Radiotherapy for prostate cancer: DISCERN quality assessment of patient-oriented websites in 2018.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. Radiotherapy represents one major treatment option in different therapeutic settings. As patients increasingly rely on internet-based medical information, we examined the quality of information on radiotherapy and prostate cancer in websites used by laypersons.Methods
An Internet search from a patients` perspective was carried out using different search engines (Google, Yahoo and Bing, search terms: "prostate cancer" and "radiotherapy"). The quality of search results was analyzed with regard to the DISCERN score, HON code certification, the JAMA criteria and the ALEXA traffic rank.Results
In general, websites were of good quality. The highest quality was found for websites operated by charity organizations. No significant differences in results obtained via the above-mentioned tools were seen for the examined search engines, but Google revealed the most stable search results in terms of temporal changes.Conclusion
Patients with prostate cancer can sufficiently inform themselves on general treatment options including radiotherapy on websites directed at laypersons. However, no simple strategy could identify high quality websites in general. For treating physicians, it is important to support patients in interpreting and ranking the vast quantity of information.
SUBMITTER: Janssen S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6537434 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Radiotherapy for prostate cancer: DISCERN quality assessment of patient-oriented websites in 2018.
Janssen S S Fahlbusch F B FB Käsmann L L Rades D D Vordermark D D
BMC urology 20190528 1
<h4>Background</h4>Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. Radiotherapy represents one major treatment option in different therapeutic settings. As patients increasingly rely on internet-based medical information, we examined the quality of information on radiotherapy and prostate cancer in websites used by laypersons.<h4>Methods</h4>An Internet search from a patients` perspective was carried out using different search engines (Google, Yahoo and Bing, search terms: "prostat ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The aim of this study was to prospectively assess 5-year health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients treated with carbon ion radiotherapy (C-ion RT) for clinically localized prostate cancer. A total of 417 patients received carbon ion radiotherapy at a total dose of 63-66 Gray-equivalents (GyE) in 20 fractions over 5 weeks, and neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were administered for intermediate and high-risk patients. A HRQOL assessment was performed at five time points (immediately before the initiation of C-ion RT, immediately after, and at 12, 36 and 60 months after completion of C-ion RT) using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) questionnaires. FACT-G and FACT-P scores were significantly decreased; however, the absolute change after 60 months was minimal. The transient decreases in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score returned to their baseline levels. Use of ADT, presence of adverse events, and biochemical failure were related to lower scores. Scores of subdomains of FACT instruments indicated characteristic changes. The pattern of HRQOL change after C-ion RT was similar to that of other modalities. Further controlled studies focusing on a HRQOL in patients with prostate cancer are warranted.
| S-EPMC5439371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As multiple different treatment options are available for prostate cancer (PCa) and YouTube is commonly used as a source for medical information, we performed a systematic and comparative assessment of available videos guiding patients on their choice for the optimal treatment. An independent search for surgical therapy or radiotherapy of PCa on YouTube was performed and the 40 most viewed videos of both groups were analyzed. The validated DISCERN questionnaire and PEMAT were utilized to evaluate their quality and misinformation. The median overall quality of the videos was found to be low for surgery videos, while radiotherapy videos results reached a moderate quality. The median PEMAT understandability score was 60% (range 0-100%) for radiotherapy and 75% (range 40-100) for surgery videos. The radiotherapy videos contained less misinformation and were judged to be of higher quality. Summarized, the majority of the provided videos offer insufficient quality of content and are potentially subject to commercial bias without reports on possible conflict of interest. Thus, most of available videos on YouTube informing PCa patients about possible treatment methods are not suited for a balanced patient education or as a basis for the patient's decision.
| S-EPMC8482178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe PORPUS-P is a short questionnaire for measuring prostate-specific quality of life (QoL), which was designed in Canada for use in prostate cancer (PC) patients. We aimed to generate a German version and compare PORPUS-P scores of German reference men from the general population, and German and Canadian patients with newly diagnosed PC who were scheduled to receive radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT).MethodsThe study sample consisted of 988 reference men, 121 German and 66 Canadian PC patients scheduled for RT, and 371 German and 68 Canadian PC patients scheduled for RP. All men completed the PORPUS-P (German postal questionnaire, Canada personal interview). Data were gathered from PC patients before the start of therapy.ResultsCanadian patients were better educated than the German patients, and fewer were retired. Patients scheduled to receive RT were older and more were retired. German RT patients had lower D'Amico risk scores and pre-treatment Gleason scores than RP patients, and Canadian RT patients had higher pre-treatment PSA than RP patients. Urinary and sexual dysfunction were seen in PC patients (especially RT patients), but were also common in the German reference men. Crude mean PORPUS-P scores differed statistically significant between German RT and RP and Canadian RP and RT patients, with RT patients having higher QoL scores. The differences in age-adjusted mean PORPUS-P scores between reference men and RP patients were not clinically significant, while RT patients had (clinically) significantly lower scores than the reference men.ConclusionThe German translation of the PORPUS-P appears to be a short and feasible tool for assessing prostate-specific QoL. Although we found a similar response pattern, Canadian and German PC patients scheduled to receive RT or RP rated their pre-treatment quality of life on different levels, which reveals the need for national reference data. Problems in several QoL domains exist before treatment, and differ between PC patients scheduled for RT and RP.
| S-EPMC2739225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionRadiotherapy can diminish quality of life (QoL) for prostate cancer patients. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of radiotherapy on QoL in men aged 75 years or older treated with radiotherapy for a localized prostate cancer, and to identify predictors of reduced QoL.Patients and methodsWe prospectively administered a battery of geriatric (MNA, GDS, Get up and Go Test, CIRS-G, ADL, IADL, MMSE), toxicity (IPSS; IIEF 5), and QoL (QLQ C30) screening tests in 100 elderly patients before and two months after prostate cancer radiotherapy (NCT 02876237). Patients ≥ 75 years undergoing radiotherapy with a curative intent for localized prostate cancer with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADL) were eligible for study inclusion. Correlations between patient-assessed QoL and tumor characteristics, radiotherapy treatment or CGA parameters were sought using the Fisher or the Mann and Whitney tests. Changes in QoL parameters over time were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.ResultsAt study entry, scores for IADL impairments were present in 51%, reduced autonomy in activities of daily living in 16%, cognitive impairment found in 20%, depression-related symptoms in 31%, and 66% of patients had significant co-morbidities. Eight percent were judged to be at risk of fall and 2% were found to be undernourished. Severely impaired (IPSS ≥ 20) urinary function was observed in 11.2% and 13.5% of patients before and two months after completion of radiotherapy respectively. Significantly decreased QoL (> 20 points) at two months after treatment was found in 13% of patients and a moderate but clinically relevant reduction (10 to 20 points) in 17% of patients. No tumor characteristic, treatment, or oncogeriatric parameter was predictive of reduced QoL following prostate cancer radiotherapy.ConclusionDespite sometimes markedly diminished oncogeriatric parameters, prostate cancer radiotherapy was generally well tolerated in these elderly patients. We found no predictive factor to determine which patients would experience impaired quality of life following radiotherapy.
| S-EPMC5890970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn China, the internet has become one of the most important ways to obtain information about breast cancer. However, quantitative evaluations of the quality of Chinese health websites and the breast cancer treatment information they publish are lacking.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the quality of Chinese breast cancer websites and the value, suitability, and accuracy of the breast cancer treatment information they publish.MethodsChinese breast cancer health websites were searched and manually screened according to their Alexa and Baidu search engine rankings. For each website included in the survey, which was conducted on April 8, 2019, the three most recently published papers on the website that met the inclusion criteria were included for evaluation. Three raters assessed all materials using the LIDA, DISCERN, and Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tools and the Michigan Checklist. Data analysis was completed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 and Microsoft Excel 2010.ResultsThis survey included 20 Chinese breast cancer websites and 60 papers on breast cancer treatment. The LIDA tool was used to evaluate the quality of the 20 websites. The LIDA's scores of the websites (mean=54.85, SD 3.498; total possible score=81) were low. In terms of the layout, color scheme, search facility, browsing facility, integration of nontextual media, submission of comments, declaration of objectives, content production method, and robust method, more than half of the websites scored 0 (never) or 1 (sometimes). For the online breast cancer treatment papers, the scores were generally low. Regarding suitability, 32 (53.33%) papers were evaluated as presenting unsuitable material. Regarding accuracy, the problems were that the papers were largely not original (44/60, 73%) and lacked references (46/60, 77%).ConclusionsThe quality of Chinese breast cancer websites is poor. The color schemes, text settings, user comment submission functions, and language designs should be improved. The quality of Chinese online breast cancer treatment information is poor; the information has little value to users, and pictorial information is scarcely used. The online breast cancer treatment information is accurate but lacks originality and references. Website developers, governments, and medical professionals should play a full role in the design of health websites, the regulation of online health information, and the use of online health information.
