Information support on high intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy for treating localised prostate cancer
Evidence & Practice Previous     Next

Information support on high intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy for treating localised prostate cancer

Victor Abu Senior lecturer, Adult Nursing, Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, England

Aim Patients diagnosed with localised prostate cancer have a choice between comparable standard treatments, and developing focal therapy, with high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and cryotherapy. Growing numbers of men are attracted to focal therapy because of its minimal invasive, and lesser side effect, profile. Knowledge about information support for standard treatments is well established, but there is a lack of evidence on focal therapy information support. The aim of this study is to examine the information support received by men who select focal therapy, with HIFU and cryotherapy, for the treatment of localised prostate cancer to identify the sources of information and the factors that influence choice of treatment.

Method Convenient sampling was used to recruit eight participants who received treatment with either HIFU or cryotherapy. Data were collected through semi-structured telephone interviews and analysed by thematic approach.

Findings There is a lack of information support on focal therapy during clinical consultations with urologists and oncologists. Choice of treatment is influenced by information on minimal-invasive, and lesser side effect, profiles and there is a desire for quality information support at treatment centres to enable informed decision-making.

Conclusion It is vital to provide greater public access to quality information and support patients in making an informed choice between standard and developing prostate cancer treatments. Support from urology nurse specialists, and access to reputable websites and other information sources, will contribute to quality information.


Cancer Nursing Practice. 17, 01,28-33. doi: 10.7748/cnp.2018.e1466

Received: 11 July 2017

Accepted: 31 August 2017

Published in print: 08 February 2018

Published online: 08 February 2018

Conflict Of Interest

None declared

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software