scholarly journals Primary Treatment Choice Over Time and Relative Survival of Prostate Cancer Patients: Influence of Age, Grade, and Stage

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (9) ◽  
pp. 484-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarina L. Matthes ◽  
Manuela Limam ◽  
Silvia Dehler ◽  
Dimitri Korol ◽  
Sabine Rohrmann
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Relative Survival ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Treatment Choice ◽  
Over Time

Associations between patient knowledge of others' experiences and treatment choice in men with localized prostate cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6578-6578
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Katz ◽  
Ying Cao ◽  
Xinglei Shen ◽  
Deborah Usinger ◽  
Sarah Walden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Treatment Choice ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
The North ◽  
Patient Reported

6578 Background: Men with localized prostate cancer must select from multiple treatment options, without one clear best choice. Consequently, personal factors, such as knowing other prostate cancer patients who have undergone treatment, may influence patient decision-making. However, associations between knowledge about others’ experiences and treatment decision-making among localized prostate cancer patients has not been well characterized. We used data from a population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer patients to examine whether patient-reported knowledge of others’ experiences is associated with treatment choice. Methods: The North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness & Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS) is a population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer patients enrolled from 2011-2013 throughout the state of North Carolina in collaboration with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. All patients were enrolled prior to treatment and followed prospectively. Patient decision-making factors including knowledge of others’ experiences with prostate cancer treatment options were collected through patient report. Patient treatment choice was determined through medical record abstraction and cancer registry data. Results: Among 1,202 patients, 17% reported knowing someone who pursued active surveillance (AS) while 28%, 46%, and 59% reported knowing someone who received brachytherapy, external beam radiation (EBRT), or radical prostatectomy (RP), respectively; 26% underwent AS, 9% brachytherapy, 21% EBRT, and 39% RP as their initial treatment. In unadjusted analyses, patients with knowledge of others’ experiences with brachytherapy, EBRT or RP had more than twice the odds of receiving that treatment compared to patients who did not. Knowledge of others’ experience with AS was not associated with choice to undergo AS. Multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, risk group, and patient-reported goals of care showed knowledge of others’ experiences with brachytherapy (OR 4.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.76 to 7.68), EBRT (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.34), or RP (OR 4.02, 95% CI 2.84 to 5.70) was significantly associated with odds of receiving that treatment. The odds of receiving a particular treatment option were further increased among patients who reported knowing someone who had a “good” experience with the treatment in question. Conclusions: This is the first population-based study to directly demonstrate the impact of a patient’s knowledge of others’ experiences on treatment choice in prostate cancer. These data provide a new consideration to clinicians in their counseling of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, and also impacts research into the informed decision-making process for this disease.

scholarly journals Prostate cancer patients’ quality of life assessments across the primary treatment trajectory: ‘True’ change or response shift?

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (7) ◽  
pp. 814-820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Gerlich ◽  
Michael Schuler ◽  
Matthias Jelitte ◽  
Silke Neuderth ◽  
Michael Flentje ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Response Shift ◽  
Primary Treatment

Prostate cancer patient’s survival in Lithuania

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 439-444
Author(s):  
Giedrė Smailytė ◽  
Robertas Adomaitis ◽  
Karolis Ulinskas ◽  
Birutė Aleknavičienė
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Relative Survival ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Place Of Residence ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Survival Differences

Background. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in the survival of prostate cancer patients during the 12-year period and to analyze differences in survival by period of diagnosis, stage of disease, age and place of residence. Materials and methods. All newly diagnosed cases of prostate cancer (ICD-10, C61) in men were identified in the Lithuanian Cancer Registry for the period 1994–2005. Five-year relative survival estimates were computed with the Hakulinen method using the STATA software. Five-year relative survival estimates were calculated for three different periods of time when prostate cancer was diagnosed (1994–1997, 1998–2001 and 2002–2005), by age (15–59, 60–74, and 75–99), stage at diagnosis (I, II, III, IV, unknown) and place of residence (cities and towns or rural areas). Results. The survival of prostate cancer patients in Lithuania has dramatically increased. Five-year relative survival in the period 1994–1997 was 46.92% and in the period 2002–2005 it reached 86.49%. Medium age prostate cancer patients (60–74 years) compared to younger and older patients had better survival rates. Increasing survival was observed for all stages of disease. Lower five-year relative survival rate of prostate cancer patients was reported for men from villages or other rural areas compared to patients from cities and towns in all periods under study. Conclusions. The five-year survival rate of patients with prostate cancer has increased from 46.92% (95% CI 44.12–49.74) in 1994–1997 to 86.49% (95% CI 84.73–88.22) in 2002–2005 in Lithuania. The study identified survival differences by age and place of residence. Issues, such as access to care, quality of medical care, must be made equally available and accessible for the whole population with special attention to older men and men living in rural areas.

Risk of Cardiovascular Mortality in Prostate Cancer Patients in the Rotterdam Randomized Screening Trial

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (25) ◽  
pp. 4184-4189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzie J. Otto ◽  
Fritz H. Schröder ◽  
Harry J. de Koning
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
General Population ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Prostate Cancer Treatment ◽  
Standardized Mortality Ratios

Purpose To estimate the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in prostate cancer patients in the Rotterdam section of European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, in both arms, and to compare this with the risk in the general population. Methods Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) of cardiovascular mortality for 2,211 prostate cancer patients were calculated including analyses for treatment subgroups (surgery, radiotherapy, watchful waiting, and hormone therapy). Cardiovascular mortality was defined as death as a result of all CVD and as a result of coronary heart disease, acute myocardial infarction, other diseases of the heart, and cerebrovascular accidents. The prevalence of self-reported comorbidities at entry of the trial was evaluated as well. Results After a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, 258 prostate cancer patients (12%) had died. The SMR of all-cause mortality was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.01). The risk for cardiovascular mortality was low compared with that in the general population; the SMRs varied between 0.37 and 0.49. Low cardiovascular mortality risks were also seen within each treatment subgroup. CVD was the most frequently self-reported comorbidity at entry and prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy reported the lowest rates (24%) compared with those receiving other therapies (40% to 42%). Conclusion Although some self-selection has occurred, prostate cancer treatment did not increase the risk of dying as a result of cardiovascular causes in our cohort. The risk was significantly lower for all primary treatment modalities, suggesting that less emphasis should be put on CVD as a contraindication for aggressive (surgical) treatment for prostate cancer patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document