Men's perceptions and preferences regarding prostate cancer radiation therapy: A systematic scoping review

Amy Brown; Jackie Yim; Scott Jones; Alex Tan; Emily Callander; Kerrianne Watt; Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Tilley Pain

doi:10.1016/j.ctro.2022.10.007

Men's perceptions and preferences regarding prostate cancer radiation therapy: A systematic scoping review

Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2022 Oct 25:38:28-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.10.007. eCollection 2023 Jan.

Authors

Amy Brown^{1

2}, Jackie Yim^{3

4}, Scott Jones⁵, Alex Tan^{2

6}, Emily Callander⁷, Kerrianne Watt², Richard De Abreu Lourenco⁴, Tilley Pain^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Townsville University Hospital, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
² James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
³ Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
⁴ Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
⁵ Radiation Oncology Princess Alexandra Hospital Raymond Terrace, Metro South Health Service, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
⁶ Radiation Oncology, Genesis Cancer Care, Nambour, Queensland, Australia.
⁷ Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the literature on men's preferences and perceptions regarding prostate cancer radiation therapy.

Methods: A scoping review was undertaken as per JBI guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Science Direct with search terms including "prostate cancer," "radiotherapy," "radiation therapy," "radiation oncology," "patient preferences," "patient perceptions" and "patient experience." The resultant studies were mapped and grouped according to the emergent themes and pathway stages.

Results: A total of 779 titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers. Fifty-two full-text studies were reviewed, with 27 eligible for inclusion. There were 4 pre-treatment, 13 during treatment and 10 post-treatment studies covering broad themes of information needs (n = 3), preferences and decisions (n = 6), general experiences (n = 8), side effects (n = 6), and support (n = 4). There were a mix of methodologies, including 11 qualitative, 14 quantitative (including four preference studies), one mixed methods and one narrative review.

Conclusion: There were only four preference studies, with the remaining 23 reporting on perceptions. Overall, there is a paucity of literature regarding patient preferences and perceptions of prostate cancer radiation therapy, particularly when considering how many clinical and technical studies are published in the area. This highlights opportunities for future research.

Keywords: Patient perceptions; Patient preferences; Prostate cancer; Radiotherapy; Scoping review.

Publication types

Review