTP-TOOKAD^® and TULSA is remarkably increasing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-022-04024-0.