Canadian Men's perspectives about active surveillance in prostate cancer: need for guidance and resources

Patient perspectives on factors influencing active surveillance adherence for low-risk prostate cancer: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. Treatment guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, which involves monitoring for progression, to avoid or delay definitive treatments and their side effects. Despite increased uptake, adherence to surveillance remains a challenge.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured, qualitative, virtual interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), with men (15) who were or had been on active surveillance for their low-risk prostate cancer in 2020. Interviews were transcribed and coded under TDF's behavioral theory-based domains. We analyzed domains related to adherence to surveillance using constructivist grounded theory to identify themes influencing decision processes in adherence.

RESULTS

The TDF domains of emotion, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, and social influences were most relevant to surveillance adherence-. From these four TDF domains, three themes emerged as underlying decision processes: trust in surveillance as treatment, quality of life, and experiences of self and others. Positive perceptions of these three themes supported adherence while negative perceptions contributed to non-adherence (i.e., not receiving follow-up or stopping surveillance). The relationship between the TDF domains and themes provided a theoretical process describing factors impacting active surveillance adherence for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Men identified key factors impacting active surveillance adherence that provide opportunities for clinical implementation and practice improvement. Future efforts should focus on multi-level interventions that foster trust in surveillance as treatment, emphasize quality of life benefits and enhance patients' interpersonal experiences while on surveillance to optimize adherence.

Supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer: A systematic review update

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is highly prevalent and impacts profoundly on patients' quality of life, leading to a range of supportive care needs.

METHODS

An updated systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative data using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, to explore prostate cancer patients' experience of, and need for, supportive care. Five databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Emcare and ASSIA) were searched; extracted data were synthesised using Corbin and Strauss's 'Three Lines of Work' framework.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2091 citations, of which 105 were included. Overarching themes emerged under the headings of illness, everyday life and biographical work. Illness work needs include consistency and continuity of information, tailored to ethnicity, age and sexual orientation. Biographical work focused on a desire to preserve identity in the context of damaging sexual side effects. Everyday life needs centred around exercise and diet support and supportive relationships with partners and peers. Work-related issues were highlighted specifically by younger patients, whereas gay and bisexual men emphasised a lack of specialised support.

CONCLUSION

While demonstrating some overarching needs common to most patients with prostate cancer, this review offers novel insight into the unique experiences and needs of men of different demographic backgrounds, which will enable clinicians to deliver individually tailored supportive care.

Patient reported factors influencing the decision-making process of men with localised prostate cancer when considering Active Surveillance-A systematic review and thematic synthesis

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes for men with localised prostate cancer managed with Active Surveillance (AS) are similar to outcomes for men who have received Active Treatment. This review explore men's perceptions of the factors that influence their decision-making process when considering AS.

METHOD

A systematic review of studies was conducted up to May 2021, including qualitative studies which explored the decision making of men with localised prostate cancer when considering AS. Evidence was analysed using thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

Thirteen papers, including 426 men, met inclusion criteria and were analysed in the review. Approximately half of the men had chosen AS and half had chosen Active Treatment. The choice of AS was not a one-off decision but rather an ongoing behaviour. Four themes were identified and considered within a temporal model: pre-diagnosis representations of cancer and treatment; experience of testing and diagnosis; patient decision making; and emotional adjustment to AS. Key barriers and facilitators to men choosing AS were identified. In deciding whether or not to choose AS, men balanced a desire for quality of life against fear of cancer progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Both cognitive representations and emotional arousal influence how men decided whether or not to opt for AS. Interventions tailored to elicit and address emotional appraisals of risk, and increase trust in AS protocols, may be of value in helping men to make decisions around treatment for localised prostate cancer.

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.

Comparing Perspectives of Canadian Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer and Health Care Professionals About Active Surveillance

Active surveillance (AS) has gained acceptance as a primary management approach for patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PC). In this qualitative study, we compared perspectives between patients and health care professionals (HCP) to identify what may contribute to patient-provider discordance, influence patient decision-making, and interfere with the uptake of AS. We performed a systematic comparison of perspectives about AS reported from focus groups with men eligible for AS (7 groups, N = 52) and HCP (5 groups, N = 48) who engaged in conversations about AS with patient. We used conventional content analysis to scrutinize separately focus group transcripts and reached a consensus on similar or divergent viewpoints between them. Patients and clinicians agreed that AS was appropriate for low grade PC and understood the low-risk nature of the disease. They shared the perspective that disease status was a critical factor to pursue or discontinue AS. However, men expressed a greater emphasis on quality of life in their decisions related to AS. Patients and clinicians differed in their perspectives on the clarity, availability, and volume of information needed and offered; clinicians acknowledged variations between HCP when presenting AS, while patients were often compelled to seek additional information beyond what was provided by physicians and experienced difficulty in finding or interpreting information applicable to their situation. A greater understanding of discordant perspectives about AS between patients and HCP can help improve patient engagement and education, inform development of knowledge-based tools or aids for decision-making, and identify areas that require standardization across the clinical practice.

Development and usability testing of a multi-criteria value clarification methods for patients with localized prostate cancer

Current guidelines for the development of decision aids recommend that they have to include a process for helping patients clarify their personal values, for example, by using values clarification methods. In this article, we extensively described the development process of the web-based values clarification method for patients with localized low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer based on the analytic hierarchy process. With analytic hierarchy process, the relative importance of different attributes of available treatments can be determined through series of pairwise comparisons of potential outcomes. Furthermore, analytic hierarchy process is able to use this information to present respondents with a quantitative overall treatment score and can therefore give actual treatment advice upon patients’ request. The addition of this values clarification method to an existing web-based treatment decision aid for patients with localized prostate cancer is thought to improve the support offered to patients in their decision-making process and their decision quality.

Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer

Background

Over the last decade, active surveillance has proven to be a safe approach for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Although active surveillance presents several advantages for both patients and the health care system, all eligible patients do not adopt this approach. Our goal was to evaluate the factors that influence physicians to recommend active surveillance and the barriers that impact adherence to this approach.

Methods

Focus groups (n = 5) were held with physicians who provided care for men with low-risk prostate cancer and had engaged in conversations with men and their families about active surveillance. The experience of health care professionals (HCPs) was captured to understand their decisions in proposing active surveillance and to reveal the barriers and facilitators that affect the adherence to this approach. A content analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts from the sessions.

Results

Although physicians agreed that active surveillance is a suitable approach for low-risk prostate cancer patients, they were concerned about the rapidly evolving and non-standardized guidelines for patient follow-up. They pointed out the need for additional tools to appropriately identify proper patients for whom active surveillance is the best option. Urologists and radiation-oncologists were keen to collaborate with each other, but the role of general practitioner remained controversial once patients were referred to a specialist.

Conclusions

Integration of more reliable tools and/or markers in addition to more specific guidelines for patient follow-up would increase the confidence of both patients and physicians in the choice of active surveillance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3273-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.