A website to provide support for people who have or have had any type of cancer, for their caregivers and for their family members.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: (F) Treatment Decisions Comparisons Trends

  1. #61
    [#56]
    Web-Based Versus Usual Care and Other Formats of Decision Aids to Support Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    [2018]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29945857

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND:
    Prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer among men. Because screening for prostate cancer is a controversial issue, many experts in the field have defended the use of shared decision making using validated decision aids, which can be presented in different formats (eg, written, multimedia, Web). Recent studies have concluded that decision aids improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict.

    OBJECTIVE:
    This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using Web-based decision aids to support men's prostate cancer screening decisions in comparison with usual care and other formats of decision aids.

    METHODS:
    We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to November 2016. This search identified randomized controlled trials, which assessed Web-based decision aids for men making a prostate cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Using a random-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD), and relative risks (RR).

    RESULTS:
    Of 2406 unique citations, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and participant/personnel blinding were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on seven items, two studies had high risk of bias for one item. Compared to usual care, Web-based decision aids increased knowledge (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.18-0.75), reduced decisional conflict (MD -7.07%; 95% CI -9.44 to -4.71), and reduced the practitioner control role in the decision-making process (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.81). Web-based decision aids compared to printed decision aids yielded no differences in knowledge, decisional conflict, and participation in decision or screening behaviors. Compared to video decision aids, Web-based decision aids showed lower average knowledge scores (SMD -0.50; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.12) and a slight decrease in prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25).

    CONCLUSIONS:
    According to this analysis, Web-based decision aids performed similarly to alternative formats (ie, printed, video) for the assessed decision-quality outcomes. The low cost, readiness, availability, and anonymity of the Web can be an advantage for increasing access to decision aids that support prostate cancer screening decisions among men.
    [Emphasis mine]

  2. #62
    [#57]
    Psychological and functional effect of different primary treatments for prostate cancer: A comparative prospective analysis
    [2018]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29706458

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVES:
    The aim of the study was to comparatively evaluate the psychological and functional effect of different primary treatments in patients with prostate cancer.

    METHODS AND MATERIALS:
    We conducted a single-center prospective non randomized study in a real-life setting using functional and psychological questionnaires in prostate cancer cases submitted to radical prostatectomy, external radiotherapy, or active surveillance. Totally, 220 cases were evaluated at baseline and during the follow-up at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month interval after therapy. Patients self-completed questionnaires on urinary symptoms and incontinence, erectile and bowel function, psychological distress (PD), anxiety, and depression.

    RESULTS:
    Several significant differences among the three groups of treatment were found regarding the total score of the functional questionnaires. Regarding PD, cases submitted to radical prostatectomy showed stable scores during all the 12 months of follow-up whereas cases submitted to radiotherapy showed a rapid significant worsening of scores at 1-month interval and persistent also at 6- and 12-month interval. Cases submitted to active surveillance showed a slight and slow worsening of scores only at 12-month interval. PD and depression resulted to be more associated with urinary symptoms than sexual function worsening whereas anxiety resulted to be associated either with urinary symptoms or sexual function worsening.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    The results of our comparative and prospective analysis could be used to better inform treatment decision-making. Patients and their teams might wish to know how functional and psychological aspects may differently be influenced by treatment choice.

  3. #63
    [#58]
    Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options
    [2018, Full Text]

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...22534717780032

    Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options [2018, Full Text]

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...22534718300144


    Purpose
    This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The summary presented represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity.

    Materials and Methods
    The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).

    Results
    The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.

    Conclusions
    This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
    See Full Text

    AUA, ASTRO, SUO release localized PCa guideline [2018]

    http://www.urologytimes.com/modern-m...-pca-guideline

    (News article on above paper)
    Last edited by DjinTonic; 07-08-2018 at 12:24 PM.

  4. #64
    [#59]
    “Still a Cancer Patient”—Associations of Cancer Identity With Patient-Reported Outcomes and Health Care Use Among Cancer Survivors
    [2018, Full Text]

    https://academic.oup.com/jncics/arti...pky031/5049611

    Abstract

    Background
    The concept of cancer identity is gaining attention as more individuals are living with cancer as a chronic illness. Research is limited, and results suggest that a self-identity as “cancer patient” rather than a “cancer survivor” is associated with depression and lower health-related quality of life (HRQL). We aimed to identify factors associated with patient identity and investigate the associations between patient identity and treatment, health care use, psychosocial distress, and HRQL.

    Methods
    We used data from the population-based CAncEr Survivorship: A multi-Regional (CAESAR) study. Breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors diagnosed during 1994–2004 completed a postal survey on patient identity, HRQL, psychological distress, and health care use in 2009–2011. We calculated odds ratios and the 95% confidence interval of having a patient identity. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, and cancer stage, where appropriate.

    Results
    Of the 6057 respondents, colorectal cancer survivors (25%) were least likely to consider themselves patients, and prostate cancer survivors (36%) the most likely. Being male, younger age, comorbidity, higher cancer stage, and disease recurrence were associated with patient identity. Treatment was associated with patient identity, except among female colorectal cancer survivors. Having a patient identity was associated with higher health care use within the past 12 months. Survivors who still consider themselves patients were more likely to be depressed and reported significantly lower HRQL.

    Conclusions
    A significant proportion of cancer survivors still consider themselves patients five to 15 years postdiagnosis. Sensitivity to individuals’ self-identity should be considered when exploring their cancer experience.
    [Emphasis mine]

  5. #65
    [#60]
    Trends in Prostate Cancer Incidence Rates and Prevalence of Prostate Specific Antigen Screening by Socioeconomic Status and Regions in the United States, 2004 to 2013
    [2018]

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...22534717776501

    Abstract

    Purpose
    To our knowledge it is unknown whether decreases in the prevalence of prostate specific antigen screening and prostate cancer incidence rates following the USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force) recommendations against routine prostate specific antigen screening are similar across socioeconomic groups and United States census regions.

    Materials and Methods
    We analyzed incidence rates and prostate specific antigen screening prevalence by age, race/ethnicity, disease stage, United States region and area level socioeconomic status. Annual percent changes were examined for changes in rates with time. The predicted marginal probability and 95% CIs were calculated to estimate changes in prostate specific antigen screening.

    Results
    Incidence rates in men 50 years old or older decreased in all race/ethnic, regional and socioeconomic status groups. From 2007 to 2013 the overall incidence rates for localized cancer significantly decreased 7.5% per year (95% CI –10.5––4.4) at ages 50 to 74 years and 11.1% per year (95% CI –14.1––8.1) at ages 75 years or greater. In contrast, the incidence of distant stage cancer significantly increased 1.4% per year (95% CI 0.3–2.5) from 2008 to 2013 at ages 50 to 74 years but stabilized from 2011 to 2013 at ages 75 years or greater at 5.1% per year (95% CI –3.4–14.4). Distant stage disease rates increased with increasing poverty level at ages 50 to 74 years but not at 75 years or greater.

    Conclusions
    The prostate cancer incidence of early stage disease decreased in men 50 years old or older while the rate of distant stage disease slightly increased in men 50 to 74 years old following USPSTF recommendations against routine prostate specific antigen screening. Further studies with additional years of data are needed to substantiate our findings and monitor the effects of the late stage disease increase on prostate cancer mortality rates.

  6. #66
    [#61]
    Primary cryotherapy for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer
    [2018]

    http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi...2D247C7.f02t02

    (Discusses both whole-gland and focal therapy)

    Abstract

    Background
    Traditionally, radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy have been the main treatment options to attempt to cure men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. Cryotherapy is an alternative option for treatment of prostate cancer that involves freezing of the whole prostate (whole gland therapy) or only the cancer (focal therapy), but it is unclear how effective this is in comparison to other treatments.

    Objectives
    To assess the effects of cryotherapy (whole gland or focal) compared with other interventions for primary treatment of clinically localised (cT1-T2) or locally-advanced (cT3) non-metastatic prostate cancer.

    Search methods
    We updated a previously published Cochrane Review by performing a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE), clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) and a grey literature repository (Grey Literature Report) up to 6 March 2018. We also searched the reference lists of other relevant publications and conference proceedings. We applied no language restrictions.

    Selection criteria
    We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing cryotherapy to other interventions for the primary treatment of prostate cancer.

    Data collection and analysis
    Two independent reviewers screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of evidence (QoE) according to the GRADE approach.

    Main results
    We included only one comparison of whole gland cryotherapy versus external beam radiotherapy, which was informed by two trials with a total of 307 randomised participants. The median age of the included studies was around 70 years. The median follow-up of included studies ranged from 100 to 105 months.

    Primary outcomes: we are uncertain about the effect of whole gland cryotherapy compared to radiation therapy on time to death from prostate cancer; hazard ratio (HR) of 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 9.45; 2 trials, 293 participants; very low QoE); this would correspond to zero fewer death from prostate cancer per 1000 men (95% CI 85 fewer to 520 more). We are equally uncertain about the effect of quality of life-related urinary function and bowel function (QoL) at 36 months using the UCLA-Prostate Cancer Index score for which higher values (range: 0 to 100) reflect better quality of life using minimal clinically important differences (MCID) of 8 and 7 points, respectively; mean difference (MD) of 4.4 (95% CI −6.5 to 15.3) and 4.0 (95% CI −73.96 to 81.96), respectively (1 trial, 195 participants; very low QoE). We are also uncertain about sexual function-related QoL using a MCID of 8 points; MD of −20.7 (95% CI −36.29 to −5.11; 1 trial, 195 participants; very low QoE). Lastly, we are uncertain of the risk for major adverse events; risk ratio (RR): 0.91 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.78; 2 trials, 293 participants; very low QoE); this corresponds to 10 fewer major adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 58 fewer to 86 more).

    Secondary outcomes: we are very uncertain about the effects of cryotherapy on time to death from any cause (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.79; 2 trials, 293 participants; very low QoE), and time to biochemical failure (HR 2.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 62.12; 2 trials, 293 participants; very low QoE). Rates of secondary interventions for treatment failure and minor adverse events were either not reported in the trials, or the data could not be used for analyses.

    We found no trials that compared whole gland cryotherapy or focal cryotherapy to other treatment forms such as radical surgery, active surveillance, watchful waiting or other forms of radiotherapy.

    Authors' conclusions
    Based on very low quality evidence, primary whole gland cryotherapy has uncertain effects on oncologic outcomes, QoL, and major adverse events compared to external beam radiotherapy. Reasons for downgrading the QoE included serious study limitations, indirectness due to the use of lower doses of radiation in the comparison group than currently recommended, and serious or very serious imprecision.

  7. #67
    [#62]
    Examining trajectories of anxiety in men with prostate cancer faced with complex treatment decisions
    [2018]

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...520-018-4351-6

    Abstract

    Purpose
    To examine changes in anxiety over time (trajectories) in men with prostate cancer faced with a decision to participate in a clinical trial and to identify demographic and study variables that predict these trajectories.

    Methods
    Our data come from a larger study examining the efficacy of a decision aid on decisional conflict in men with prostate cancer who were deciding whether to participate in a prostate cancer clinical trial. We used latent growth mixture models to identify ‘classes’ (i.e. groups) of participants with different trajectories of anxiety, as assessed by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory state scale, and binary logistic regression to determine predictors of anxiety ‘class’.

    Results
    In 128 men with prostate cancer (mean age = 63), growth mixture modelling identified two classes defined by different anxiety trajectories. One class (n = 27) started with a higher mean anxiety score and did not change over time (stable high), whereas the second class (n = 101) started with lower anxiety and significantly reduced over time (low and recovering). None of the demographic and study variables (including age, education, marital status, and decision to join the trial) was predictive of anxiety class.

    Conclusions
    Men treated for prostate cancer who have high levels of anxiety after surgery may continue to have persistent high anxiety levels which do not reduce naturally over time. Patient or disease characteristics do not appear to predict anxiety. It is important, therefore, to monitor for anxiety in this population and refer for psychological interventions where required.

  8. #68
    [#63]
    Evaluation of Cancer-Specific Mortality with Surgery Versus Radiation as Primary Therapy for Localized High-Grade Prostate Cancer in Men Younger than 60 Years Old
    [2018]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30059685

    Abstract

    PURPOSE:
    The optimal primary treatment for localized high-grade prostate cancer in younger men remains controversial. The objective of this project was to compare the impact of initial radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy on survival outcomes for young men <60 years old with high-grade prostate cancer.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS:
    We retrospectively analyzed the records of men under 60 years old in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database who underwent initial surgery or radiation therapy for high-grade (Gleason score ≥ 8 ) localized (N0M0 TNM stage) prostate cancer from 2004-2012. Univariate and Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality.

    RESULTS:
    A total of 2,228 men were identified. 1,459 men (65.5%) underwent initial surgery and had a median follow-up of 43 months. 769 men (34.5%) underwent initial external beam radiation therapy brachytherapy and had a median follow-up of 44 months. On multivariate analysis, initial treatment with surgery was associated with improvement in prostate cancer-specific mortality and overall mortality compared with initial treatment with radiation (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.19 - 0.74; p = 0.005 and HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.24 - 0.70; p = 0.001 respectively) when controlling for age, biopsy Gleason score, T stage, and PSA.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Our data show significant survival differences in young men treated initially with surgery versus external beam radiation therapy for high-grade prostate cancer. Future prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm long-term outcomes of these treatment approaches.
    We should keep in mind two points about this study. First, it was done by a Urology Dept. -- that's not to say that there is necessarily bias. Secondly, the RT (EBRT +/- Brachy) was done in the period 2004-2012. There are improved RT technologies and regimes today.
    Last edited by DjinTonic; 07-31-2018 at 05:07 PM.

  9. #69
    [#64]
    Radical prostatectomy then and now: Surgical overtreatment of prostate cancer is declining from 2009 to 2016 at a tertiary referral center
    [2018]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30064933

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND:
    In the era of increasing scrutiny of delivery of quality care, efforts to decrease surgical overtreatment of insignificant prostate cancer (iCaP) continue.

    OBJECTIVE:
    To quantify the incidence of surgical overtreatment over time among a contemporary series of men diagnosed with CaP.

    METHODS:
    We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and pathologic specimens for men with CaP who underwent radical prostatectomy between January 2009 and December 2016 at a tertiary referral center. Overtreatment, defined as presence of iCaP in radical prostatectomy specimens, was the primary endpoint. iCaP was defined as a tumor of Gleason score no more than 6 and a tumor diameter ≤10 mm (volume <0.5 cc). Independent predictors of iCaP were determined using a multivariable model.

    RESULTS:
    A total of 1,283 men were eligible for analysis. Overtreatment was found in 86 (6.7%) patients. The frequency of overtreatment significantly decreased from 15% (24/165) in 2009 to 3% (4/134) of patients in 2016 (P < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, prostate-specific antigen density ≥0.15 vs. <0.15 (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.64, P < 0.01), biopsy Gleason score 3+4 vs. 3+3 (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.29, P < 0.01), African American vs. White ethnicity (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.96, P = 0.045), and year of surgery (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-0.99, P = 0.03) remained significant predictors of iCaP at surgery. Over the years of study, the odds of overtreatment decreased by 12% annually (OR 0.88, 95 CI 0.77-0.99, P = 0.03). At the same time, the pathological evidence of advanced disease at surgery (≥T3a with/without lymph node involvement) remained unchanged.

    COMMENT:
    Surgical overtreatment of CaP has declined to a rate of approximately 3% at this tertiary referral center; further decline is likely. The decline probably has a multifactorial explanation: decreased rate of overdiagnosis, better patient selection for surgery, or change in the referral pattern.

  10. #70
    [#65]
    Multi-disciplinary and shared decision-making approach in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer
    [2018, Full Text]

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...90598X18300718

    Abstract

    Decision-making in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer is complex as it is based on multi-factorial considerations. It is complicated by a multitude of issues, which are related to the patient, treatment, disease, availability of equipment(s), expertise, and physicians. Combination of all these factors play a major role in the decision-making process and provide for an interactive decision-making preferably in the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting. MDT decisions are comprehensive and are often based on all factors including patients’ biological status, disease and its aggressiveness, and physician and centres’ expertise. However, one important and often under rated factor is patient-related factors. There is considerable evidence that patients and physicians have different goals for treatment and physicians’ understanding of their own patients’ preferences is not accurate. Several patient-related key factors have been identified such as age, religious beliefs, sexual health, educational background, and cognitive impairment. We have focused on these areas and highlight some key factors that need to be taken considered whilst counselling a patient and understanding his choice of treatment, which might not always be match with the clinicians’ recommendation.
    [Emphasis mine]

 

Similar Threads

  1. Decisions, decisions. Surgery or remain on AS with Gleason 3+4
    By NightHiker in forum Prostate Cancer Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 12-22-2014, 02:31 PM
  2. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-20-2014, 06:54 PM
  3. Decisions, Decisions......
    By Walnut in forum Prostate Cancer Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-12-2014, 04:49 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-23-2005, 04:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •