OBJECTIVE: To identify what factors men consider important when choosing treatment for prostate cancer, and to assess why men reject watchful waiting as a treatment option.
PARTICIPANTS: One hundred two consecutive men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer identified from hospital and community-based urology practice groups.
MEASUREMENTS: Patients were asked open-ended questions about likes and dislikes of all treatments considered, how they chose their treatment, and reasons for rejecting watchful waiting. The interviews were conducted in person, after the men had made a treatment decision but before they received the treatment.
MAIN RESULTS: The most common reasons for liking a treatment were removal of tumor for radical prostatectomy (RP) (n=15), evidence for external beam radiation (EBRT) (n=6), and short duration of therapy for brachytherapy (seeds) (n=25). The most frequently cited dislikes were high risk of incontinence for RP (n=46), long duration of therapy for EBRT (n=29), and lack of evidence for seeds (n=16). Only 12 men chose watchful waiting. Fear of future consequences, cited by 64% (n=90) of men, was the most common reason to reject watchful waiting.
CONCLUSION: In discussing treatment options for localized prostate cancer, clinicians, including primary care providers, should recognize that patients’ decisions are often based on specific beliefs regarding each therapy’s intrinsic characteristics, supporting evidence, or pattern of complications. Even if patients do not recall a physician recommendation against watchful waiting, this option may not be chosen because of fear of future consequences.
localized prostate cancer treatment decision making
Walsh PC. The natural history of localized prostate cancer: a guide to therapy. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughn ED, Wen AJ, eds. Campbell’s Urology. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1998:2539–44.Google Scholar
Hahn DL, Roberts RG. Screening for asymptomatic prostate cancer: truth in advertising. J Fam Pract. 1993;37:432–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A., et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995;273:129–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andriole GL, Smith DS, Rao G, Goodnough L, Catalona WJ. Early complications of contemporary anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1994;152(5 Pt 2):1858–60.Google Scholar
Fowler FJ, Roman A, Barry MJ, Wasson J, Lu-Yao G, Wennberg JE. Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. The national Medicare experience: 1988–1990. Urology. 1993;42:622–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnick MB, Fair WR. Prostate cancer: emerging concepts. Part I. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:118–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fleming C, Wasson JH, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, Wennberg JE. A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1993;269:2650–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroder FH. Screening, early detection, and treatment of prostate cancer: a European view. Urology. 1995;46:62–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graverson PH, Nielsen KT, Gasser TC, Corle DK, Madsen PO. Radical prostatectomy versus expectant primary treatment in stages I and II prostatic cancer. A fifteen year follow-up. Urology. 1990;36:493–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middleton RG, Thompson IM, Austenfeld MS, et al. Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel Summary report on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Urological Association. J Urol. 1995;154:2144–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltus R. For prostate cancer there’s no magic bullet. Boston Globe. January 12, 1998:C1.Google Scholar
Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, Katz DA, Lawrence W. Information seeking and satisfaction with treatment decision in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(suppl):544. Abstract.Google Scholar
Fowler FJ, Bin L, Collins MM, et al. Prostate cancer screening and beliefs about treatment efficacy: a national survey of primary care physicians and urologists. Am J Med. 1998;104:526–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinstein AR. Clinimetrics. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Amico AV, Coleman CN. Role of interstitial radiotherapy in the management of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer: the jury is still out. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:304–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar