Search

Information sources about prostate cancer treatment and outcomes are typically designed for patients. Little is known about the availability and utility of information for partners. The objectives of our study were to evaluate information sources used by partners to understand prostate cancer management options, their perceived usefulness, and the relationship between sources used and satisfaction with treatment experience. A longitudinal survey of female partners of men newly diagnosed with local-stage prostate cancer was conducted in three different geographic regions. Partners and associated patients were surveyed at baseline (after patient diagnosis but prior to receiving therapy) and at 12 months following diagnosis. Information sources included provider, literature, friends or family members, Internet websites, books, traditional media, and support groups. Utility of an information source was defined as whether the partner would recommend it to caregivers of other patients with local-stage prostate cancer. Our study cohort included 179 partner-patient pairs. At diagnosis, partners consulted an average of 4.6 information sources. Non-Hispanic white partners were more likely than others to use friends and family as an information source (OR = 2.44, 95% CI (1.04, 5.56)). More educated partners were less likely to use support groups (OR = 0.31, 95% CI (0.14, 0.71)). At 12-month follow-up, partners were less likely to recommend books (OR = 0.23, 95% CI (0.11, 0.49)) compared to baseline. Partners consulted a large number of information sources in researching treatment options for local-stage prostate cancer and the types of sources accessed varied by race/ethnicity and educational attainment. Additional resources to promote selection of high-quality non-provider information sources are warranted to enable partners to better aid patients in their treatment decision-making process.

We surveyed prostate cancer patients about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and evaluated patient factors that correlated with CAM use 6 months following diagnosis. The Prostate CAncer Therapy Selection study was a prospective, observational multi-site study of men’s treatment decision-making process after a diagnosis of local stage prostate cancer. Recruitment occurred in community urology practices in Washington State, hospital-based urology clinics affiliated with the University of Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente in Northern California. Eligible study participants included men over age 21 diagnosed with local stage prostate cancer between May 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006. Fifty-two percent of survey respondents (379) reported using one or more types of CAM. Of the patients, 51% used one CAM method, 26% used two methods, and 23% used three or more methods. The most commonly reported category was mind–body therapies (65%). Only 43% of patients discussed their CAM use with a health professional; of those, 20% informed their primary care physician and 30% told the doctor managing their prostate cancer care. Less than half thought the CAM they used was “very helpful”, but a majority thought it was somewhat helpful for their condition. Further research is needed to characterize the goals prostate cancer patients have for CAM, whether the treatments met those goals, and how this translates into the perceived helpfulness of these therapies. The implications of patients not discussing CAM use with health professionals at the time of prostate cancer treatment need further studies.

This study describes urologist recommendations for treatment among local-stage prostate cancer patients presenting for initial management consultations versus second opinions. We hypothesized that urologists present a wider range of management recommendations and are less likely to consider the patient preference during the initial consultation.Newly diagnosed local-stage prostate cancer patients and their urologists participated in a survey at urology practices in three states. The urologist's survey included questions about the patient's clinical status, treatments discussed and recommended, and factors that influenced the urologist's recommendations.Of the 238 eligible patients, 95 men presented for an initial consultation, and 143 men presented for a second opinion. In multivariate analysis, urologists recommended 0.52 more treatments (standard error 0.19, P0.001) during an initial consultation as opposed to a second opinion. The proportion recommending surgery increased from 71-91% (initial consultation versus second opinion setting). Among initial consultations, 59% had low-risk disease, and urologists' recommendations included surgery (80%), external radiation (38%), brachytherapy (seeds) (52%), and active surveillance (25%). Of the 54% with low-risk disease in a second opinion consultation, urologists' recommendations included surgery (90%), external radiation (16%), brachytherapy (14%), and active surveillance (16%).In second opinion settings urologists discussed fewer treatment options and recommended surgery more often. These findings also applied to men with low-risk prostate cancer.