World journal of urology · 2018
New study suggests patients with advanced prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy need more dialogue with health care provider, especially around cardiovascular risk.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Merseburger Axel, Bro Falkenberg Anne, Kornilova Olga J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To study the current level of patients' awareness, and patient-health care provider (HCP) dialogue with respect to treatment-related risks, especially cardiovascular risk (CVR) associated with advanced prostate cancer (PCa) treatment.
METHODS: This 10-min online survey summarised data by treatment, region, and CVR (high or low).
RESULTS: Of the 411 patients, 83% were at high CVR while only 8% patients were aware of CVR associated with PCa treatment, majority of which (80%) were informed about this risk by HCPs. No significant difference in treatment approach was reported, regardless of patient's CVR status. Compared to other potential risks, patients were more likely to initiate discussion about heart problems with HCPs (38% patients). When prompted, 26% patients rated heart problems as the most concerning risk factor, and this concern was twice in patients with high CVR (28%) versus low CVR (14%). Lifestyle modifications were made by 64% patients, of which 45% patients reported an improvement in overall well-being. Improved diet was the most adopted lifestyle modification.
CONCLUSION: There is a need to enhance a constant patient-HCP dialogue, and both groups need to make a conscious effort in that direction. This would help in increasing patients' awareness of risks, having better treatment choice and acceptance, and reducing side-effects.
METHODS: This 10-min online survey summarised data by treatment, region, and CVR (high or low).
RESULTS: Of the 411 patients, 83% were at high CVR while only 8% patients were aware of CVR associated with PCa treatment, majority of which (80%) were informed about this risk by HCPs. No significant difference in treatment approach was reported, regardless of patient's CVR status. Compared to other potential risks, patients were more likely to initiate discussion about heart problems with HCPs (38% patients). When prompted, 26% patients rated heart problems as the most concerning risk factor, and this concern was twice in patients with high CVR (28%) versus low CVR (14%). Lifestyle modifications were made by 64% patients, of which 45% patients reported an improvement in overall well-being. Improved diet was the most adopted lifestyle modification.
CONCLUSION: There is a need to enhance a constant patient-HCP dialogue, and both groups need to make a conscious effort in that direction. This would help in increasing patients' awareness of risks, having better treatment choice and acceptance, and reducing side-effects.