Patient and disease factors affecting the choice and adherence to active surveillance

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 272-276

  Dall'Era, Marc A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

active surveillance; anxiety; decision making; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; ANXIETY; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SELF CARE; DECISION MAKING; DIET THERAPY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; PSYCHOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; WATCHFUL WAITING;

ANXIETY; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK ASSESSMENT; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84928566304     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000154     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1117-1123.
2. Ritch CR, Graves AJ, Keegan KA, et al. Increasing use of observation among men at low risk for prostate cancer mortality. J Urol 2014.
3. Mishra MV, Bennett M, Vincent A, et al. Identifying barriers to patient acceptance of active surveillance: content analysis of online patient communications. PloS One 2013; 8:e68563.
4. Mohler JL, Kantoff PW, Armstrong AJ, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2014; 12:686-718.
5. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent: update 2013. Eur Urol 2014; 65:124-137.
6. Polascik TJ, Passoni NM, Villers A, Choyke PL. Modernizing the diagnostic and decision-making pathway for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20:6254-6257.
7. Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol 2014; 66:550-560.
8. Cooperberg MR, Simko JP, Cowan JE, et al. Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:1428-1434.
9. Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 62:976-983.
10. Wang SY, Cowan JE, Cary KC, et al. Limited ability of existing nomograms to predict outcomes in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2014; 114:E18-E24.
11. Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, et al. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 2007; 177:107-112. [discussion 112]
12. Truong M, Slezak JA, Lin CP, et al. Development and multiinstitutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. Cancer 2013; 119:3992-4002.
13. Iremashvili V, Burdick-Will J, Soloway MS. Improving risk stratification in patients with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: A nomogram predicting the risk of biopsy progression. BJU Int 2013; 112:39-44.
14. Ramsey SD, Zeliadt SB, Blough DK, et al. Complementary and alternative medicine use, patient-reported outcomes, and treatment satisfaction among men with localized prostate cancer. Urology 2012; 79:1034-1041.
15. Davison BJ, Goldenberg SL. Patient acceptance of active surveillance as a treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011; 108:1787-1793.
16. Orom H, Homish DL, Homish GG, Underwood W 3rd. Quality of physicianpatient relationships is associated with the influence of physician treatment recommendations among patients with prostate cancer who chose active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2014; 32:396-402.
17. van den Bergh RC, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, et al. Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Cancer 2009; 115:3868-3878.
18. O'Callaghan C, Dryden T, Hyatt A, et al. 'What is this active surveillance thing' Men's and partners' reactions to treatment decision making for prostate cancer when active surveillance is the recommended treatment option. Psychooncology 2014; 23:1391-1398.
19. Goh AC, Kowalkowski MA, Bailey DE Jr, et al. 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; 110:E50-E56.
20. Chien CH, Chuang CK, Liu KL, et al. Changes in decisional conflict and decisional regret in patients with localised prostate cancer. J Clin Nurs 2014; 23:1959-1969.
21. Zeliadt SB, Ramsey SD, Penson DF, et al. Why do men choose one treatment over another? A review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2006; 106:1865-1874.
22. de Bekker-Grob EW, Bliemer MC, Donkers B, et al. Patients' and urologists' preferences for prostate cancer treatment: A discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer 2013; 109:633-640.
23. Sidana A, Hernandez DJ, Feng Z, et al. Treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer: what younger men choose and why. Prostate 2012; 72:58-64
24. Tavlarides AM, Ames SC, Diehl NN, et al. Evaluation of the association of prostate cancer-specific anxiety with sexual function, depression and cancer aggressiveness in men 1 year following surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Psychooncology 2013; 22:1328-1335.
25. Volk RJ, McFall SL, Cantor SB, et al. 'It's not like you just had a heart attack': decision-making about active surveillance by men with localized prostate cancer. Psychooncology 2014; 23:467-472.
26. Anandadas CN, Clarke NW, Davidson SE, et al. Early prostate cancer: which treatment do men prefer and why? BJU Int 2011; 107:1762-1768.
27. Bellardita L, Rancati T, Alvisi MF, et al. Predictors of health-related quality of life and adjustment to prostate cancer during active surveillance. Eur Urol 2013; 64:30-36.
28. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112:2664-2670.
29. van den Bergh RC, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, et al. Do anxiety and distress increase during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer? J Urol 2010; 183:1786-1791.
30. Venderbos LD, van den Bergh RC, Roobol MJ, et al. A longitudinal study on the impact of active surveillance for prostate cancer on anxiety and distress levels. Psychooncology 2014.
31. Latini DM, Hart SL, Knight SJ, et al. The relationship between anxiety and time to treatment for patients with prostate cancer on surveillance. J Urol 2007; 178:826-831. [discussion 831-822]
32. Fleshner NE, Lucia MS, Egerdie B, et al. Dutasteride in localised prostate cancer management: the REDEEM randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 379:1103-1111.
33. Frattaroli J, Weidner G, Dnistrian AM, et al. Clinical events in prostate cancer lifestyle trial: results fromtwoyears of follow-up. Urology2008;72:1319-1323.
34. Oliffe JL, Davison BJ, Pickles T, Mroz L. The self-management of uncertainty among men undertaking active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Qual Health Res 2009; 19:432-443.
35. Zeliadt SB, Penson DF, Moinpour CM, et al. Provider and partner interactions in the treatment decision-making process for newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011; 108:851-856. [discussion 856-857]