Search

Background:Patients' preferences are important for shared decision making. Therefore, we investigated patients' and urologists' preferences for treatment alternatives for early prostate cancer (PC).Methods:A discrete choice experiment was conducted among 150 patients who were waiting for their biopsy results, and 150 urologists. Regression analysis was used to determine patients' and urologists' stated preferences using scenarios based on PC treatment modality (radiotherapy, surgery, and active surveillance (AS)), and risks of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.Results:The response rate was 110 out of 150 (73%) for patients and 50 out of 150 (33%) for urologists. Risk of urinary incontinence was an important determinant of both patients' and urologists' stated preferences for PC treatment (P<0.05). Treatment modality also influenced patients' stated preferences (P<0.05), whereas the risk of erectile dysfunction due to radiotherapy was mainly important to urologists (P<0.05). Both patients and urologists preferred AS to radical treatment, with the exception of patients with anxious/depressed feelings who preferred radical treatment to AS.Conclusion:Although patients and urologists generally may prefer similar treatments for PC, they showed different trade-offs between various specific treatment aspects. This implies that urologists need to be aware of potential differences compared with the patient's perspective on treatment decisions in shared decision making on PC treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To document anxiety and depression from pretreatment till 5-year follow-up in 299 men with localized prostate cancer. To assess, if baseline scores were predictive for anxiety and depression at 1-year follow-up. Respondents completed four assessments (pretreatment, at 6 and 12 months, and at 5-year follow-up) on anxiety, depression and mental health. Respondents were subdivided according to therapy (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) and high vs low-anxiety. Pretreatment 28% of all patients were classified as 'high-anxiety'; their average anxiety scores decreased significantly post-treatment, that is towards less anxiety. At all assessments, high-anxiety men treated by prostatectomy reported less depression than high-anxiety men treated by radiotherapy. Of men treated by radiotherapy, 27% reported clinical significant levels of depression while 20% is expected in a general population. The improvement in mental health at 6-months follow-up was statistically significant and clinically meaningful in all respondent groups. Sensitivity of anxiety at baseline as a screening tool was 71% for anxiety and 60% for symptoms of depression. We recommend clinicians to attempt early detection of patients at risk of high levels of anxiety and depression after prostate cancer diagnosis since prevalence is high. STAI-State can be a useful screening tool but needs further development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To apply the general empirical framework for estimating utilities in cost-utility analysis (CUA) of population-based prostate cancer screening, including an assessment of empirical health status with a classifying measure (e.g. the EQ-5D) and linking these descriptions to utility estimates using the standard preference-based algorithm, combining them with the appropriate duration into quality-adjusted life years, and sensitivity analysis. Empirical studies to describe and value the health status effects of prostate cancer screening have been ongoing within the Rotterdam centre of the European Randomised Study on Screening for Prostate Cancer since 1995. The results of these studies, including the screening, the primary treatment phase and advanced disease, will be used in estimating utilities for cost-utility analysis. Estimation of cost-utility of population-based prostate cancer screening with the results of the three empirical health status studies yielded partly counterintuitive results, underestimating the unfavourable health status effects that are inevitably associated with prostate cancer screening. This may be caused by other than health effects of the screening itself (‘process effects’) and adaptive changes in perception of their situation in patients after curative primary treatment (‘response shift’), among other elements. These results prompted us to reconsider the suitability of the general framework of CUA for screening programmes. Possible directions for solutions are indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]