Commentary on: "Satisfaction with information used to choose prostate cancer treatment." Gilbert SM, Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Greenfield TK, Hembroff L, Klein E, Saigal CS, Pisters L, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Litwin MS, Wei JT. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida; Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Psychiatry and Public Health Institute, University of California-San Francisco, California; Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan; Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Urology and Department of Health Policy and Management, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Urology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.: J Urol 2014;191(5):1265-71. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.008. [Epub 2013 Dec 12].

PURPOSE: After being diagnosed with prostate cancer men must assimilate information regarding the cancer. Satisfaction with information reflects the evaluation of information sources used before treatment to select a therapy. We describe the use and helpfulness of several information sources available to prostate cancer survivors. We also identified factors associated with satisfaction with information.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1,204 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction with Therapy Quality Assessment study. The validated satisfaction with information domain of the Service Satisfaction Scale-Cancer was administered to subjects 2 months after treatment. The relationship between several factors, such as demographics, socioeconomic factors, cancer severity and types of information sources, and satisfaction with information were evaluated using multiple regression.

RESULTS: Sources of information endorsed by subjects varied by race, education and study site. The most helpful sources were treatment description by the treating physician (33.1%), Internet sites (18.9%) and books (18.1%). In multiple variable models patient age (P = 0.005) and information provided by the physician regarding outcomes in their patients (P = 0.01) were independently associated with patient satisfaction with the information provided.

CONCLUSIONS: Various information sources were used and endorsed as helpful by subjects, although results for physician patients was the only source independently associated with satisfaction with information. Providing patients with information about possible or expected courses of care and outcomes may improve satisfaction.