UroToday - Roles of the Urologist and Nurse from the Perspective of Patients with Prostate Cancer Receiving Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Analogue Therapy - Abstract

[Guest guest]

I find it interesting that 3 month shots were better for the patient because

it gave the patients an opportunity to talk to the doctor or nurse.

Friday, 20 June 2008

Department of Urology, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, and Ligue Nationale contre

le Cancer, France.

To establish the roles of the urologist, general practitioner (GP) and nurse

from the perspective of the patient with prostate cancer receiving hormone

therapy, and to assess patient satisfaction, in particular with management

and information needs.

Patients with prostate cancer receiving luteinizing hormone-releasing

hormone analogue (LHRH-a) therapy were recruited by a representative sample

of 58 French urologists (March to April 2007) and invited to complete a

42-item questionnaire.

In all, 350 representative patients participated in the study; >90% were

totally or quite satisfied with the information given by their urologist at

diagnosis and the start of treatment. Their main contact during treatment

was with the nurse who gave the injection (84% of patients). The nurse's

main role was to provide clarity (60% of patients), guidance (35%) and

support to the family (28%). Fewer patients discussed disease stage and

progression with their nurse (29%) than with a doctor (urologist, 63%; or

GP, 61%). Fewer also discussed treatment (24% vs 32%) but as many patients

discussed the impact of their disease and treatment with their nurse as with

their doctor (e.g. 33% discussed general health and fatigue with the nurse,

vs 26% with the urologist). The need for contact with a health professional

was greater during the early stages of treatment. Patients treated for <12

months with 3-monthly injections were less likely to be in favour of spacing

injections than patients treated for >/=3 years.

The patient consults the urologist for reliable information on disease and

treatment, and to the GP for further support, if needed, but the nurse has

the pivotal role. A 3-monthly injection schedule enables regular

face-to-face contact between the nurse and the patient and their family, and

contributes towards the patient's coping strategies and quality of life.

Written by

Lebret T, Bouregba A.

Reference

BJU Int. 2008 Jun 11. Epub ahead of print.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07785.x

PubMed Abstract

PMID:18549431

[Guest guest]

> I find it interesting that 3 month shots were better for the patient because

> it gave the patients an opportunity to talk to the doctor or nurse.

>

> Friday, 20 June 2008

> Department of Urology, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, and Ligue Nationale contre

> le Cancer, France.

> To establish the roles of the urologist, general practitioner (GP) and nurse

> from the perspective of the patient with prostate cancer receiving hormone

> therapy, and to assess patient satisfaction, in particular with management

> and information needs.

(snip)

FWIW, I'll stand with this: " I believe it is a mistake for many

urologists to be

involved in the endocrine therapy of prostate cancer. Let me state why.

Urologists are surgeons and many times surgeons rush to a treatment without

really understanding what they are doing. "

-- B. Strum, MD

Medical Oncologist

PCa Specialist

Also FWIW, a couple of months ago, I participated in an online

discussion of PCa with some medics. I was the only " civilian " involved.

I'll never forget one uro's statement that he preferred long-interval

treatments because he didn't have to listen so much to the complaints of

his patients. One hopes that he is not typical.

Lastly, my opinion is that there is no clinical reason for lengthy

injection intervals. It's for convenience, nothing more. But because

each man reacts differently, the best way to assure that one is

receiving the full benefit is to have the monthly (28-day) injections.

Another Strum idea.

Regards,

Steve J

[Guest guest]

As a matter of interest how many members of this List

are likely to be treated with ADT (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) by a urologist

in France?

There doesn't seem much relevance for anyone else.

All the best

Terry Herbert

I have no medical

qualifications but I was diagnosed in ‘96: and have learned a bit since

then.

My sites are at www.yananow.net and www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

Dr

“Snuffy” Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most of

the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with inadequate

data "

From:

ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Kathy Meade

Sent: Friday, 20 June 2008 10:58

PM

To: Kathy Meade

Subject:

UroToday - Roles of the Urologist and Nurse from the Perspective of Patients

with Prostate Cancer Receiving Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Analogue

Therapy - Abstract

I find it interesting that 3 month shots were better

for the patient because

it gave the patients an opportunity to talk to the doctor or nurse.

Friday, 20 June 2008

Department of Urology, Foch

Hospital, Suresnes, and

Ligue Nationale contre

le Cancer, France.

To establish the roles of the urologist, general practitioner (GP) and nurse

from the perspective of the patient with prostate cancer receiving hormone

therapy, and to assess patient satisfaction, in particular with management

and information needs.

Patients with prostate cancer receiving luteinizing hormone-releasing

hormone analogue (LHRH-a) therapy were recruited by a representative sample

of 58 French urologists (March to April 2007) and invited to complete a

42-item questionnaire.

In all, 350 representative patients participated in the study; >90% were

totally or quite satisfied with the information given by their urologist at

diagnosis and the start of treatment. Their main contact during treatment

was with the nurse who gave the injection (84% of patients). The nurse's

main role was to provide clarity (60% of patients), guidance (35%) and

support to the family (28%). Fewer patients discussed disease stage and

progression with their nurse (29%) than with a doctor (urologist, 63%; or

GP, 61%). Fewer also discussed treatment (24% vs 32%) but as many patients

discussed the impact of their disease and treatment with their nurse as with

their doctor (e.g. 33% discussed general health and fatigue with the nurse,

vs 26% with the urologist). The need for contact with a health professional

was greater during the early stages of treatment. Patients treated for <12

months with 3-monthly injections were less likely to be in favour of spacing

injections than patients treated for >/=3 years.

The patient consults the urologist for reliable information on disease and

treatment, and to the GP for further support, if needed, but the nurse has

the pivotal role. A 3-monthly injection schedule enables regular

face-to-face contact between the nurse and the patient and their family, and

contributes towards the patient's coping strategies and quality of life.

Written by

Lebret T, Bouregba A.

Reference

BJU Int. 2008 Jun 11. Epub ahead of print.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07785.x

PubMed Abstract

PMID:18549431

[Guest guest]

Why? More and more research is becoming

international. Do you think that this has a cultural or other difference that

would invalidate the results in another area of the world?

What I got from the study was that men who

have regular contact with their MD have greater satisfaction because it gives

them an opportunity to ask questions, etc. Not proven but there is an indication

there. Hear from men in the US that they are not getting adequate

information from their doctors so maybe going to a yearly shot might have an

impact that is not anticipated.

Also with Bill when he was going to an

oncologist we were assigned to a nurse who we could call whenever we needed

her. Sounds as if the French system has a similar system in France. How

many men have been offered this by their doctor? Also It seems that the

urologists work with the primary care physician. Doesn’t happen here in

my experience. Because of potential cardiac issues that may be related to ADT in

some men, this is also a good thing.

Kathy

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Terry

Herbert

Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:13

AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: RE:

UroToday - Roles of the Urologist and Nurse from the

Perspective of Patients with

Prostate Cancer Receiving Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Analogue

Therapy - Abstract

As a matter of

interest how many members of this List are likely to be treated with ADT

(Androgen Deprivation Therapy) by a urologist in France?

There doesn't seem much relevance for anyone else.

All the best

Terry Herbert

I have no medical

qualifications but I was diagnosed in ‘96: and have learned a bit since

then.

My sites are at www.yananow.net and www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

Dr “Snuffy” Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that

most of the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with

inadequate data "

From: ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ]

On Behalf Of Kathy Meade

Sent: Friday, 20 June 2008 10:58

PM

To: Kathy Meade

Subject:

UroToday - Roles of the Urologist and Nurse from the Perspective of Patients with Prostate Cancer Receiving Luteinizing

Hormone-Releasing Hormone Analogue Therapy - Abstract

I find it

interesting that 3 month shots were better for the patient because

it gave the patients an opportunity to talk to the doctor or nurse.

Friday, 20 June 2008

Department of Urology, Foch

Hospital,

Suresnes, and Ligue Nationale contre

le Cancer, France.

To establish the roles of the urologist, general practitioner (GP) and nurse

from the perspective of the patient with prostate cancer receiving hormone

therapy, and to assess patient satisfaction, in particular with management

and information needs.

Patients with prostate cancer

receiving luteinizing hormone-releasing

hormone analogue (LHRH-a) therapy were recruited by a representative sample

of 58 French urologists (March to April 2007) and invited to complete a

42-item questionnaire.

In all, 350 representative patients participated in the study; >90% were

totally or quite satisfied with the information given by their urologist at

diagnosis and the start of treatment. Their main contact during treatment

was with the nurse who gave the injection (84% of patients). The nurse's

main role was to provide clarity (60% of patients), guidance (35%) and

support to the family (28%). Fewer patients discussed disease stage and

progression with their nurse (29%) than with a doctor (urologist, 63%; or

GP, 61%). Fewer also discussed treatment (24% vs 32%) but as many patients

discussed the impact of their disease and treatment with their nurse as with

their doctor (e.g. 33% discussed general health and fatigue with the nurse,

vs 26% with the urologist). The need for contact with a health professional

was greater during the early stages of treatment. Patients

treated for <12

months with 3-monthly injections were less likely to be in favour of spacing

injections than patients treated for >/=3 years.

The patient consults the urologist for reliable information on disease and

treatment, and to the GP for further support, if needed, but the nurse has

the pivotal role. A 3-monthly injection schedule enables regular

face-to-face contact between the nurse and the patient and their family, and

contributes towards the patient's coping strategies and quality of life.

Written by

Lebret T, Bouregba A.

Reference

BJU Int. 2008 Jun 11. Epub ahead of print.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07785.x

PubMed Abstract

PMID:18549431