Article

Factors associated with satisfaction with prostate cancer care: results from Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE)

VA Tennessee Valley Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Care Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA Department of Urology and the UCSF-Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.13). 08/2012; 111(2). DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11423.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Study Type - Therapy (quality of care analysis) Level of Evidence 2b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Satisfaction with care is a comprehensive measure that incorporates structure, process, and outcome elements of individual patient's interaction with the healthcare system. Despite the worldwide public health burden of prostate cancer, little is known about predictors of satisfaction with prostate cancer care. Available data has evaluated differences in post-treatment satisfaction by treatment and demographic factors; however, few data exist regarding the contribution of both baseline and post-treatment patient-reported measures on satisfaction with care. We evaluated the relationship of various demographic, clinical, treatment, and patient-reported measures on satisfaction with care. Interestingly, while none of the evaluable demographic, clinical, or treatment parameters were associated with satisfaction, numerous patient-reported parameters were associated with satisfaction with prostate cancer care. Specifically, baseline general health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and change in prostate cancer-specific HRQOL after treatment were associated with satisfaction. Additionally, fear of cancer recurrence was also found to be associated with satisfaction. Taken together, these data may be used, in part, to identify a cohort of patients at-risk for dissatisfaction with prostate cancer care. Identification of such a group may allow for incorporation of these data into treatment counseling and/or implementing intervention strategies to improve post-treatment satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: •  To evaluate the impact of demographic, clinical, treatment and patient-reported parameters on satisfaction with prostate cancer care. Despite the significant worldwide impact of prostate cancer, few data are available specifically addressing satisfaction with treatment-related care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: •  CaPSURE comprises participants from 40 US sites who were monitored during and after their treatment course. •  Participants who were diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer after 1999 underwent radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy or primary androgen deprivation, and those who also completed the satisfaction questionnaire within 2 years of treatment were included in the present study. •  Satisfaction was measured using a validated instrument that assesses contact with providers, confidence in providers, communication skills, humanness and overall satisfaction. •  Multivariable linear regression analysis were performed to evaluate the independent relationships between demographic, clinical, treatment and patient-reported parameters and satisfaction. RESULTS: •  Of the 3056 participants, 1927 (63%) were treated with radical prostatectomy, 843 (28%) were treated with radiation therapy and 286 (9%) were treated with primary androgen deprivation. •  Multivariable analysis showed that multiple patient-reported factors were independently associated with satisfaction, whereas clinical, demographic and treatment parameters were not. •  Baseline health-related quality of life, measured by the 36-item short-form health survey, baseline fear of cancer recurrence (all P < 0.01) and declines in the sexual (P= 0.03), urinary (P < 0.01) and bowel (P= 0.02) function domains of the University of California Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index were all independently associated with satisfaction. •  Patient-reported outcomes were more strongly associated with satisfaction in the low-risk subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: •  Patient-reported factors such as health-related quality of life and fear of cancer recurrence are independently associated with satisfaction with care •  Pretreatment parameters should be used to identify populations at-risk for dissatisfaction to allow for intervention and/or incorporation into treatment decision-making.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
119 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose We explored the impact of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy on the prediction of final surgical pathology. Materials and Methods A total of 54 consecutive men undergoing radical prostatectomy at UCLA after fusion biopsy were included in this prospective, institutional review board approved pilot study. Using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion, tissue was obtained from a 12-point systematic grid (mapping biopsy) and from regions of interest detected by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (targeted biopsy). A single radiologist read all magnetic resonance imaging, and a single pathologist independently rereviewed all biopsy and whole mount pathology, blinded to prior interpretation and matched specimen. Gleason score concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy was the primary end point. Results Mean patient age was 62 years and median prostate specific antigen was 6.2 ng/ml. Final Gleason score at prostatectomy was 6 (13%), 7 (70%) and 8–9 (17%). A tertiary pattern was detected in 17 (31%) men. Of 45 high suspicion (image grade 4–5) magnetic resonance imaging targets 32 (71%) contained prostate cancer. The per core cancer detection rate was 20% by systematic mapping biopsy and 42% by targeted biopsy. The highest Gleason pattern at prostatectomy was detected by systematic mapping biopsy in 54%, targeted biopsy in 54% and a combination in 81% of cases. Overall 17% of cases were upgraded from fusion biopsy to final pathology and 1 (2%) was downgraded. The combination of targeted biopsy and systematic mapping biopsy was needed to obtain the best predictive accuracy. Conclusions In this pilot study magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy allowed for the prediction of final prostate pathology with greater accuracy than that reported previously using conventional methods (81% vs 40% to 65%). If confirmed, these results will have important clinical implications.
    The Journal of Urology 11/2014; 192(5):1367–1373. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.094 · 3.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Prostate cancer is for many men a chronic disease with a long life expectancy after treatment. The impact of prostate cancer therapy on men has been well defined, however, explanation of the consequences of cancer treatment has not been modelled against the wider variables of long-term health-care provision. The aim of this study was to explore the parameters of unmet supportive care needs in men with prostate cancer in relation to the experience of nursing care.Methods:A survey was conducted among a volunteer sample of 1001 men with prostate cancer living in seven European countries.Results:At the time of the survey, 81% of the men had some unmet supportive care needs including psychological, sexual and health system and information needs. Logistic regression indicated that lack of post-treatment nursing care significantly predicted unmet need. Critically, men's contact with nurses and/or receipt of advice and support from nurses, for several different aspects of nursing care significantly had an impact on men's outcomes.Conclusion:Unmet need is related not only to disease and treatment factors but is also associated with the supportive care men received. Imperative to improving men's treatment outcomes is to also consider the access to nursing and the components of supportive care provided, especially after therapy.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 24 September 2013; doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.568 www.bjcancer.com.
    British Journal of Cancer 09/2013; DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.568 · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Longitudinal studies report racial disparities in prostate cancer (PCa) including greater incidence, more aggressive tumor biology, and increased cancer-specific mortality in African American (AA) men. Regret concerning primary treatment selection is underevaluated in patients with PCa. We investigated the relationships between clinicopathologic variables across racial and socioeconomic lines following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. We assessed treatment decisional regret using a validated questionnaire in a total of 484 white and 72 AA patients with PCa who were followed up for a median of 16.6 months post-robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Socioeconomic status (SES) information was aggregated from 2010 US census zip code data. Perioperative clinicopathologic characteristics and functional outcomes were compared between groups. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to evaluate the influence of race, aggregate SES, and other clinical and demographic characteristics on decisional regret. The majority (87.7%) of the population was not regretful of their decision to undergo treatment. However, a greater proportion of AA vs. white patients were regretful (20.6% vs. 11.2%, respectively; P = 0.03). AA and white men were similar on all functional, clinical, and pathologic features with the exception of younger age among AA men (56 vs. 60y, respectively; P<0.001). Although there were significant differences in SES by race (P<0.001), regret did not differ by SES (β =-1.53; P = 0.15). Race, postoperative sexual dysfunction, pad usage, and length of hospital stay, however, were significantly associated with decisional regret. AA men were more regretful than white men, after adjusting for clinicopathologic characteristics and postoperative functional outcomes.
    Urologic Oncology 01/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.10.011 · 3.36 Impact Factor