Background: The choice between surgical and non-surgical treatment options is a fundamental decision for men with local-stage prostate cancer because of differences in risks of genitourinary adverse effects among available treatments.
Objectives: We assessed whether pre-existing genitourinary symptoms at the time of diagnosis influenced men’s preferences for surgery over other management options.
Methods: We recruited 593 patients with newly diagnosed local-stage prostate cancer prior to initiating treatment from an integrated healthcare system, an academic urology center, and community urology clinics. We used logistic regression to compare whether men had a preference for non-surgical options or only preferred surgery.
Results: Nearly 60% of participants indicated that they were considering non-surgical options. Age and clinical characteristics but not pre-existing genitourinary symptoms influenced the decision between surgical or non-surgical options. A total of 62% of men reported adverse effects as a main factor in their treatment decision. Men with more aggressive tumor types were less likely to consider adverse effects; however, men who reported poor ability to have an erection were more likely to consider adverse effects in their treatment decision (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Sexual dysfunction at time of diagnosis, but not other genitourinary symptoms, is associated with men considering treatment-related adverse effects when considering surgery versus other options. Men who are not experiencing sexual dysfunction at diagnosis may discount the risks of adverse effects in the decision-making process.
Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, et al. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Urol 1994; 151: 54–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
Stewart WF, Van Rooyen JB, Cundiff GW, et al. Prevalence and burden of overactive bladder in the United States. World J Urol 2003; 20: 327–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
Irwin DE, Milsom I, Hunskaar S, et al. Population-based survey of urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, and other lower urinary tract symptoms in five countries: results of the EPIC study. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 1306–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookes ST, Link CL, Donovan JL, et al. Relationship between lower urinary tract symptoms and erectile dysfunction: results from the Boston Area Community Health Survey. J Urol 2008; 179: 250–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsom I, Abrams P, Cardozo L, et al. How widespread are the symptoms of an overactive bladder and how are they managed? A population-based prevalence study. BJU Int 2001; 87: 760–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ries L, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2005. Betheseda (MD): National Cancer Institute, 2008Google Scholar
Spencer BA, Steinberg M, Malin J, et al. Quality-of-care indicators for early-stage prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 1928–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Stanford JL, et al. Prostate cancer practice patterns and quality of life: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 1719–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litwin MS, Flanders SC, Pasta DJ, et al. Sexual function and bother after radical prostatectomy or radiation for prostate cancer: multivariate quality-of-life analysis from CaPSURE. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. Urology 1999; 54: 503–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, et al. Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 790–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1250–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
US National Institutes of Health: National Cancer Institute. SEER: Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results [online]. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov [Accessed 2007 Dec 24]
Zeliadt SB, Ramsey SD, Penson DF, et al. Why do men choose one treatment over another? A review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2006; 106: 1865–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry DL, Ellis WJ, Woods NF, et al. Treatment decision-making by men with localized prostate cancer: the influence of personal factors. Urol Oncol 2003; 21: 93–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmboe ES, Concato J. Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer: asking men what’s important. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15: 694–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Hayter C, et al. What questions do patients with curable prostate cancer want answered? Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 7–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Nickel JC, et al. The information required by patients with early-stage prostate cancer in choosing their treatment. BJU Int 2001; 87: 218–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Van Manen L, et al. Evaluation of a question-and-answer booklet on early-stage prostate-cancer. Patient Educ Couns 2003; 49: 115–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germino BB. Psychosocial and educational intervention trials in prostate cancer. Semin Oncol Nurs 2001; 17: 129–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demark-Wahnefried W, Schildkraut JM, Iselin CE, et al. Treatment options, selection, and satisfaction among African American and white men with prostate carcinoma in North Carolina. Cancer 1998; 83: 320–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diefenbach MA, Dorsey J, Uzzo RG, et al. Decision-making strategies for patients with localized prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 2002; 20: 55–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison BJ, Gleave ME, Goldenberg SL, et al. Assessing information and decision preferences of men with prostate cancer and their partners. Cancer Nurs 2002; 25: 42–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark JA, Bokhour BG, Inui TS, et al. Measuring patients’ perceptions of the outcomes of treatment for early prostate cancer. Med Care 2003; 41: 923–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1995; 273: 129–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve BB, Potosky AL, Willis GB. Should function and bother be measured and reported separately for prostate cancer quality-of-life domains? Urology 2006; 68: 599–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth AJ, Rosenfeld B, Kornblith AB, et al. The memorial anxiety scale for prostate cancer: validation of a new scale to measure anxiety in men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2003; 97: 2910–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehta SS, Lubeck DP, Pasta DJ, et al. Fear of cancer recurrence in patients undergoing definitive treatment for prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2003; 170: 1931–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood W, De Monner S, Ubel P, et al. Racial/ethnic disparities in the treatment of localized/regional prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 171: 1504–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denberg TD, Beaty BL, Kim FJ, et al. Marriage and ethnicity predict treatment in localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2005; 103: 1819–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. Somerset (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, 1989Google Scholar
Legler J, Potosky AL, Gilliland FD, et al. Validation study of retrospective recall of disease-targeted function: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. Med Care 2000; 38: 847–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siston AK, Knight SJ, Slimack NP, et al. Quality of life after a diagnosis of prostate cancer among men of lower socioeconomic status: results from the Veterans Affairs Cancer of the Prostate Outcomes Study. Urology 2003; 61: 172–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellizzi M, Latini M, Cowan E, et al. Fear of recurrence, symptom burden, and health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. Epub 2008 Mar 14Google Scholar