Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the impact of providing men with information about potential prostate cancer treatment options prior to receiving biopsy results

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

There is little research assessing the impact of providing men with information about prostate cancer (PCa) treatment options at the time of referral for a prostate biopsy. Study objectives were to determine whether receiving an information booklet about PCa treatment options prior to receiving biopsy results was acceptable to patients, and if receiving this information influenced levels of anxiety, depression, distress, and treatment decisional conflict.

Methods

Between June 2016 and September 2017, a randomised block design was used to allocate patients from an Australian urology practice into the intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group were provided with written information about treatment options for localised PCa prior to their biopsy. Outcome measures including the Distress Thermometer, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Decisional Conflict Scale were completed pre-biopsy and 2–3 weeks post-biopsy. Ninety-eight patients referred for an initial prostate biopsy for an elevated PSA test or suspicious digital rectal exam participated in the study (response rate = 78%).

Results

Multimodal repeated-measures analyses showed no significant differences between control and intervention groups in changes in distress, anxiety, or depression from pre- to post-biopsy, and in decisional conflict post-diagnosis (all p > .05). Thirty-five (87%) patients believed that the resource made it easier to understand subsequent explanation of treatment options, and 51 patients (98%) who received the intervention preferred to be given information at that time.

Conclusions

Providing patients with information about treatment options prior to biopsy did not impact on changes in psychological distress and decisional conflict post-biopsy. However, the majority of patients preferred to be given such information at this time point.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin D, Forman D, Bray F (2012) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0 cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 11. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  2. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Hoffman RM, Potosky AL, Stanford JL, Stroup AM, Van Horn RL, Penson DF (2013) Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 368(5):436–445. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1209978

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hellenthal N, Ellison L (2008) How patients make treatment choices? Nat Clin Pract Urol 5(8):426–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bosco JLF, Halpenny B, Berry DL (2012) Personal preferences and discordant prostate cancer treatment choice in an intervention trial of men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 10:123–123. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-123

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Zeliadt SB, Ramsey SD, Penson DF, Hall IJ, Ekwueme DU, Stroud L, Lee JW (2006) Why do men choose one treatment over another? A review of patient decision making for localised prostate cancer. Cancer 106(9):1865–1874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Maguire R, Hanly P, Drummond FJ, Gavin A, Sharp L (2017) Regret and fear in prostate cancer: the relationship between treatment appraisals and fear of recurrence in prostate cancer survivors. Psychooncology 26(11):1825–1831. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van Tol-Geerdink JJ, Willem Leer J, Weijerman PC, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, van Lin EN, Alfred Witjes J, Stalmeier PF (2013) Choice between prostatectomy and radiotherapy when men are eligible for both: a randomized controlled trial of usual care vs decision aid. BJU Int 111(4):564–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11402.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chabrera CM, Zabalegui A, Bonet M, Caro M, Areal J, Gonzalez JR, Font A (2015) A decision aid to support informed choices for patients recently diagnosed with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Nurs 38(3):E42–E50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Isebaert S, Van Audenhove C, Haustermans K, Junius S, Joniau S, De Ridder K, Van Poppel H (2008) Evaluating a decision aid for patients with localized prostate cancer in clinical practice. Urol Int 81(4):383–388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Violette PD, Agoritsas T, Alexander P, Riikonen J, Santti H, Agarwal A, Bhatnagar N, Dahm P, Montori V, Guyatt GH, Tikkinen KAO (2015) Decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment choice: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA Cancer J Clin 65(3):239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ramsey SD, Zeliadt SB, Arora NK, Potosky AL, Blough DK, Hamilton AS, Van Den Eeden SK, Oakley-Girvan I, Penson DF (2009) Access to information sources and treatment considerations among men with local stage prostate cancer. Urology 74(3):509–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.01.090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zeliadt SB, Moinpour CM, Blough DK, Penson DF, Hall IJ, Smith JL, Ekwueme DU, Thompson IM, Keane TE, Ramsey SD (2010) Preliminary treatment considerations among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Am J Manag Care 16(5):e121–e130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zeliadt SB, Hannon PA, Trivedi RB, Bonner LB, Vu TT, Simons C, Kimmie CA, Hu EY, Zipperer C, Lin DW (2013) A preliminary exploration of the feasibility of offering men information about potential prostate cancer treatment options before they know their biopsy results. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13(19). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-19

  14. Chambers SK, Zajdlewicz L, Youlden DR, Holland JC, Dunn J (2014) The validity of the distress thermometer in prostate cancer populations. Psychooncology 23:195–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Lowe B (2006) A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 166(10):1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW (2001) The PHQ-9. J Gen Intern Med 16(9):606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pillay B, Moon D, Love C, Meyer D, Ferguson E, Crowe H, Wootten A (2017) Quality of life, psychological functioning, and treatment satisfaction of men who have undergone penile prosthesis surgery following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 14(12):1612–1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.10.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Punnen S, Cowan JE, Dunn LB, Shumay DM, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR (2013) A longitudinal study of anxiety, depression and distress as predictors of sexual and urinary quality of life in men with prostate cancer. BJU Int 112(2):E67–E75. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. O'Connor AM (1995) Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak 15(1):25–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ernstmann N, Weissbach L, Herden J, Winter N, Ansmann L (2017) Patient–physician communication and health-related quality of life of patients with localised prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy – a longitudinal multilevel analysis. BJU Int 119(3):396–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Grummet J (2017) How to biopsy: transperineal versus transrectal, saturation versus targeted, what’s the evidence? Urol Clin N Am 44(4):525–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2017.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hagerman CJ, Bellini PG, Davis KM, Hoffman RM, Aaronson DS, Leigh DY, Zinar RE, Penson D, Van Den Eeden S, Taylor KL (2017) Physicians’ perspectives on the informational needs of low-risk prostate cancer patients. Health Educ Res 32(2):134–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyx035

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Prostate Cancer Foundation Australia.

Funding

This study was supported by an Epworth Research Institute grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Epworth Prostate Centre, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Brindha Pillay, Helen Crowe, Nicholas Howard & Addie Wootten

  2. Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Brindha Pillay, Helen Crowe & Nicholas Howard

  3. Psychosocial Oncology Program, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia

    Brindha Pillay

  4. Epworth Centre for Robotic Surgery, Epsworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Daniel Moon

  5. Australian Urology Associates, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Daniel Moon, Sarah Mann & Mark Frydenberg

  6. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Daniel Moon

  7. School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Denny Meyer

  8. Australian Prostate Centre, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Helen Crowe & Addie Wootten

  9. Urology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Mark Frydenberg

  10. Clinical Institute of Specialty Surgery, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Mark Frydenberg

  11. Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Mark Frydenberg

Authors
  1. Brindha Pillay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denny Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Helen Crowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah Mann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicholas Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Addie Wootten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mark Frydenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brindha Pillay.

Ethics declarations

This study was approved by the institution’s ethics committee (714-15).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pillay, B., Moon, D., Meyer, D. et al. Exploring the impact of providing men with information about potential prostate cancer treatment options prior to receiving biopsy results. Support Care Cancer 28, 507–514 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04847-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04847-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation