Search

This article adds the Japanese perspective to our knowledge of shared decision-making (SDM) preferences by surveying patients with prostate cancer (PCA) and physicians in Japan. In 2015, 103 Japanese patients with PCA were asked about their SDM preferences by using an Internet-based 5-point-scale questionnaire. Concurrently, 127 Japanese physicians were surveyed regarding their perceptions of patient preferences on SDM. Drivers of preferences and perceptions were analyzed using univariable ordinal logistic regression and graphing the fitted response probabilities. Although 41% of both patients and physicians expressed and expected a desire for active involvement in treatment decisions (a higher rate than in a similar study for the United States in 2001), almost half the Japanese patients preferred SDM, but only 33% of physicians assumed this was their choice. That is, 29% of Japanese physicians underestimated patients' preference for involvement in making treatment decisions. Patients with lower health-related quality of life (as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P]) expressed a stronger preference for SDM. The study shows that the worse the medical situation, the more patients with PCA prefer to be involved in the treatment decision, yet physicians tend to underestimate the preferences of their patients. Perhaps in contrast to common assumptions, Japanese patients are as interested in being involved in decision making as are patients in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address concerns regarding increased risk of prostate cancer (PrCA) among angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) users, we used national retrospective data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) through the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. We identified a total of 543,824 unique Veterans who were classified into either ARB treated or not-treated in 1:15 ratio. The two groups were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weights. A double-robust cox-proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for PrCA incidence. To evaluate for a potential Gleason score stage migration, we conducted weighted Cochrane-Armitage test. Post weighting, the rates of PrCA in treated and not-treated groups were 506 (1.5%) and 8,269 (1.6%), respectively; representing a hazard ratio of (0.91, p-value .049). There was no significant difference in Gleason scores between the two groups. We found a small, but statistically significant, reduction in the incidence of clinically detected PrCA among patients assigned to receive ARB with no countervailing effect on degree of differentiation (as indicated by Gleason score). Findings from this study support Food and Drug Administration's recent conclusion that ARB use does not increase risk of incident PrCA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]