Association of Preexisting Symptoms with Treatment Decisions among Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Patients

Factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options: A systematic review

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review to evaluate evidence regarding factors that influence patient preferences for management options for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We followed a prespecified search protocol (PROSPERO identifier CRD42014009173) to identify studies that evaluated patient preferences for prostate cancer management options for localized prostate cancer. We queried PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, and Econ-Lit databases. Two separate reviewers completed the article selection process and review, including coding of study characteristics. Study quality was scored according to the PREFS checklist, which consists of five criteria: Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance. Reviewers summarized the primary findings of each article included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 606 citations identified in the literature search, there were a total of 21 articles that met all selection criteria, reporting results for a total of 4,131 subjects. Themes identified in the studies included: the importance of patient perceptions of treatment efficacy and side effects; the influence of physician recommendations on patient decision-making; and the prioritization of concerns regarding treatment side effects among those men who prefer radiation therapy or active surveillance. The articles had an average PREFS score of 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0), which is similar to a recent study for breast cancer treatment preferences.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review of factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options identified a small, but high quality, group of articles that satisfied the selection criteria. The available evidence suggests that interventions aimed at informing patients regarding the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer management alternatives should include the influence of physician recommendations and family members' desires on patient decision-making.

Complementary and alternative medicine use, patient-reported outcomes, and treatment satisfaction among men with localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, satisfaction with treatment, and patient-reported outcomes after treatment.

METHODS

The Prostate CAncer Therapy Selection Study prospectively surveyed patients newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer about their treatment decision-making process and outcomes. The Prostate CAncer Therapy Selection Study recruited patients from 3 geographic areas through hospital-based urology clinics and community urology practices.

RESULTS

More than 700 patients completed the baseline and follow-up surveys. More than 50% of respondents reported using CAM; this decreased to 39% if prayer was excluded as a type of CAM. On multivariate analysis, factors related to communication with the treating physician, but not CAM use, were associated with treatment satisfaction. The likelihood of stability or improvement in urinary, bowel, and sexual function at 6 months was related to the choice of primary therapy but was unrelated to CAM use.

CONCLUSION

In the present prospective observational study, CAM use was highly prevalent but unrelated to treatment satisfaction or changes in functional status. The effect of CAM on these endpoints remains to be established in comparative effectiveness studies.

Complementary and alternative medicine use among newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

We surveyed prostate cancer patients about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and evaluated patient factors that correlated with CAM use 6 months following diagnosis.

METHODS

The Prostate CAncer Therapy Selection study was a prospective, observational multi-site study of men's treatment decision-making process after a diagnosis of local stage prostate cancer. Recruitment occurred in community urology practices in Washington State, hospital-based urology clinics affiliated with the University of Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente in Northern California. Eligible study participants included men over age 21 diagnosed with local stage prostate cancer between May 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006.

RESULTS

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents (379) reported using one or more types of CAM. Of the patients, 51% used one CAM method, 26% used two methods, and 23% used three or more methods. The most commonly reported category was mind-body therapies (65%). Only 43% of patients discussed their CAM use with a health professional; of those, 20% informed their primary care physician and 30% told the doctor managing their prostate cancer care. Less than half thought the CAM they used was "very helpful", but a majority thought it was somewhat helpful for their condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to characterize the goals prostate cancer patients have for CAM, whether the treatments met those goals, and how this translates into the perceived helpfulness of these therapies. The implications of patients not discussing CAM use with health professionals at the time of prostate cancer treatment need further studies.

Unanticipated and underappreciated outcomes during management of local stage prostate cancer: a prospective survey

PURPOSE

Due to the complexity of factors that must be considered when choosing a therapy for prostate cancer, we hypothesized that many men will find that certain factors such as side effects gain or lose importance after therapy relative to their expectations before therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective survey of men deciding on a therapy for local stage prostate cancer in 3 geographic regions. Men were asked to rate the importance of 11 personal factors before starting therapy and again 6 months after therapy.

RESULTS

Among 448 eligible men completing the most common treatment options, overall satisfaction with treatment choice was high across all therapies. While most men changed rankings of importance in at least 1 of the 11 factors, the majority of pre-post evaluations were highly consistent. In adjusted analyses the 2 factors that emerged as significantly underappreciated for all major prostate cancer treatments were 1) the impact of treatment on usual daily activities, and 2) the recommendations of friends and relatives who were affected with prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial patient expectations of the importance of the majority of factors related to prostate cancer treatment are generally accurate. Better counseling may improve the accuracy of patient expectations of the personal burden of treatment, and their evaluation of the advice of affected friends and relatives.