ArticleFamily practice2017
Active surveillance for low-risk localized prostate cancer: what do men and their partners think?
Article in Family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The lived experience of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Pooled it
- Supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer: A systematic review update.European journal of cancer care · 2022Pooled it
- Key Determinants Influencing Treatment Decision-Making for and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Patient perspectives on factors influencing active surveillance adherence for low-risk prostate cancer: A qualitative study.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Perceptions of partial gland ablation for prostate cancer among men on active surveillance: A qualitative study.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2021Article
- Treatment decision-making in men with localized prostate cancer living in a remote area: A cross-sectional, observational study.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021Article
- Decision regret in men living with and beyond nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the United Kingdom: A population-based patient-reported outcome study.Psycho-oncology · 2020Article
- Why men with a low-risk prostate cancer select and stay on active surveillance: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Racial and Ethnic Differences in Prostate Cancer Survivors' Perceived Engagement in Treatment Decision-Making.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2018Article
- Influence of Men's Personality and Social Support on Treatment Decision-Making for Localized Prostate Cancer.BioMed research international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundActive surveillance (AS) is recognized as a reasonable treatment option for low-risk localized prostate cancer (LPC) but continues to be chosen by a minority of men. To date, limited data are available regarding reasons why men with low-risk LPC adopt AS. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to better understand conceptualizations, experiences and reasons why men with low-risk LPC and their partners adopt AS.
methodsWe conducted five focus groups (FGs), three among men with low-risk LPC who had chosen AS and two with their partners. FGs were video/audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.
resultsA total of 12 men and 6 partners (all women) participated in FG discussions. The most common reasons for choosing AS were seeing the LPC as 'small' or 'low grade' without need for immediate treatment and trusting their physician's AS recommendation. The most common concerns about AS were perceived unreliability of prostate specific antigen, pain associated with prostate biopsies and potential cancer progression. Partners saw themselves as very involved in their husbands' treatment decision-making process, more than men acknowledged them to be. Multiple terms including 'watchful waiting' were used interchangeably with AS. There appeared to be a lack of understanding that AS is not simply 'doing nothing' but is actually a recognized management option for low-risk LPC.
conclusionsEmphasizing the low risk of a man's LPC and enhancing physician trust may increase acceptability of AS. Standardizing terminology and presenting AS as a reasonable and recognized management option may also help increase its adoption.
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.