Search

This study assessed the acceptability and feasibility of a question prompt list (QPL) to facilitate informed treatment decision-making in men with suspected localised prostate cancer, which involves values-based choices between options with similar efficacy but different side effects. The QPL was developed through iterative consultation with consumers, clinicians and researchers. Acceptability was assessed using study-specific questions regarding QPL satisfaction and usefulness and qualitative interviews. Feasibility was determined via the proportion of men given the QPL according to medical records and the completion of standardised measures of decisional outcomes. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and univariate statistics. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Fifty-two men consented; 34 provided data for analysis. The QPL recipients reported moderate-high content satisfaction (70.6%) and perceived usefulness in guiding appointments when receiving biopsy results (64.7%). Two main qualitative themes also indicated the QPL acceptability: (1) the freedom to ask-acceptable timing, flexible usage and usefulness of the QPL, and (2) satisfaction with the QPL content. However, only 18.4% of eligible men received the QPL, indicating limited feasibility. The QPL is safe and acceptable, but further research is needed regarding how to facilitate the uptake of the question prompt list in clinical practice.

Background: Decisional conflict and post-treatment decisional regret have been documented in men with localised prostate cancer (LPC). However, there is limited evidence regarding decisional outcomes associated with the choice between robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and radiotherapy, when both treatment options are available in the public health system. There is increasing support for multidisciplinary approaches to guide men with LPC in their decision-making process. This study assessed decisional outcomes in men deciding between RARP or radiotherapy treatment before and after attending a LPC combined clinic (CC)., Methods: Quantitative longitudinal data were collected from 52 men who attended a LPC CC, where they saw both a urologist and radiation oncologist. Patients completed questionnaires assessing involvement in decision-making, decisional conflict, satisfaction and regret before and after the CC, three months, six months and 12 months post-treatment. Urologists and radiation oncologists also reported their perceptions regarding patients' suitability for, openness to, perceived preferences and appropriateness for each treatment. Data was analysed using paired/independent samples t-tests and McNemar's tests., Results: Most participants (n = 37, 71%) opted for RARP over radiotherapy (n = 14, 27%); one participant deferred treatment (2%). Urologists and radiation oncologists reported low agreement (κ = 0.26) regarding the most appropriate treatment for each patient. Participants reported a desire for high levels of control over their decision-making process (77.5% patient-led, 22.5% shared) and high levels of decisional satisfaction (M = 4.4, SD = 0.47) after the CC. Decisional conflict levels were significantly reduced (baseline: M = 29.3, SD = 16.9, post-CC: M = 16.3, SD = 11.5; t = 5.37, P < 0.001) after the CC. Mean decisional regret scores were 'mild' at three-months (M = 16.0, SD = 17.5), six-months (M = 18.8, SD = 18.7) and 12-months (M = 18.2, SD = 15.1) post-treatment completion., Conclusion: This is the first Australian study to assess decisional outcomes when patients are offered the choice between RARP and radiotherapy in the public health system. A CC seems to support decision-making in men with LPC and positively impact some decisional outcomes. However, larger-scale controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest They were not involved in the collection or analysis of patient data., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To understand how best to support men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer to decide which treatment option best suits their needs, when robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy are equally appropriate to offer them., Methods: Twenty-five men recently diagnosed with localised prostate cancer completed semi-structured interviews asking about information/decision-making needs before and/or after attending a combined clinic in which they consulted a urologist and a radiation oncologist regarding treatment options. Data was transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed., Results: Most men preferred robotic prostatectomy pre-combined clinic and chose it afterwards. The thematic analysis revealed four themes: 1) trust in clinicians and the information they provide is critical for treatment choice, 2) perceived fit between treatment characteristics and personal circumstances, 3) additional considerations: specific side effects, socio-emotional and financial factors, and 4) need for tailored information delivery. Robotic prostatectomy was mistakenly believed to provide a more definitive cure than radiotherapy, which was seen as having a lesser lifestyle impact., Conclusions: Treatment choice is largely dependent on clinicians' (mainly urologists') recommendations., Practice Implications: Patients need more balanced information about alternatives to robotic prostatectomy earlier in the treatment decision-making process. Referral to a radiation oncologist or combined clinic shortly after diagnosis is recommended., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (LPC) wanting curative treatment face a highly preference-sensitive choice between prostatectomy and radiotherapy, which offer similar cure rates but different side effects. This study aims to determine the information, decision-making needs and preferences of men with LPC choosing between robotic prostatectomy and standard external beam or stereotactic radiotherapy., Methods and Analysis: This study will be conducted at a large public teaching hospital in Australia offering the choice between robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy from early 2017. Men (20-30) diagnosed with LPC who want curative treatment and meet criteria for either treatment will be invited to participate. In this mixed-methods study, patients will complete semistructured interviews before and after attending a combined clinic in which they consult a urologist and a radiation oncologist regarding treatment and four questionnaires (one before treatment decision-making and three after) assessing demographic and clinical characteristics, involvement in decision-making, decisional conflict, satisfaction and regret. Combined clinic consultations will also be audio-recorded and clinicians will report their perceptions regarding patients' suitability for, openness to and preferences for each treatment. Qualitative data will be transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed and descriptive statistical analyses will explore quantitative decision-making outcomes, with comparison according to treatment choice., Discussion: Results from this study will inform how to best support men diagnosed with LPC deciding which curative treatment option best suits their needs and may identify the need for and content required in a decision aid to support these men., Ethics and Dissemination: All participants will provide written informed consent. Data will be rigorously managed in accordance with national legislation. Results will be disseminated via presentations to both scientific and layperson audiences and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)