Perceptions regarding prostate cancer (CaP) treatment options: Results from the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6530-6530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Chen ◽  
Matthew Edward Nielsen ◽  
Bryce B. Reeve ◽  
Laura H. Hendrix ◽  
Robert P Agans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Sexual Function ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Robotic Prostatectomy ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Radiation Oncologist ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
The North ◽  
Published Evidence

6530 Background: NC ProCESS is a population-based cohort of early (non-metastatic) CaP patients followed prospectively from diagnosis. Methods: Patients were identified through Rapid Case Ascertainment of the NC Cancer Registry from all NC counties in 2010-12. Phone survey assessed perceptions regarding treatment options and priorities in treatment selection. Results: 937 (59% of all eligible) completed this survey. Median age was 65; 72% were Caucasian. At time of survey, ~13 weeks from diagnosis, 98% had discussed options with a urologist, 49% with primary care, and 41% radiation oncologist. Many patients had concerns about potential effects of surgery and radiation on ability to perform daily activities, recovery time, and burden to family (Table). Open prostatectomy (ORP) and external beam radiation (RT) were deemed most likely to affect urinary and sexual function; fewer reported concern with robotic prostatectomy (RALP). Only 32% reported hormonal therapy would affect sexual function. Most reported surgery (especially RALP) had the best chance for cure, while 59% worried about recurrence with RT. In almost all questions, patients who consulted only with a urologist had significantly different perceptions about treatment options than those who also consulted with a radiation oncologist. In choosing treatment, 61% reported that cure was the highest priority, and 28% indicated preserving quality of life. Conclusions: Modern CaP patients often have misconceptions about treatment options inconsistent with published evidence, which are partially mitigated by multidisciplinary consultation. Most indicated cure as the highest priority, and surgery offers the best chance of cure. [Table: see text]

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.

Hemi salvage HIFU in patients with radio recurrent prostate cancer: Early experience and results.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 99-99
Author(s):  
Gilles Pasticier ◽  
Eduard Baco ◽  
Olivier Rouviere ◽  
Sebastien Crouzet ◽  
Jean-Yves Chapelon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Local Recurrence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Artificial Urinary Sphincter ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
High Intensity Focused Ultrasound ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Salvage Hifu

99 Background: One third of patients treated with External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) experience local recurrence. Salvage treatment options include prostatectomy, cryoablation, and High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU). Whole gland treatment in these patients offers acceptable cancer control, but carries a risk of severe urinary incontinence in at least 20% of cases and reduction of Quality of Life (QoL). In patients with unilateral local relapse, focal HIFU is feasible. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the effect of Hemi HIFU in patients with unilateral recurrence after radiotherapy. Methods: Between 2009 and 2012, 48 patients were prospectively included in 2 centers. Inclusion criteria were positive MRI and biopsy in one lobe diagnosing unilateral cancer after EBRT (46 patients) and after brachytherapy (2 patients). Mean age was 68.8 ± 6 years, mean pre HIFU PSA was 5.2 ± 5.2 ng/mL and the repartition of Gleason score was ≤7: 28, ≥8: 18 and not determined: 2. Median follow-up was 16.3 months [range 3-43]. Treatments were performed with Ablatherm® HIFU device. Results: The mean PSA nadir value was 0.69 ± 0.83 (median: 0.4). Disease progression occured in 16 patients (35,5%). Local recurrence was found in 4 patients in the controlateral lobe, and in 4 patients in both lobes. Six patients developped metastases and 2 had rising PSA without local recurence or proven metastasis. Fifteen of these 16 patients received salvage treatments (3 re-HIFU, 11 androgen-deprivation, and 1 re-HIFU plus androgen-deprivation). Thirthy-six patients (75%) were pad-free. Seven patients (14.6 %) required 1 pad a day. Severe incontinence occured in 5 patients (10.4%). One of them received artificial urinary sphincter. Paired results indicated no significant change in QoL and IPSS scores: EORTC-QLC-30: (from 35.7 ± 8.7 to 36.8 ± 8.6, p=0.22) and IPSS: (from 7 ± 5.6 to 8.5 ± 5.1, p=0.13) Conclusions: Hemi-salvage HIFU is efficient in patients with unilateral radio-recurrent PCa with a preserved QoL offering comparable cancer control to whole gland treatment.

scholarly journals Active surveillance for prostate cancer: to whom, when and how

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-44
Author(s):  
M. S. Taratkin ◽  
E. A. Laukhtina ◽  
K. I. Adelman ◽  
Y. G. Alyaev ◽  
L. M. Rapoport ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Malignant Neoplasms ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival ◽  
Beam Radiation

