학술논문

The influence of the "cancer" label on perceptions and management decisions for low-grade prostate cancer.
Document Type
Article
Source
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Nov2023, Vol. 115 Issue 11, p1364-1373. 10p.
Subject
*PROSTATE cancer
*WATCHFUL waiting
*LOGISTIC regression analysis
*DECISION making
*CONFIDENCE intervals
*TUMORS
Language
ISSN
0027-8874
Abstract
Background Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer should be managed with active surveillance (AS). Global uptake of AS remains disappointingly slow and heterogeneous. Removal of cancer labels has been proposed to reduce GG1 overtreatment. We sought to determine the impact of GG1 disease terminology on individual's perceptions and decision making. Methods Discrete choice experiments were conducted on 3 cohorts: healthy men, canonical partners (partners), and patients with GG1 (patients). Participants reported preferences in a series of vignettes with 2 scenarios each, permuting key opinion leader–endorsed descriptors: biopsy (adenocarcinoma, acinar neoplasm, prostatic acinar neoplasm of low malignant potential [PAN-LMP], prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential), disease (cancer, neoplasm, tumor, growth), management decision (treatment, AS), and recurrence risk (6%, 3%, 1%, <1%). Influence on scenario selection were estimated by conditional logit models and marginal rates of substitution. Two additional validation vignettes with scenarios portraying identical descriptors except the management options were embedded into the discrete choice experiments. Results Across cohorts (194 healthy men, 159 partners, and 159 patients), noncancer labels PAN-LMP or prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential and neoplasm, tumor, or growth were favored over adenocarcinoma and cancer (P  < .01), respectively. Switching adenocarcinoma and cancer labels to PAN-LMP and growth, respectively, increased AS choice by up to 17%: healthy men (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10% to 20%, from 76% to 91%, P  < .001), partners (17%, 95% CI = 12% to 24%, from 65% to 82%, P  < .001), and patients (7%, 95% CI = 4% to 12%, from 75% to 82%, P  = .063). The main limitation is the theoretical nature of questions perhaps leading to less realistic choices. Conclusions "Cancer" labels negatively affect perceptions and decision making regarding GG1. Relabeling (ie, avoiding word "cancer") increases proclivity for AS and would likely improve public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]