IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i8p962-974.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selecting Active Surveillance: Decision Making Factors for Men with a Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Richard M. Hoffman

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA
    Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA)

  • Tania Lobo

    (Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA)

  • Stephen K. Van Den Eeden

    (Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA)

  • Kimberly M. Davis

    (Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA)

  • George Luta

    (Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA)

  • Amethyst D. Leimpeter

    (Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA)

  • David Aaronson

    (Department of Urology, Kaiser Permanente East Bay, Oakland, CA, USA)

  • David F. Penson

    (Department of Urological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA)

  • Kathryn Taylor

    (Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA)

Abstract

Background. Men with a low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) should consider observation, particularly active surveillance (AS), a monitoring strategy that avoids active treatment (AT) in the absence of disease progression. Objective. To determine clinical and decision-making factors predicting treatment selection. Design. Prospective cohort study. Setting. Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). Patients. Men newly diagnosed with low-risk PCa between 2012 and 2014 who remained enrolled in KPNC for 12 months following diagnosis. Measurements. We used surveys and medical record abstractions to measure sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and psychological and decision-making factors. Men were classified as being on observation if they did not undergo AT within 12 months of diagnosis. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results. The average age of the 1171 subjects was 61.5 years ( s = 7.2 years), and 81% were white. Overall, 639 (57%) were managed with observation; in adjusted analyses, significant predictors of observation included awareness of low-risk status (odds ratio 1.75; 95% confidence interval 1.04–2.94), knowing that observation was an option (3.62; 1.62–8.09), having concerns about treatment-related quality of life (1.21, 1.09–1.34), reporting a urologist recommendation for observation (8.20; 4.68–14.4), and having a lower clinical stage (T1c v. T2a, 2.11; 1.16–3.84). Conversely, valuing cancer control (1.54; 1.37–1.72) and greater decisional certainty (1.66; 1.18–2.35) were predictive of AT. Limitations. Results may be less generalizable to other types of health care systems and to more diverse populations. Conclusions. Many participants selected observation, and this was associated with tumor characteristics. However, nonclinical decisional factors also independently predicted treatment selection. Efforts to provide early decision support, particularly targeting knowledge deficits, and reassurance to men with low-risk cancers may facilitate better decision making and increase uptake of observation, particularly AS.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard M. Hoffman & Tania Lobo & Stephen K. Van Den Eeden & Kimberly M. Davis & George Luta & Amethyst D. Leimpeter & David Aaronson & David F. Penson & Kathryn Taylor, 2019. "Selecting Active Surveillance: Decision Making Factors for Men with a Low-Risk Prostate Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 962-974, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:8:p:962-974
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19883242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19883242
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19883242?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:8:p:962-974. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.