Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A standardized analysis of the current surgical and non-surgical treatment selection process for men with localized prostate cancer

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to treat localized prostate cancer has increased in popularity, although other options exist, including radiotherapy and active surveillance. The decision about choosing the right treatment has become pertinent for many patients. This literature review aimed to assess the current state-of-the-art regarding decisional aids and the associated decisional outcomes for the purpose of designing a method for both patients and doctors to use to make the best treatment decision for the patient. A literature search was conducted via MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases using the keywords “prostate” and “cancer” and “impact” and “decisio*” and “treatment.” Articles were included that focused on treatment outcomes, decision-making processes, and the use of decisional aids for localized prostate cancer. Articles that investigated prostate cancer in general or prostate cancer screening were excluded, as were articles that were not written in English. Altogether, 13 articles were finally critically reviewed for this study. Results were conflicting regarding the relations between patient factors, use of decisional aids, and decisional outcomes. There was a large gap in the literature regarding the optimal decision-making process for men with localized prostate cancer. The role of currently available decisional aids is limited to helping patients make the right decisions. There is a need to develop a novel decisional aid in which patient–physician discussion—involving evaluation of a spectrum of patient-, doctor-, and treatment-related factors—is included.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2016. Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: prostate cancer. Canberra: AIHW. http://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books/. Accessed 28 Jan 2016

  2. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367:203–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C et al (2012) Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol 187:2087

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W et al (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Allan C, Ilic D (2016) Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Urol Int 96:373–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK et al (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 388:1057–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1415–1424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1425–1437

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wallis CJD, Saskin R, Choo R et al (2016) Surgery versus radiotherapy for clinically-localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70:21–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Tong C (2011) Information that affects patients’ treatment choices for early stage prostate cancer: a review. Can J Urol 18:5998–6006

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zeliadt SB, Ramsey SD, Penson DF et al (2006) Why do men choose one treatment over another? A review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 106:1865–1874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Orom H, Biddle C, Underwood W III, Nelson C, Homish L (2016) What is a ‘‘good’’ treatment decision? decisional control, knowledge, treatment decision making, and quality of life in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Med Decis Making 36:714–725

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Violette P, Agoritsas T, Alexander P et al (2015) Decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment choice: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA Cancer J Clin 65:239–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berry DL, Halpenny B, Hong F et al (2013) The personal patient profile-prostate decision support for men with localized prostate cancer: a multi-center randomized trial. Urol Oncol 31:1012–1021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van Tol-Geerdink JJ, Willem Leer J, Weijerman PC et al (2013) Choice between prostatectomy and radiotherapy when men are eligible for both: a randomized controlled trial of usual care vs decision aid. BJU Int 111:564–573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Blumenthal-Barby JS, Cantor SB, Russell HV, Naik AD, Volk RJ (2013) Decision aids: when ‘nudging’ patients to make a particular choice is more ethical than balanced, nondirective content. Health Aff 32:303–310

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Chu WG, Kim BJ, Slezak J et al (2015) The effect of urologist experience on choosing active surveillance for prostate cancer. World J Urol 33:1701–1706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chabrera C, Zabalegui A, Bonet M et al (2015) A decision aid to support informed choices for patients recently diagnosed with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Nursing 38(3):E42–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hacking B, Wallace L, Scott S, Kosmala-Anderson J, Belkora J, McNeill A (2013) Testing the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a “decision navigation” intervention for early stage prostate cancer patients in Scotland—a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology 22:1017–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Marcus AC, Diefenbach MA, Stanton AL, et al (2013) Cancer patient and survivor research from the Cancer Information Service Research Consortium: a preview of three large randomized trials and initial lessons learned. J Health Commun 18:543–562

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Chambers SK, Ferguson M, Gardiner RA, Aitken J, Occhipinti S (2013) Intervening to improve psychological outcomes for men with prostate cancer. Psychooncology. 22:1025–1034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Diefenbach MA, Mohamed NE, Butz BP, et al (2012) Acceptability and preliminary feasibility of an internet/CDROM-based education and decision program for early-stage prostate cancer patients: randomized pilot study [serial online]. J Med Internet Res 14:e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Feldman-Stewart D, Tong C, Siemens R, et al (2012) The impact of explicit values clarification exercises in a patient decision aid emerges after the decision is actually made: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Med Decis Making 32:616–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Taylor KL, Davis KM, Lamond T, et al (2010) Use and evaluation of a CD-ROMbased decision aid for prostate cancer treatment decisions. Behav Med. 36:130–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Davison BJ, Goldenberg SL, Wiens KP, Gleave ME (2007) Comparing a generic and individualized information decision support intervention for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer [serial online]. Cancer Nurs 30:E7–E15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mishel MH, Germino BB, Lin L, et al (2009) Managing uncertainty about treatment decision making in early stage prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Patient EducCouns 77:349–359

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Nancy Schatken, BS, MT(ASCP), from Edanz Group (www.edanzediting.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Funding

There was no source of funding to the study, and there are no commercial relationships between the authors and the study reported in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Liverpool Hospital, Corner of Elizabeth and Goulburn Street, Liverpool, NSW, 2170, Australia

    Wenjie Zhong, Kayvan Haghighi, Prem Rathore, Eddy Wong & Pascal Mancuso

Authors
  1. Wenjie Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kayvan Haghighi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Prem Rathore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eddy Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pascal Mancuso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This literature review was supervised by PM. The research process was carried out by WZ. Experts involved in critically analysis of the articles included PR and KH and EW. The manuscript was drafted by WZ. All other authors also provided significant contributions on revision of this manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenjie Zhong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

WZ declares that he has no conflict of interest. KH declares that he has no conflict of interest. PR declares that he has no conflict of interest. EW declares that he has no conflict of interest. PM declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Take Home Message: The ideal tool to assist patients in making a treatment decision appears to be qualitative, in which patient–physician discussion on a spectrum of patient-, doctor-, and treatment-related subjects is included, possibly with multidisciplinary consultation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhong, W., Haghighi, K., Rathore, P. et al. A standardized analysis of the current surgical and non-surgical treatment selection process for men with localized prostate cancer. J Robotic Surg 12, 215–221 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0796-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0796-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation