Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 1/2011

01-02-2011 | Topic Paper

Patient preferences and urologist recommendations among local-stage prostate cancer patients who present for initial consultation and second opinions

Authors: Scott D. Ramsey, Steven B. Zeliadt, Catherine R. Fedorenko, David K. Blough, Carol M. Moinpour, Ingrid J. Hall, Judith Lee Smith, Donatus U. Ekwueme, Megan E. Fairweather, Ian M. Thompson, Thomas E. Keane, David F. Penson

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I et al (2008) Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 148:435–448PubMed Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I et al (2008) Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 148:435–448PubMed
2.
go back to reference Fowler FJ Jr, McNaughton-Collins M, Albertsen PC et al (2000) Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama 283:3217–3222CrossRefPubMed Fowler FJ Jr, McNaughton-Collins M, Albertsen PC et al (2000) Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama 283:3217–3222CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference McNaughton-Collins M, Barry MJ, Zietman A et al (2002) United States radiation oncologists’ and urologists’ opinions about screening and treatment of prostate cancer vary by region. Urology 60:628–633CrossRefPubMed McNaughton-Collins M, Barry MJ, Zietman A et al (2002) United States radiation oncologists’ and urologists’ opinions about screening and treatment of prostate cancer vary by region. Urology 60:628–633CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Zeliadt SB, Moinpour CM, Blough DK et al (2010) Preliminary treatment considerations among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Am J Manag Care 16:e121–e130PubMed Zeliadt SB, Moinpour CM, Blough DK et al (2010) Preliminary treatment considerations among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Am J Manag Care 16:e121–e130PubMed
6.
go back to reference D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama 280:969–974CrossRefPubMed D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama 280:969–974CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Jang TL, Bekelman JE, Liu Y et al (2010) Physician visits prior to treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med 170:440–450CrossRefPubMed Jang TL, Bekelman JE, Liu Y et al (2010) Physician visits prior to treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med 170:440–450CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Sommers BD, Beard CJ, D’Amico AV et al (2008) Predictors of patient preferences and treatment choices for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 113:2058–2067CrossRefPubMed Sommers BD, Beard CJ, D’Amico AV et al (2008) Predictors of patient preferences and treatment choices for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 113:2058–2067CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Lin GA, Aaronson DS, Knight SJ et al (2009) Patient decision aids for prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of the literature. CA Cancer J Clin 59:379–390CrossRefPubMed Lin GA, Aaronson DS, Knight SJ et al (2009) Patient decision aids for prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of the literature. CA Cancer J Clin 59:379–390CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient preferences and urologist recommendations among local-stage prostate cancer patients who present for initial consultation and second opinions
Authors
Scott D. Ramsey
Steven B. Zeliadt
Catherine R. Fedorenko
David K. Blough
Carol M. Moinpour
Ingrid J. Hall
Judith Lee Smith
Donatus U. Ekwueme
Megan E. Fairweather
Ian M. Thompson
Thomas E. Keane
David F. Penson
Publication date
01-02-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0602-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

World Journal of Urology 1/2011 Go to the issue

Acknowledgement to Referees

Reviewers 2010