» Articles » PMID: 20959991

Patient Preferences and Urologist Recommendations Among Local-stage Prostate Cancer Patients Who Present for Initial Consultation and Second Opinions

Overview
Journal World J Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2010 Oct 21
PMID 20959991
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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, P<0.001) 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%).

Conclusions: 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.

Citing Articles

Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

Lipitz-Snyderman A, Chimonas S, Mailankody S, Kim M, Silva N, Kriplani A Cancer Med. 2023; 12(7):8063-8072.

PMID: 36737878 PMC: 10134380. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5598.


Patient-initiated second medical consultations-patient characteristics and motivating factors, impact on care and satisfaction: a systematic review.

Greenfield G, Shmueli L, Harvey A, Quezada-Yamamoto H, Davidovitch N, Pliskin J BMJ Open. 2021; 11(9):e044033.

PMID: 34561250 PMC: 8475134. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044033.


Impact of Diagnosing Urologists and Hospitals on the Use of Radical Cystectomy.

Golla V, Shan Y, Mehta H, Klaassen Z, Tyler D, Baillargeon J Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021; 19:27-36.

PMID: 34337452 PMC: 8317809. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2020.06.001.


Comparing Perspectives of Canadian Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer and Health Care Professionals About Active Surveillance.

Fitch M, Ouellet V, Pang K, Chevalier S, Drachenberg D, Finelli A J Patient Exp. 2021; 7(6):1122-1129.

PMID: 33457554 PMC: 7786672. DOI: 10.1177/2374373520932735.


A comparison of general, genitourinary, bowel, and sexual quality of life among long term survivors of prostate, bladder, colorectal, and lung cancer.

Ramsey S, Hall I, Smith J, Ekwueme D, Fedorenko C, Kreizenbeck K J Geriatr Oncol. 2020; 12(2):305-311.

PMID: 32739353 PMC: 7855401. DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2020.07.014.


References
1.
Fowler Jr F, McNaughton Collins M, Albertsen P, Zietman A, Elliott D, Barry M . Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2000; 283(24):3217-22. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.24.3217. View

2.
Sommers B, Beard C, DAmico A, Kaplan I, Richie J, Zeckhauser R . Predictors of patient preferences and treatment choices for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2008; 113(8):2058-67. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23807. View

3.
Lin G, Aaronson D, Knight S, Carroll P, Dudley R . Patient decision aids for prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of the literature. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009; 59(6):379-90. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20039. View

4.
DAmico A, Whittington R, Malkowicz S, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick G . Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998; 280(11):969-74. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969. View

5.
Jang T, Bekelman J, Liu Y, Bach P, Basch E, Elkin E . Physician visits prior to treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170(5):440-50. PMC: 4251764. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.1. View