| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bergengren, Oskar, et al.
(författare)
-
Determinants for choosing and adhering to active surveillance for localised prostate cancer: A nationwide population-based study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 9:12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective Knowledge about factors influencing choice of and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PC) is scarce. We aim to identify which factors most affected choosing and adhering to AS and to quantify their relative importance. Design, setting and participants In 2015, we sent a questionnaire to all Swedish men aged ≤70 years registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden who were diagnosed in 2008 with low-risk PC and had undergone prostatectomy, radiotherapy or started on AS. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Logistic regression was used to calculate ORs with 95% CIs for factors potentially affecting choice and adherence to AS. Results 1288 out of 1720 men (75%) responded, 451 (35%) chose AS and 837 (65%) underwent curative treatment. Of those starting on AS, 238 (53%) diverted to treatment within 7 years. Most men (83%) choose AS because ‘My doctor recommended AS’. Factors associated with choosing AS over treatment were older age (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.54), a Charlson Comorbidity Index >2 (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.13), being unaccompanied when notified of the cancer diagnosis (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.89). Men with a higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at the time of diagnosis were less likely to adhere to AS (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.63). The reason for having treatment after initial AS was ‘the PSA level was rising’ in 55% and biopsy findings in 36%. Conclusions A doctor’s recommendation strongly affects which treatment is chosen for men with low-risk PC. Rising PSA values were the main factor for initiating treatment for men on AS. These findings need be considered by healthcare providers who wish to increase the uptake of and adherence to AS.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bergengren, Oskar, et al.
(författare)
-
Satisfaction with Care Among Men with Localised Prostate Cancer: A Nationwide Population-based Study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Urology Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2588-9311. ; 1:1, s. 37-45
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Information about how men with prostate cancer (PC) experience their medical care and factors associated with their overall satisfaction with care (OSC) is limited. Objective: To investigate OSC and factors associated with OSC among men with low-risk PC. Design, setting, and participants: Men registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden as diagnosed in 2008 with low-risk PC at the age of ≤70 yr who had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT), or started on active surveillance (AS) were invited in 2015 to participate in this nationwide population-based survey (n = 1720). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: OSC data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for comparisons between the highest and lowest possible response categories. Results and limitations: A total of 1288 men (74.9%) responded. High OSC was reported by 958 (74.4%). Factors associated with high OSC were high participation in decision-making (OR 4.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.61–6.69), receiving more information (OR 11.1, 95% CI 7.97–15.6), high-quality information (OR 7.85, 95% CI 5.46–11.3), access to a nurse navigator (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.44–2.26), and better functional outcomes (defined as 25 points higher on the EPIC-26 questionnaire; OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21–1.48). OSC was not affected by whether a doctor or specialist nurse conducted follow-up (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66–1.07). These findings were similar across treatment groups. Men who had undergone RP or RT reported high OSC more often than men on AS (78.2% vs 84.0% vs 72.6%), high participation in decision-making (70.5% vs 64.5% vs 49.2%), and having received more information (40.5% vs 45.8% vs 28.6%), and were less likely to believe they would die from PC (3.8% vs 3.9% vs 8.0%). Limitations include the nonrandomised retrospective design and potential recall bias. Conclusions: Information and participation in decision-making, as well as access to a nurse navigator, are key factors for OSC, regardless of treatment. Men on AS need more information about their treatment and need to participate more in decision-making. OSC was as high among men who had nurse-led follow-up as among men who had doctor-led follow-up. Patient summary: Information about how men with low-risk prostate cancer experience their medical care is limited. In this nationwide population-based study we found that information and participation in decision-making as well as access to a nurse navigator are key factors for satisfaction regardless of treatment. Men who are being closely watched for prostate cancer without immediate curative treatment need more information than they now receive and need to participate more in decision-making than they currently do. Information and participation in decision-making are key factors for satisfaction with care among men with localised prostate cancer. Men under active surveillance need more information about their treatment and need to participate more in decision-making. © 2018 European Association of Urology
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Robinson, D., et al.
(författare)
-
Prostate Cancer Death After Radiotherapy or Radical Prostatectomy: A Nationwide Population-based Observational Study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 73:4, s. 502-511
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There are no conclusive results from randomized trials on radiotherapy (RT) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. Numerous observational studies have suggested that RP is associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer death, but whether results have been biased due to limited adjustments for confounding factors is unknown. Objective: To compare the risk of prostate cancer death after RT versus RP. Design, setting, and participants: Nationwide population-based observational study of men in the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 3.0 who had undergone RT or RP between 1998 and 2012. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Prostate cancer deaths were compared. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated in Cox regression models, including clinical T stage, M stage, Gleason grade group, serum levels of prostate-specific antigen, proportion of biopsy cores with cancer, mode of detection, comorbidity, age, educational level, and civil status. Period analysis with left truncation was performed. Results and limitations: Primary treatment was RT or RP for 41 503 men. Treatment effect was associated with disease severity. In univariate analysis of RT versus RP, risk of prostate cancer death was higher after RT-low-and intermediate-risk cancer, HR 1.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53-2.16), and high-risk cancer, HR 1.57 (95% CI: 1.33-1.85). After full adjustment in period analysis, this difference between the treatments was attenuated-low-and intermediate-risk cancer, HR 1.24 (95% CI: 0.97-1.58), and high-risk cancer, HR 1.03 (95% CI: 0.81-1.31). Confounding remained due to nonrandom allocation to treatment. Conclusions: In comparison with previous studies, the difference in prostate cancer mortality after RT and RP was much smaller. Patient summary: The difference in prostate cancer mortality after contemporary radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy was small in contrast to previous studies, indicating that potential side effects should be more emphasized when selecting treatment.
|
|
| 6. |
- Stattin, Pär, et al.
(författare)
-
Association of Radical Local Treatment with Mortality in Men with Very High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Semiecologic, Nationwide, Population-based Study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 72:1, s. 125-134
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Current guidelines recommend androgen deprivation therapy only for men with very high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but there is little evidence to support this stance. Objective: To investigate the association between radical local treatment and mortality in men with very high-risk PCa. Design, setting, and participants: Semiecologic study of men aged < 80 yr within the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden, diagnosed in 1998-2012 with very high-risk PCa (local clinical stage T4 and/or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level 50-200 ng/ml, any N, and M0). Men with locally advanced PCa (local clinical stage T3 and PSA level < 50 ng/ml, any N, and M0) were used as positive controls. Intervention: Proportion of men who received prostatectomy or full-dose radiotherapy in 640 experimental units defined by county, diagnostic period, and age at diagnosis. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: PCa and all-cause mortality rate ratios (MRRs). Results and limitations: Both PCa and all-cause mortality were half as high in units in the highest tertile of exposure to radical local treatment compared with units in the lowest tertile (PCa MRR: 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.95; and all-cause MRR: 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.92). The results observed for locally advanced PCa for highest versus lowest tertile of exposurewere in agreement with results fromrandomized trials (PCaMRR: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.94; and all-cause MRR: 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00). Although the semiecologic design minimized selection bias on an individual level, the effect of high therapeutic activity could not be separated from that of high diagnostic activity. Conclusions: The substantially lower mortality in units with the highest exposure to radical local treatment suggests that radical treatment decreases mortality even in men with very high-risk PCa for whom such treatment has been considered ineffective. Patient summary: Menwith very high-risk prostate cancer diagnosed and treated in units with the highest exposure to surgery or radiotherapy had a substantially lower mortality. (C) 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