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common oncological disease among men. It is important to note that over 50% of the first identified primary malignant neoplasms of prostate are low - risk PCa. Recently, radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy have been the standard treatment options for PCa. According to recent data, patients with low - risk PCa have a favourable prognosis because of the slow progression of the disease. Some studies show no links between 10-year cancer - specific survival and treatment modalities and no progression even in the absence of therapy. Active surveillance (AS) allows avoiding unnecessary treatment in men who do not require immediate intervention but achieves the correct timing for curative treatment in those who eventually need it. According to the guidelines of the European Association of Urology, AS is one of the standard treatment options for low - risk PCa and should be consideredfor all patients in this category. The advantage of AS is to improve the quality of life in men with low - risk PCa and to delay surgical interventions as much as possible. However, despite widespread AS worldwide, there are only a few centres, which use it routinely in Russia. In this review, we would like to shed some light on the most important questions of AS strategy: what criteria should we use for selection of patients for AS strategy? How often should patient visit the urologist, control PSA level, and undergo prostate biopsy? When should a doctor change strategy and turn to active treatment? In this article, we considered indications for AS in men with PCa and showed the most recent data on the efficacy and relevance of this modality.

Combined brachytherapy and external beam radiation for prostate cancer in a community setting

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16147-e16147
Author(s):  
G. J. Kubicek ◽  
G. J. Kubicek ◽  
S. Brown ◽  
S. Redfield
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation

e16147 Background: Prostate cancer is the most common male malignancy, and there is no one standard treatment modality. One treatment option is the combination of external beam radiotherapy and permanent transperineal brachytherapy seed implant Methods: Retrospective review of prostate cancer and side effect outcomes at a single institution in the community setting. All patients were treated with a combination of low dose rate transperineal brachytherapy seed placement and external beam radiation. Results: A total of 897 patients were analyzed, 781 had a minimum follow-up of one year. Median pre-treatment PSA was 8.1 (range 0.3 to 106) and the median Gleason score was 6. With a median follow-up of 3.6 years, 33 (3.4 %) patients had biochemical failure based on the phoenix definition of Nadir + 2. Not including impotence, acute toxicity greater than or equal to Grade 2 was seen in 115 patients (102 GU and 13 GI) and 193 patients had late toxicity greater than or equal to Grade 2 (155 GU and 38 GI). 563 patients received hormone therapy prior to or concurrent with the radiation. Conclusions: This is the largest series reporting on the outcome of combination brachytherpay implant and external beam radiation in the treatment of prostate cancer. Combination treatment using brachytherapy and external beam radiation is well tolerated, with a low rate of biochemical failure and should be considered one of the treatment options for prostate cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Comparison of active surveillance with other treatment options for low-risk prostate cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 178-178
Author(s):  
Hima Bindu Musunuru ◽  
Gerard Morton ◽  
Laurence Klotz ◽  
Danny Vespirini ◽  
Patrick Cheung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Salvage Treatment ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy

178 Background: To evaluate outcomes and treatment history of low risk (LR) prostate cancer patients(pts) diagnosed between 2006-2008 in a single academic institute. Methods: Treatment and toxicity details were retrieved through retrospective chart review,apart from surgery where toxicity data was not available in detail.Biochemical RFS following primary and salvage treatments and CSS were computed.Pts who underwent salvage treatment for local failure and subsequently remained under biochemical control were censored as disease free for the salvage bRFS. Results: 594 pts were eligible for this study. Treatment options were active surveillance (AS=178 pts), low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR=192 pts, I-125 implant), stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR =84 pts; 35Gy in 5 weekly fractions), external beam radiation (EBRT=81 pts; 76Gy ) and radical prostatectomy (RP=59 pts). Median follow was > 70 months in all cohorts. 17.9% on AS protocol underwent active treatment. Biochemical failures were detected in 9 (5%), 10 (5.2%), 3 (3.5%), 6 (7.4%) and 9 (15.3%) pts respectively. Out of these, 4 pts in AS cohort, 2 in SABR group, and 7 in RP underwent local/salvage treatment. The 7-year bRFS was 94.4%, 93.6%, 95.8%, 90.1% and 89.5% for primary treatment and 95.7%, 93.6%, 98.7%, 90.1% and 98.3% following salvage treatment. 1 pt in AS, 2 in LDR, 1 pt in SABR and EBRT group developed metastatic disease. The 6 year CSS was 100% in all groups apart from LDR (99.4%) and EBRT (98.8%). Significant dysuria (20.8%) and hematochezia (7.4%) were noticed in EBRT cohort (Table). One grade 4 toxicity was noted in LDR, SABR and EBRT pts. Conclusions: AS has CSS comparable to other treatment options in LR prostate cancer setting with minimal toxicity. In the primary setting all treatment modalities apart from RP and EBRT have 7-year bRFS >93%. Differences in bRFS following salvage treatment might be due to pt and treatment selection. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document