Author:
Pozzar Rachel A.,Xiong Niya,Hong Fangxin,Filson Christopher P.,Chang Peter,Halpenny Barbara,Berry Donna L.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Although treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer (LPC) are preference-sensitive, the extent to which individuals with LPC receive preference-concordant treatment is unclear. In a sample of individuals with LPC, the purpose of this study was to (a) assess concordance between the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and treatment choice; (b) determine whether receipt of a decision aid predicts higher odds of concordance; and (c) identify predictors of concordance from a set of participant characteristics and influential personal factors.
Methods
Participants reported the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and personal factors on treatment decisions at baseline. Preference-concordant treatment was defined as (a) any treatment if risk of adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence, (b) active surveillance if risk of adverse outcomes had a lot of influence, or (c) radical prostatectomy or active surveillance if risk of adverse bowel outcomes had a lot of influence and risk of other adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.
Results
Of 224 participants, 137 (61%) pursued treatment concordant with preferences related to adverse treatment outcomes. Receipt of a decision aid did not predict higher odds of concordance. Low tumor risk and age ≥ 60 years predicted higher odds of concordance, while attributing a lot of influence to the impact of treatment on recreation predicted lower odds of concordance.
Conclusions
Risk of potential adverse treatment outcomes may not be the foremost consideration of some patients with LPC. Assessment of the relative importance of patients’ stated values and preferences is warranted in the setting of LPC treatment decision making.
Clinical trial registration: NCT01844999 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).
Funder
American Cancer Society
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
National Institute of Nursing Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Health Policy,Computer Science Applications
Reference32 articles.
1. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Prostate Cancer: National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; 2021 [cited 04/29/2021]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html.
2. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199(3):683–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095.
3. King MT, Viney R, Smith DP, Hossain I, Street D, Savage E, et al. Survival gains needed to offset persistent adverse treatment effects in localised prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(4):638–45. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.552.
4. Violette PD, Agoritsas T, Alexander P, Riikonen J, Santti H, Agarwal A, et al. Decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment choice: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(3):239–51.
5. Young GJ, Dutton SJ, Bollina P, Doherty A, Gillatt D, Hughes O, et al. Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received. Eur Urol. 2020;77(3):320–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.030.