Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 4471–4473 | Cite as

No man’s land: information needs and resources of men with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer

Commentary

Abstract

The majority of men treated for prostate cancer will eventually develop castrate-resistant disease (CRPC) with metastases (mCRPC). There are several options for further treatment: chemotherapy, third-line hormone therapy, radium, immunotherapy, and palliation. Current ASCO guidelines for survivors of prostate cancer recommend that an individual’s information needs at all stages of disease are assessed and that patients are provided with or referred to the appropriate sources for information and support. Earlier reviews have highlighted the dearth of such services and we wished to see if the situation had improved more recently. Unfortunately, we conclude that there is still a lack of good-quality congruent information easily accessible specifically for men with mCRPC and insufficient data regarding the risks, harms, and benefits of different management plans. More research providing a clear evidence base about treatment consequences using patient reported outcome measures is required.

Keywords

Metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer Information needs Decision making Treatment 

References

  1. 1.
    de Bono JS, Oudard S, Ozguroglu M, et al. (2010) Prednisone plus cabazitaxel or mitoxantrone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment: a randomised open-label trial. Lancet 376:1147–1154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berthold DR et al. (2008) Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer: updated survival in the TAX 327 study. JCO 26(2):242–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kantoff P, Higano CS (2012) Integration of immunotherapy into the management of advanced prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 30:S41–S47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Bono JS, Logothetis CJ, Molina A, et al. (2011) Abiraterone and increased survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364:1995–2005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jenkins V, Fallowfield LJ, Poole K (2001) Are members of multidisciplinary teams in breast cancer aware of each other's informational roles? Quality in Health Care 10(2):70–75CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adams E, Boulton M, Watson E (2009) The information needs of partners and family members of cancer patients: a systematic literature review. Patient Educ Couns 77(2):179–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCarthy B (2011) Family members of patients with cancer: what they know, how they know and what they want to know. Eur J Oncol Nurs 15:428–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    King AJ, Evans M, Moore TH, et al. (2015) Prostate cancer and supportive care: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of men's experiences and unmet needs. Eur J Cancer Care 24(5):618–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warren E, Footman K, Tinelli M, et al. (2014) Do cancer-specific websites meet patient’s information needs? Patient Education and Counselling 95:126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finney-Rutten LJ, Arora NK, Bakos AD, et al. (2005) Information needs and sources of information among cancer patients: a systematic review of research (1980-2003). Patient Ed Coun 57:250–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, et al. (2010) The supportive care needs of family members of men with advanced prostate cancer. Can Oncol Nurs J 20:166–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, et al. (2011) The supportive care needs of men with advanced prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 38:189–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carter N, Miller PA, Murphy BR, et al. (2014) Healthcare providers’ perspectives of the supportive care needs of men with advanced prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 41:421–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Basch E (2010) The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. N Engl J Med 362(10):865–869CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Turner S, Maher EJ, Young T, et al. (1996) What are the information priorities for cancer patients involved in treatment decisions? An experienced surrogate study in Hodgkin’s disease. Br J Cancer 73:222–227CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ellis LM, Bernstein DS, Voest EE, et al. (2014) American Society of Clinical Oncology perspective: raising the bar for clinical trials by defining clinically meaningful outcomes. 32(12):1277–1280Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. (2015) A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol 26(8):1547–1573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton & Sussex Medical SchoolUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations