The accuracy of patients’ perceptions of the risks associated with localised prostate cancer treatments

Objectives To assess the accuracy of patients’ perceptions of the risks associated with localised prostate cancer treatments (radical prostatectomy [RP], radiotherapy [RT], and active surveillance [AS]), and to identify correlates of misperceptions. Patients and methods We used baseline data (questi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BJU international 2018-03, Vol.121 (3), p.405-414
Hauptverfasser: Stam, Marie‐Anne, Poel, Henk G., Voort van Zyp, Jochem R.N., Tillier, Corinne N., Horenblas, Simon, Aaronson, Neil K., Ruud Bosch, J.L.H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives To assess the accuracy of patients’ perceptions of the risks associated with localised prostate cancer treatments (radical prostatectomy [RP], radiotherapy [RT], and active surveillance [AS]), and to identify correlates of misperceptions. Patients and methods We used baseline data (questionnaires completed after treatment information was provided but before treatment) of 426 patients with newly diagnosed localised prostate cancer who participated (87% response rate) in a prospective, longitudinal, multicentre study. Patients’ pretreatment perceptions of differences in adverse outcomes of treatments were compared to those based on the literature. We used univariate and multivariate linear regression to identify correlates of misperceptions. Results About two‐thirds (68%, n = 211) of the patients did not understand that the risk of disease recurrence is comparable between RP and RT. More than half of the patients did not comprehend that RP patients are at greater risk of urinary incontinence (65%, n = 202) and erectile dysfunction (61%, n = 190), and less at risk of bowel problems (53%, n = 211) compared to RT patients. Many patients overestimated the risk of requiring definitive treatment following AS (45%, n = 157) and did not understand that mortality rates following AS, RP, and RT are comparable (80%, n = 333). Consulting a radiotherapist or a clinical nurse specialist was positively associated with, and emotional distress was negatively associated with, better understanding of the risks (P < 0.05), although effect sizes were small. Conclusion Prior to choosing treatment, most patients with prostate cancer poorly understood the differences in treatment risks. Greater efforts should be made to better understand why these misperceptions occur and, most importantly, how they can be corrected.
ISSN:1464-4096
1464-410X
DOI:10.1111/bju.14034