Characteristics and Experiences of Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Who Left an Active Surveillance Program

Overview

Journal Patient

Specialty Health Services

Date 2014 Jun 13

PMID 24920082

Citations 19

Authors

Zackary D Berger

Jonathan C Yeh

H Ballentine Carter

Craig Evan Pollack

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Understanding the experiences of men leaving active surveillance programs is critical to making such programs viable for men with localized prostate cancer.

Objective: To generate hypotheses about the factors that influence patients' decisions to leave an active surveillance program.

Methods: Using data from the Johns Hopkins active surveillance cohort, bivariate analyses and multinomial regression models examined characteristics of men who self-elected to leave, those who stayed in the program, and those who left because of disease reclassification. We interviewed patients who self-elected to leave.

Results: Of 1,159 men in active surveillance, 9 % self-elected to leave. In interviews with a sample of 14 men who self-elected to leave, uncertainty involved in active surveillance participation, existence of personal criteria-distinct from providers' clinical criteria-and fear of cancer were important factors in decisions to leave.

Conclusion: Men leaving active surveillance were motivated by a number of factors, including patient-defined criteria, which might differ from clinical recommendations. To ensure active surveillance participation, it may be important to address cancer-related anxiety and personal criteria underlying patient decisions.

Citing Articles

The lived experience of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Briggs R, Dunn J, Chambers S, Jakimowicz S, Green A, Heneka N J Cancer Surviv. 2025; .

PMID: 39939565 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-025-01748-x.

Development and External Validation of the STRATified CANcer Surveillance (STRATCANS) Multivariable Model for Predicting Progression in Men with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Starting Active Surveillance.

Light A, Lophatananon A, Keates A, Thankappannair V, Barrett T, Dominguez-Escrig J J Clin Med. 2023; 12(1).

PMID: 36615017 PMC: 9821695. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12010216.

Developing a consensus statement for psychosocial support in active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Beckmann K, Cahill D, Brown C, Van Hemelrijck M, Kinsella N BJUI Compass. 2022; 4(1):104-113.

PMID: 36569508 PMC: 9766868. DOI: 10.1002/bco2.155.

Why do men with prostate cancer discontinue active surveillance for definitive treatment? A mixed methods investigation.

McIntosh M, Opozda M, OCallaghan M, Vincent A, Galvao D, Short C Psychooncology. 2022; 31(8):1420-1430.

PMID: 35538736 PMC: 9540004. DOI: 10.1002/pon.5947.

Comparison of outcomes of different biopsy schedules among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: An analysis of the G.A.P.3 global consortium database.

Beckmann K, Bangma C, Helleman J, Bjartell A, Carroll P, Morgan T Prostate. 2022; 82(7):876-879.

PMID: 35254666 PMC: 9541488. DOI: 10.1002/pros.24330.

References

Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A . Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 28(1):126-31. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180. View

Srirangam S, Pearson E, Grose C, Brown S, Collins G, OReilly P . Partner's influence on patient preference for treatment in early prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2003; 92(4):365-9. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04355.x. View

Davison B, Oliffe J, Pickles T, Mroz L . Factors influencing men undertaking active surveillance for the management of low-risk prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009; 36(1):89-96. DOI: 10.1188/09.ONF.89-96. View

Konety B, Cowan J, Carroll P . Patterns of primary and secondary therapy for prostate cancer in elderly men: analysis of data from CaPSURE. J Urol. 2008; 179(5):1797-803. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.044. View

Kazer M, Psutka S, Latini D, Bailey Jr D . Psychosocial aspects of active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol. 2013; 23(3):273-7. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835eff24. View

Miller D, Sanda M, Dunn R, Montie J, Pimentel H, Sandler H . Long-term outcomes among localized prostate cancer survivors: health-related quality-of-life changes after radical prostatectomy, external radiation, and brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(12):2772-80. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.116. View

Reese A, Landis P, Han M, Epstein J, Carter H . Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at Johns Hopkins: a preliminary analysis. J Urol. 2013; 190(6):2033-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.015. View

Penson D . Factors influencing patients' acceptance and adherence to active surveillance. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012; 2012(45):207-12. PMC: 3540870. DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs024. View

Zeliadt S, Hannon P, Trivedi R, Bonner L, Vu T, Simons C . A preliminary exploration of the feasibility of offering men information about potential prostate cancer treatment options before they know their biopsy results. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013; 13:19. PMC: 3599913. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-19. View

10.

Chapple A, Ziebland S, Herxheimer A, McPherson A, Shepperd S, Miller R . Is 'watchful waiting' a real choice for men with prostate cancer? A qualitative study. BJU Int. 2002; 90(3):257-64. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.02846.x. View

11.

Cooperberg M, Broering J, Kantoff P, Carroll P . Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol. 2007; 178(3 Pt 2):S14-9. PMC: 2987559. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.135. View

12.

Cooperberg M, Carroll P, Klotz L . Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(27):3669-76. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.9738. View

13.

White I, Royston P, Wood A . Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011; 30(4):377-99. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4067. View

14.

Ganz P, Barry J, Burke W, Col N, Corso P, Dodson E . National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156(8):591-5. PMC: 4774889. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00401. View

15.

Chambers S, Schover L, Nielsen L, Halford K, Clutton S, Gardiner R . Couple distress after localised prostate cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2013; 21(11):2967-76. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-013-1868-6. View

16.

Starks H, Trinidad S . Choose your method: a comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qual Health Res. 2007; 17(10):1372-80. DOI: 10.1177/1049732307307031. View

17.

Davison B, Breckon E . Factors influencing treatment decision making and information preferences of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Patient Educ Couns. 2011; 87(3):369-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.11.009. View

18.

Ferrer M, Guedea F, Suarez J, de Paula B, Macias V, Marino A . Quality of life impact of treatments for localized prostate cancer: cohort study with a 5 year follow-up. Radiother Oncol. 2013; 108(2):306-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.05.038. View

19.

Latini D, Hart S, Knight S, Cowan J, Ross P, DuChane J . The relationship between anxiety and time to treatment for patients with prostate cancer on surveillance. J Urol. 2007; 178(3 Pt 1):826-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.039. View

20.

Tosoian J, Trock B, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein J, Partin A . Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(16):2185-90. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112. View