The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Living With Treatment Decisions: Regrets and Quality of Life Among Men Treated for Metastatic Prostate Cancer
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine variation in men’s long-term regret of treatment decisions, ie, surgical versus chemical castration, for metastatic prostate cancer and its associations with quality of life. METHODS: Survey of previously treated patients to assess treatment decisions and quality of life, supplemented with focus groups. Two items addressing whether a patient wished he could change his mind and the belief that he would have been better off with the treatment not chosen were combined in classifying survey respondents as either satisfied or regretful. χ 2 and t tests were used to test associations between regret and treatment history, complications, and quality of life. RESULTS: Survey respondents included 201 men aged 45 to 93 years (median, 71 years), who had begun treatment (71% chemical castration, 29% orchiectomy) a median of 2 years previously. Most reported complications: hot flashes (70%), nausea (34%), and erectile dysfunction (81%). Most were satisfied with the treatment decision, but 23% expressed regret. Regretful men more frequently reported surgical (43%) versus chemical (36%) castration (P = .030) and nausea in the past week (54% v 32%; P = .010) but less frequently reported erectile dysfunction (56% v 72%; P = .048). Regretful men indicated poorer scores on every measure of generic and prostate cancer–related quality of life. Qualitative analyses revealed substantial uncertainty about the progress of their disease and the quality of the decisions in which patients participated. CONCLUSION: Regret was substantial and associated with treatment choice and quality of life. It may derive from underlying psychosocial distress and problematic communication with physicians when decisions are being reached and over subsequent years.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach
Stewart, A., & Ware, J. (1992) · doi:10.7249/cb361 · Cited by 2,689
Cited by
Validation of a Decision Regret Scale
Brehaut, J. C., O'Connor, A. M., Wood, T. J., Hack, T. F., Siminoff, L., Gordon, E., & Feldman-Stewart, D. (2003) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x03256005 · Cited by 1,452
A developmental-contextual model of couples coping with chronic illness across the adult life span.
Berg, C. A., & Upchurch, R. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.920 · Cited by 877
The Current State of Hormonal Therapy for Prostate Cancer
Hellerstedt, B. A., & Pienta, K. J. (2002) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.52.3.154 · Cited by 386
Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review
Gaston, C. M., & Mitchell, G. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.015 · Cited by 368
Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: Current status and future prospects
Miyamoto, H., Messing, E. M., & Chang, C. (2004) · The Prostate · doi:10.1002/pros.20115 · Cited by 317
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, J. A., Wray, N. P., & Ashton, C. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2001-01-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 72-80
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1823200719
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Living With Treatment Decisions: Regrets and Quality of Life Among Men Treated for Metastatic Prostate Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.1.72
- The paper
- Clark, J. A., Wray, N. P., & Ashton, C. M. (2001). Living With Treatment Decisions: Regrets and Quality of Life Among Men Treated for Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.1.72
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.