Exploring the impact of providing men with information about potential prostate cancer treatment options prior to receiving biopsy results
There is little research assessing the impact of providing men with information about prostate cancer (PCa) treatment options at the time of referral for a prostate biopsy. Study objectives were to determine whether receiving an information booklet about PCa treatment options prior to receiving biopsy results was acceptable to patients, and if receiving this information influenced levels of anxiety, depression, distress, and treatment decisional conflict.
Between June 2016 and September 2017, a randomised block design was used to allocate patients from an Australian urology practice into the intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group were provided with written information about treatment options for localised PCa prior to their biopsy. Outcome measures including the Distress Thermometer, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Decisional Conflict Scale were completed pre-biopsy and 2–3 weeks post-biopsy. Ninety-eight patients referred for an initial prostate biopsy for an elevated PSA test or suspicious digital rectal exam participated in the study (response rate = 78%).
Multimodal repeated-measures analyses showed no significant differences between control and intervention groups in changes in distress, anxiety, or depression from pre- to post-biopsy, and in decisional conflict post-diagnosis (all p > .05). Thirty-five (87%) patients believed that the resource made it easier to understand subsequent explanation of treatment options, and 51 patients (98%) who received the intervention preferred to be given information at that time.
Providing patients with information about treatment options prior to biopsy did not impact on changes in psychological distress and decisional conflict post-biopsy. However, the majority of patients preferred to be given such information at this time point.
KeywordsCancer Oncology Prostate biopsy Treatment decision aid Distress Decisional conflict
The authors acknowledge the contribution of Prostate Cancer Foundation Australia.
This study was supported by an Epworth Research Institute grant.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was approved by the institution’s ethics committee (714-15).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study.
- 1.Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin D, Forman D, Bray F (2012) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0 cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 11. International Agency for Research on Cancer, LyonGoogle Scholar
- 2.Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Hoffman RM, Potosky AL, Stanford JL, Stroup AM, Van Horn RL, Penson DF (2013) Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 368(5):436–445. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1209978 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 4.Bosco JLF, Halpenny B, Berry DL (2012) Personal preferences and discordant prostate cancer treatment choice in an intervention trial of men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 10:123–123. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-123 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.van Tol-Geerdink JJ, Willem Leer J, Weijerman PC, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, van Lin EN, Alfred Witjes J, Stalmeier PF (2013) Choice between prostatectomy and radiotherapy when men are eligible for both: a randomized controlled trial of usual care vs decision aid. BJU Int 111(4):564–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11402.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Ramsey SD, Zeliadt SB, Arora NK, Potosky AL, Blough DK, Hamilton AS, Van Den Eeden SK, Oakley-Girvan I, Penson DF (2009) Access to information sources and treatment considerations among men with local stage prostate cancer. Urology 74(3):509–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.01.090 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Zeliadt SB, Hannon PA, Trivedi RB, Bonner LB, Vu TT, Simons C, Kimmie CA, Hu EY, Zipperer C, Lin DW (2013) A preliminary exploration of the feasibility of offering men information about potential prostate cancer treatment options before they know their biopsy results. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13(19). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-19
- 16.Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW (2001) The PHQ-9. J Gen Intern Med 16(9):606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Pillay B, Moon D, Love C, Meyer D, Ferguson E, Crowe H, Wootten A (2017) Quality of life, psychological functioning, and treatment satisfaction of men who have undergone penile prosthesis surgery following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 14(12):1612–1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.10.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Ernstmann N, Weissbach L, Herden J, Winter N, Ansmann L (2017) Patient–physician communication and health-related quality of life of patients with localised prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy – a longitudinal multilevel analysis. BJU Int 119(3):396–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13495 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Hagerman CJ, Bellini PG, Davis KM, Hoffman RM, Aaronson DS, Leigh DY, Zinar RE, Penson D, Van Den Eeden S, Taylor KL (2017) Physicians’ perspectives on the informational needs of low-risk prostate cancer patients. Health Educ Res 32(2):134–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyx035 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar