Objectives: Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention to help men with early-stage prostate cancer choose among active surveillance, surgery, and radiation.
Methods: We developed a decision aid featuring long-term survival and side effects data, based on focus group input and stakeholder endorsement. We trained premedical students to administer the intervention to newly diagnosed men with low-risk prostate cancer seen at the University of California, San Francisco. Before the intervention, and after the consultation with a urologist, we administered the Decision Quality Instrument for Prostate Cancer (DQI-PC). We hypothesized increases in two knowledge items from the DQI-PC: How many men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer will eventually die of prostate cancer? How much would waiting 3 months to make a treatment decision affect chances of survival? Correct answers were: "Most will die of something else" and "A little or not at all."
Results: The development phase involved 6 patients, 1 family member, 2 physicians, and 5 other health care providers. In our pilot test, 57 men consented, and 44 received the decision support intervention and completed knowledge surveys at both timepoints. Regarding the two knowledge items of interest, before the intervention, 35/56 (63%) answered both correctly, compared to 36/44 (82%) after the medical consultation (P = .04 by chi-square test).
Conclusions: The intervention was associated with increased patient knowledge. Data from this pilot have guided the development of a larger scale randomized clinical trial to improve decision quality in men with prostate cancer being treated in community settings.
Keywords: behavioral science; cancer education; ethical considerations; prostate cancer.
© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Development and evaluation of the personal patient profile-prostate (P3P), a Web-based decision support system for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.J Med Internet Res. 2010 Dec 17;12(4):e67. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1576. J Med Internet Res. 2010. PMID: 21169159 Free PMC article.
Examining the impact of a multimedia intervention on treatment decision-making among newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients: results from a nationwide RCT.Transl Behav Med. 2018 Nov 21;8(6):876-886. doi: 10.1093/tbm/iby066. Transl Behav Med. 2018. PMID: 29982747 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Perception of cancer and inconsistency in medical information are associated with decisional conflict: a pilot study of men with prostate cancer who undergo active surveillance.BJU Int. 2012 Jul;110(2 Pt 2):E50-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10791.x. Epub 2011 Dec 7. BJU Int. 2012. PMID: 22145791
Clarifying uncertainty regarding detection and treatment of early-stage prostate cancer.Semin Urol Oncol. 2002 Feb;20(1):10-7. doi: 10.1053/suro.2002.30393. Semin Urol Oncol. 2002. PMID: 11828353 Review.
Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018 May. Report No.: 17-05229-EF-1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). 2018. PMID: 30085502 Free Books & Documents. Review.
- Daum LM, Reamer EN, Ruterbusch JJ, et al. Patient knowledge and qualities of treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30:288. - PubMed
- McGregor S. What information patients with localised prostate cancer hear and understand. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;49:273. - PubMed
- Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Steiner JF. Patient treatment preferences in localized prostate carcinoma: the influence of emotion, misconception, and anecdote. Cancer. 2006;107:620. - PubMed