Cargando…
Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study
OBJECTIVES: In a prospective, comparative effectiveness study, we assessed clinical and psychological factors associated with switching from active surveillance (AS) to active treatment (AT) among low‐risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS: Using ultra‐rapid case identification, we conducted p...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9045562/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35492225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.124 |
_version_ | 1784695343616622592 |
---|---|
author | Taylor, Kathryn L. Luta, George Zotou, Vasiliki Lobo, Tania Hoffman, Richard M. Davis, Kimberly M. Potosky, Arnold L. Li, Tengfei Aaronson, David Van Den Eeden, Stephen K. |
author_facet | Taylor, Kathryn L. Luta, George Zotou, Vasiliki Lobo, Tania Hoffman, Richard M. Davis, Kimberly M. Potosky, Arnold L. Li, Tengfei Aaronson, David Van Den Eeden, Stephen K. |
author_sort | Taylor, Kathryn L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: In a prospective, comparative effectiveness study, we assessed clinical and psychological factors associated with switching from active surveillance (AS) to active treatment (AT) among low‐risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS: Using ultra‐rapid case identification, we conducted pretreatment telephone interviews (N = 1139) with low‐risk patients (PSA ≤ 10, Gleason≤6) and follow‐up interviews 6–10 months post‐diagnosis (N = 1057). Among men remaining on AS for at least 12 months (N = 601), we compared those who continued on AS (N = 515) versus men who underwent delayed AT (N = 86) between 13 and 24 months, using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Delayed AT was predicted by time dependent PSA levels (≥10 vs. <10; HR = 5.6, 95% CI 2.4–13.1) and Gleason scores (≥7 vs. ≤6; adjusted HR = 20.2, 95% CI 12.2–33.4). Further, delayed AT was more likely among men whose urologist initially recommended AT (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.07–4.22), for whom tumour removal was very important (HR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.35–3.52), and who reported greater worry about not detecting disease progression early (HR = 1.67, 1.05–2.65). In exploratory analyses, 31% (27/86) switched to AT without evidence of progression, while 4.7% (24/515) remained on AS with evidence of progression. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for clinical evidence of disease progression over the first year post‐diagnosis, we found that urologists' initial treatment recommendation and patients' early treatment preferences and concerns about AS each independently predicted undergoing delayed AT during the second year post‐diagnosis. These findings, along with almost one‐half undergoing delayed AT without evidence of progression, suggest the need for greater decision support to remain on AS when it is clinically indicated. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9045562 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90455622022-04-28 Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study Taylor, Kathryn L. Luta, George Zotou, Vasiliki Lobo, Tania Hoffman, Richard M. Davis, Kimberly M. Potosky, Arnold L. Li, Tengfei Aaronson, David Van Den Eeden, Stephen K. BJUI Compass ORIGINAL ARTICLES OBJECTIVES: In a prospective, comparative effectiveness study, we assessed clinical and psychological factors associated with switching from active surveillance (AS) to active treatment (AT) among low‐risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS: Using ultra‐rapid case identification, we conducted pretreatment telephone interviews (N = 1139) with low‐risk patients (PSA ≤ 10, Gleason≤6) and follow‐up interviews 6–10 months post‐diagnosis (N = 1057). Among men remaining on AS for at least 12 months (N = 601), we compared those who continued on AS (N = 515) versus men who underwent delayed AT (N = 86) between 13 and 24 months, using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Delayed AT was predicted by time dependent PSA levels (≥10 vs. <10; HR = 5.6, 95% CI 2.4–13.1) and Gleason scores (≥7 vs. ≤6; adjusted HR = 20.2, 95% CI 12.2–33.4). Further, delayed AT was more likely among men whose urologist initially recommended AT (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.07–4.22), for whom tumour removal was very important (HR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.35–3.52), and who reported greater worry about not detecting disease progression early (HR = 1.67, 1.05–2.65). In exploratory analyses, 31% (27/86) switched to AT without evidence of progression, while 4.7% (24/515) remained on AS with evidence of progression. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for clinical evidence of disease progression over the first year post‐diagnosis, we found that urologists' initial treatment recommendation and patients' early treatment preferences and concerns about AS each independently predicted undergoing delayed AT during the second year post‐diagnosis. These findings, along with almost one‐half undergoing delayed AT without evidence of progression, suggest the need for greater decision support to remain on AS when it is clinically indicated. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9045562/ /pubmed/35492225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.124 Text en © 2021 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | ORIGINAL ARTICLES Taylor, Kathryn L. Luta, George Zotou, Vasiliki Lobo, Tania Hoffman, Richard M. Davis, Kimberly M. Potosky, Arnold L. Li, Tengfei Aaronson, David Van Den Eeden, Stephen K. Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study |
title | Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study |
title_full | Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study |
title_fullStr | Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study |
title_short | Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study |
title_sort | psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: the patient reported outcomes for prostate care prospective cohort study |
topic | ORIGINAL ARTICLES |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9045562/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35492225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.124 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT taylorkathrynl psychologicalpredictorsofdelayedactivetreatmentfollowingactivesurveillanceforlowriskprostatecancerthepatientreportedoutcomesforprostatecareprospectivecohortstudy AT lutageorge psychologicalpredictorsofdelayedactivetreatmentfollowingactivesurveillanceforlowriskprostatecancerthepatientreportedoutcomesforprostatecareprospectivecohortstudy AT zotouvasiliki psychologicalpredictorsofdelayedactivetreatmentfollowingactivesurveillanceforlowriskprostatecancerthepatientreportedoutcomesforprostatecareprospectivecohortstudy AT lobotania psychologicalpredictorsofdelayedactivetreatmentfollowingactivesurveillanceforlowriskprostatecancerthepatientreportedoutcomesforprostatecareprospectivecohortstudy AT hoffmanrichardm psychologicalpredictorsofdelayedactivetreatmentfollowingactivesurveillanceforlowriskprostatecancerthepatientreportedoutcomesforprostatecareprospectivecohortstudy AT daviskimberlym psychologicalpredictorsofdelayedactivetreatmentfollowingactivesurveillanceforlowriskprostatecancerthepatientreportedoutcomesforprostatecareprospectivecohortstudy AT potoskyarnoldl psychologicalpredictorsofdelayedactivetreatmentfollowingactivesurveillanceforlowriskprostatecancerthepatientreportedoutcomesforprostatecareprospectivecohortstudy AT litengfei psychologicalpredictorsofdelayedactivetreatmentfollowingactivesurveillanceforlowriskprostatecancerthepatientreportedoutcomesforprostatecareprospectivecohortstudy AT aaronsondavid psychologicalpredictorsofdelayedactivetreatmentfollowingactivesurveillanceforlowriskprostatecancerthepatientreportedoutcomesforprostatecareprospectivecohortstudy AT vandeneedenstephenk psychologicalpredictorsofdelayedactivetreatmentfollowingactivesurveillanceforlowriskprostatecancerthepatientreportedoutcomesforprostatecareprospectivecohortstudy |