Page 405 - An Evidence Review of Active Surveillance in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

Appendix Table C3.1 Studies on offer, acceptance, and adherence of active surveillance (continued)
Factors examined Author Study approach AS/WW definitions Findings Issues
Year
PMID
Patient and O’Rourke 194 Qualitative description of interviews WW (not explicitly • “The process of reaching a • Small sample size
physician 1999 of 18 men with prostate cancer defined) treatment decision was
factors affecting 10370363 (dx’d within 6 wk; stage I or II; influenced by the urologists;
acceptance undecided choice of treatment) and second opinions [mostly
their wives; they were referred by concurrence between primary
their urologists; sample recruited care physician and the urologist
from 3 community practicing in this sample], and
urology groups (urologists screened comparisons of self with others.”
out cognitively impaired patients • “Couples ruled out options
and spouses) in a western N. based on formal and informal
Carolina community; 19 couples information, although sometimes
were approached, 1 declined; inaccurate, personal and
“sampling aim not representative of vicarious cancer experiences,
the general population, but and beliefs about cancer that
representative of the process of were intricately tied to emotions
prostate cancer treatment and fears.”
selection” • “Couples considered both
their own individual histories and
concerns and their shared life
experiences.”
• “’Doing nothing’ was
ultimately rejected for the
certainty they perceived to be
associated with it: certain death,
feared to be slow and painful.”

C-120