Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
Comparative analysis of treatment decision-making in patients with localized prostate and cervical cancer: what influences receiving surgery or radiotherapy?
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Minamitani Masanari, Katano Atsuto, Mukai Tomoya, Ohira Shingo, Nakagawa Keiichi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study focused on identifying the factors influencing the decision-making process in patients with localized prostate and cervical cancer in Japan and specifically examining the choice between surgery and radiotherapy.
METHODS: Patients with specific cancer stages registered with a healthcare research company for whom radical surgery or radiotherapy was equally effective and recommended participated in this cross-sectional online survey.
RESULTS: The responses of 206 and 231 patients with prostate and cervical cancer, respectively, revealed that both groups relied heavily on the physicians' recommendations (prostate: odds ratio (OR) = 40.3, p < 0.001; cervical: OR = 5.59, p < 0.001) and their impression of radiotherapy (prostate: OR = 9.22, p < 0.001; cervical: OR = 2.31, p < 0.001). Factors such as hypertension (OR = 6.48, p < 0.05), diabetes mellitus (OR = 9.68, p < 0.05), employment status (OR = 0.08, p < 0.01), and impressions of surgery (OR = 0.14, p < 0.01) also played a significant role in patients with prostate cancer. In contrast, the specialty of the physician (OR = 4.55, p < 0.05) proposing the treatment influenced the decision-making process of patients with cervical cancer. Information sources varied between the two groups: patients with prostate cancer were more inclined towards printed materials, whereas patients with cervical cancer were more inclined towards interpersonal relationships.
CONCLUSION: Although several limitations, such as the sample and recall bias, were noted, this study emphasizes the role of psychosocial factors in the decision-making process and the requirement for tailored information sources.
METHODS: Patients with specific cancer stages registered with a healthcare research company for whom radical surgery or radiotherapy was equally effective and recommended participated in this cross-sectional online survey.
RESULTS: The responses of 206 and 231 patients with prostate and cervical cancer, respectively, revealed that both groups relied heavily on the physicians' recommendations (prostate: odds ratio (OR) = 40.3, p < 0.001; cervical: OR = 5.59, p < 0.001) and their impression of radiotherapy (prostate: OR = 9.22, p < 0.001; cervical: OR = 2.31, p < 0.001). Factors such as hypertension (OR = 6.48, p < 0.05), diabetes mellitus (OR = 9.68, p < 0.05), employment status (OR = 0.08, p < 0.01), and impressions of surgery (OR = 0.14, p < 0.01) also played a significant role in patients with prostate cancer. In contrast, the specialty of the physician (OR = 4.55, p < 0.05) proposing the treatment influenced the decision-making process of patients with cervical cancer. Information sources varied between the two groups: patients with prostate cancer were more inclined towards printed materials, whereas patients with cervical cancer were more inclined towards interpersonal relationships.
CONCLUSION: Although several limitations, such as the sample and recall bias, were noted, this study emphasizes the role of psychosocial factors in the decision-making process and the requirement for tailored information sources.