Prostate cancer treatment ascertained from several sources: analysis of disagreement and error

Perceptions and recall of treatment for prostate cancer: A survey of two populations

Background

The complexity of prostate cancer care can impact on patient understanding and participation in shared decision-making. This study used a survey-based approach to investigate patients' recall of their prostate cancer treatment, and more broadly, to understand the perceptions of patients and the general population of prostate cancer treatment.

Method

The survey was completed by 236 patients with prostate cancer (PCa cohort) and 240 participants from the general population of Australia (GenPop cohort). Free-text comments from both cohorts were analysed using content analysis. The PCa cohort reported which treatments and image-guidance related procedures they had received. These patient-reports were compared to medical records and analysed using proportion agreement, kappa statistics and regression analysis.

Results

135 (57%) PCa and 99 (41%) GenPop respondents provided at least one comment. Five major themes were identified by both cohorts: sharing experiences of treatment; preferences insights and reflections; mindsets; general commentary on the survey; and factors missing from the survey. There was overall good treatment recall amongst the PCa cohort, with proportions of correct recall ranging from 97.3% for chemotherapy to 66.8% for hormone therapy. There was a tendency for younger patients (<70 years old) to recall their hormone treatment more correctly.

Conclusion

Participant comments suggest the complexity of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the varying perceptions and experiences of participants with prostate cancer. Patients' recall overall was good for both treatment and image-guidance related procedures/approaches, however the poorer recall of hormone therapy requires further investigation.

Agreement between medical records and self-reports: Implications for transgender health research

A key priority of transgender health research is the evaluation of long-term effects of gender affirmation treatment. Thus, accurate assessment of treatment receipt is critical. The data for this analysis came from an electronic medical records (EMR) based cohort of transgender individuals. A subset of cohort members were also asked to complete a self-administered survey. Information from the EMR was compared with survey responses to assess the extent of agreement regarding transmasculine (TM)/transfeminine (TF) status, hormone therapy receipt, and type of surgery performed. Logistic regression models were used to assess whether participant characteristics were associated with disagreement between data sources. Agreement between EMR and survey-derived information was high regarding TM/TF status (99%) and hormone therapy receipt (97%). Lower agreement was observed for chest reconstruction surgery (72%) and genital reconstruction surgery (84%). Using survey responses as the "gold standard", both chest and genital reconstruction surgeries had high specificity (95 and 93%, respectively), but the corresponding sensitivities were low (49 and 68%, respectively). A lower proportion of TM had concordant results for chest reconstruction surgery (64% versus 79% for TF) while genital reconstruction surgery concordance was lower among TF (79% versus 89% for TM). For both surgery types, agreement was highest among the youngest participants. Our findings offer assurance that EMR-based data appropriately classify cohort participants with respect to their TM/TF status or hormone therapy receipt. However, current EMR data may not capture the complete history of gender affirmation surgeries. This information is useful in future studies of outcomes related to gender affirming therapy.

Anger Proneness and Prognostic Pessimism in Men With Prostate Cancer

Aim:

Anger is a common reaction to cancer diagnosis which may impact patients’ perceptions of their prognosis and goals of care. This study tested the hypothesis that men with prostate cancer who are anger prone are pessimistic regarding their cancer prognosis.

Methods:

Two hundred and twelve men with a history of prostate cancer completed measures of personality traits, their prostate cancer prognosis, and their perception of their doctor’s assessment of their prognosis. Anger proneness was operationally defined by the presence of high levels (ie, above the medians) of neuroticism and disagreeableness.

Results:

One in 4 men with prostate cancer disagreed with their doctor about prognosis. Anger-prone participants endorsed more pessimistic perceptions of prognosis ( P = .041). This significant association was maintained after accounting for potential confounders.

Conclusion:

Greater attention paid to patient anger regulation style and pessimistic perceptions will improve discussions about prognosis and goals of care among men with prostate cancer. Given recent calls for wider distress screening and earlier palliative care intervention in cancer settings, providers have an unprecedented opportunity to assess and respond to anger in the clinical setting. Communication could be improved through empathic statements that convey realistic optimism when appropriate, a commitment to the patient–provider relationship and a willingness to explore and address patient needs.

Evolution of a CDC Public Health Research Agenda for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Men with prostate cancer face difficult choices when selecting a therapy for localized prostate cancer. Comparative data from controlled studies are lacking and clinical opinions diverge about the benefits and harms of treatment options. Consequently, there is limited guidance for patients regarding the impact of treatment decisions on quality of life. There are opportunities for public health to intervene at several decision-making points. Information on typical quality of life outcomes associated with specific prostate cancer treatments could help patients select treatment options. From 2003 to present, the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at CDC has supported projects to explore patient information-seeking behavior post-diagnosis, caregiver and provider involvement in treatment decision making, and patient quality of life following prostate cancer treatment. CDC's work also includes research that explores barriers and facilitators to the presentation of active surveillance as a viable treatment option and promotes equal access to information for men and their caregivers. This article provides an overview of the literature and considerations that initiated establishing a prospective public health research agenda around treatment decision making. Insights gathered from CDC-supported studies are poised to enhance understanding of the process of shared decision making and the influence of patient, caregiver, and provider preferences on the selection of treatment choices. These findings provide guidance about attributes that maximize patient experiences in survivorship, including optimal quality of life and patient and caregiver satisfaction with information, treatment decisions, and subsequent care.