| S-EPMC8663447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs the Internet becomes the number one destination for obtaining health-related information, there is an increasing need to identify health Web pages that convey an accurate and current view of medical knowledge. In response, the research community has created multicriteria instruments for reliably assessing online medical information quality. One such instrument is DISCERN, which measures health Web page quality by assessing an array of features. In order to scale up use of the instrument, there is interest in automating the quality evaluation process by building machine learning (ML)-based DISCERN Web page classifiers.ObjectiveThe paper addresses 2 key issues that are essential before constructing automated DISCERN classifiers: (1) generation of a robust DISCERN training corpus useful for training classification algorithms, and (2) assessment of the usefulness of the current DISCERN scoring schema as a metric for evaluating the performance of these algorithms.MethodsUsing DISCERN, 272 Web pages discussing treatment options in breast cancer, arthritis, and depression were evaluated and rated by trained coders. First, different consensus models were compared to obtain a robust aggregated rating among the coders, suitable for a DISCERN ML training corpus. Second, a new DISCERN scoring criterion was proposed (features-based score) as an ML performance metric that is more reflective of the score distribution across different DISCERN quality criteria.ResultsFirst, we found that a probabilistic consensus model applied to the DISCERN instrument was robust against noise (random ratings) and superior to other approaches for building a training corpus. Second, we found that the established DISCERN scoring schema (overall score) is ill-suited to measure ML performance for automated classifiers.ConclusionUse of a probabilistic consensus model is advantageous for building a training corpus for the DISCERN instrument, and use of a features-based score is an appropriate ML metric for automated DISCERN classifiers.AvailabilityThe code for the probabilistic consensus model is available at https://bitbucket.org/A_2/em_dawid/ .
| S-EPMC7651953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that individuals at high risk for lung cancer consider benefits and harms before pursuing lung cancer screening. Medical centers develop websites for their lung cancer screening programs, but to date little is known about the websites' portrayal of benefits and harms or what next steps they recommend for individuals considering screening.ObjectiveTo assess the presentation of potential benefits and harms and recommended next steps on lung cancer screening program websites.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional content analysis of 162 lung cancer screening program websites of academic medical centers (n = 81) and state-matched community medical centers (n = 81) that were randomly selected from American College of Radiology lung cancer screening-designated centers was conducted. The study was performed from December 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresWebsite presentation of screening-associated benefits and harms was the primary outcome. Benefit was defined as any description related to the potential reduction in lung cancer mortality. Harms were based on the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and included false positives, false negatives, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. The secondary outcome was next steps that are recommended by websites.ResultsOverall, the 162 lung cancer screening program websites described the potential benefits more frequently than they described any potential harms (159 [98%] vs 78 [48%], P < .01). False-positive findings were the most frequently reported (72 [44%]) potential harm. Community centers were less likely than academic centers to report any potential harm (32 [40%] vs 46 [57%], P = .03), potential harm from radiation (20 [25%] vs 35 [43%], P = .01), and overdiagnosis (0% vs 11 [14%], P < .01). One hundred nineteen websites (73%) did not explicitly recommend that individuals personally consider the potential benefits and harms of screening; community centers were less likely than academic centers to give this recommendation (15 [19%] vs 28 [35%], P = .02). Most institutions (157 [97%]) listed follow-up steps for screening, but few institutions (35 [22%]) recommended that individuals discuss benefits and harms with a health care professional.Conclusions and relevanceInformation on public-facing websites of US lung cancer screening programs appears to lack balance with respect to portrayal of potential benefits and harms of screening. Important harms, such as overdiagnosis, were commonly ignored in the sites evaluated, and most of the centers did not explicitly guide individuals toward a guideline-recommended, shared decision-making discussion of harms and benefits.
