Trial reportHealth and quality of life outcomes2012
Personal preferences and discordant prostate cancer treatment choice in an intervention trial of men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.
Trial report in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00692653 (Personal Patient Profile Prostate), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Personal Patient Profile Prostate (P4) Randomized, Multisite Trial
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions that Facilitate Shared Decision-Making in Cancers with Active Surveillance as Treatment Option: a Systematic Review of Literature.Current oncology reports · 2020Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Pooled it
- Concordance between influential adverse treatment outcomes and localized prostate cancer treatment decisions.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Trial
- Key Determinants Influencing Treatment Decision-Making for and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Exploring the impact of providing men with information about potential prostate cancer treatment options prior to receiving biopsy results.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
- Financial toxicity associated with treatment of localized prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2020Review
- Factors underlying treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer in the U.S. and Canada: A scoping review using principal component analysis.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2019Article
- Article
- Factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options: A systematic review.Patient preference and adherence · 2015Review
- Efficacy and toxicity of external-beam radiation therapy for localised prostate cancer: a network meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2014Article
- Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2013Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMen diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (LPC) can choose from multiple treatment regimens and are faced with a decision in which medical factors and personal preferences are important. The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) is a computerized decision aid for men with LPC that focuses on personal preferences. We determined whether the P3P intervention improved the concordance of treatment choice with self-reported influential side-effects compared with a control group.
methodsEnglish/Spanish-speaking men diagnosed with LPC (2007-2009) from four US cities were enrolled into a randomized trial and followed through 6-months via mailed or online questionnaire. Men were randomized to receive the P3P intervention or standard education plus links to reputable websites. We classified choice as concordant if men were concerned with (a) sexual function and chose external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy, (b) bowel function and chose prostatectomy, (c) sex, bowel, and/or bladder function and chose active surveillance, or (d) not concerned with any side effect and chose any treatment. Using logistic regression, we calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between the P3P intervention and concordance.
resultsOf 448 men, most were <65 years, non-Hispanic white, had multiple physician consultations prior to enrollment, and chose a treatment discordant with concerns about potential side effects. There was no significant difference in concordance between the intervention (45%) and control (50%) group (OR = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.56, 1.2).
conclusionsThe P3P intervention did not improve concordance between potential side effects and treatment choice. Information and/or physician consultation immediately after diagnosis was likely to influence decisions despite concerns about side effects. The intervention may be more effective before the first treatment options consultation.
trial registrationNCT00692653 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00692653.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.