| S-EPMC7154949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveRecurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) is a rare disease for which a limited number of information sources for patients exist. The role of the Internet in the patient-physician relationship is increasing. More and more patients search for online health information, which should be of good quality and easy readable. The study aim was to investigate the quality and readability of English online health information about RRP.Study designQuality and readability assessment of online information.MethodsRelevant information was collected using three different search engines and seven different search terms. Quality was assessed with the DISCERN instrument. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and average grade level (AGL) were determined to measure readability of the English websites.ResultsFifty-one English websites were included. The mean DISCERN score of the websites is 28.1 ± 9.7 (poor quality); the mean FRES is 41.3 ± 14.9 (difficult to read); and the mean AGL is 12.6 ± 2.3.ConclusionThe quality and readability of English websites about RRP is alarmingly poor.Level of evidenceNA. Laryngoscope, 127:2293-2297, 2017.
| S-EPMC5638064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGood radiotherapy reporting in clinical trials of prostate radiotherapy is important because it will allow accurate reproducibility of radiotherapy treatment and minimize treatment variations that can affect patient outcomes. The aim of our study is to assess the quality of prostate radiotherapy (RT) treatment reporting in randomized controlled trials in prostate cancer.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE for randomized trials of prostate cancer, published from 1996 to 2016 and included prostate RT as one of the intervention arms. We assessed if the investigators reported the ten criteria adequately in the trial reports: RT dose prescription method; RT dose-planning procedures; organs at risk (OAR) dose constraints; target volume definition, simulation procedures; treatment verification procedures; total RT dose; fractionation schedule; conduct of quality assurance (QA) as well as presence or absence of deviations in RT treatment planning and delivery. We performed multivariate logistic regression to determine the factors that may influence the quality of reporting.ResultsWe found 59 eligible trials. There was significant variability in the quality of reporting. Target volume definition, total RT dose and fractionation schedule were reported adequately in 97% of included trials. OAR constraints, simulation procedures and presence or absence of deviations in RT treatment planning and delivery were reported adequately in 30% of included trials. Twenty-four trials (40%) reported seven criteria or more adequately. Multivariable logistic analysis showed that trials that published their quality assurance results and cooperative group trials were more likely to have adequate quality in reporting in at least seven criteria.ConclusionThere is significant variability in the quality of reporting on prostate radiotherapy treatment in randomized trials of prostate cancer. We need to have consensus guidelines to standardize the reporting of radiotherapy treatment in randomized trials.
| S-EPMC5992848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRobust data on patient-reported outcome measures comparing treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer are lacking. We investigated the effects of active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and radical radiotherapy with hormones on patient-reported outcomes.MethodsWe compared patient-reported outcomes among 1643 men in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial who completed questionnaires before diagnosis, at 6 and 12 months after randomization, and annually thereafter. Patients completed validated measures that assessed urinary, bowel, and sexual function and specific effects on quality of life, anxiety and depression, and general health. Cancer-related quality of life was assessed at 5 years. Complete 6-year data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.ResultsThe rate of questionnaire completion during follow-up was higher than 85% for most measures. Of the three treatments, prostatectomy had the greatest negative effect on sexual function and urinary continence, and although there was some recovery, these outcomes remained worse in the prostatectomy group than in the other groups throughout the trial. The negative effect of radiotherapy on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but sexual function then recovered somewhat and was stable thereafter; radiotherapy had little effect on urinary continence. Sexual and urinary function declined gradually in the active-monitoring group. Bowel function was worse in the radiotherapy group at 6 months than in the other groups but then recovered somewhat, except for the increasing frequency of bloody stools; bowel function was unchanged in the other groups. Urinary voiding and nocturia were worse in the radiotherapy group at 6 months but then mostly recovered and were similar to the other groups after 12 months. Effects on quality of life mirrored the reported changes in function. No significant differences were observed among the groups in measures of anxiety, depression, or general health-related or cancer-related quality of life.ConclusionsIn this analysis of patient-reported outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer, patterns of severity, recovery, and decline in urinary, bowel, and sexual function and associated quality of life differed among the three groups. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172 .).
| S-EPMC5134995 | biostudies-literature