Skip to main content
Download PDF

Decision regret after prostate biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: a Korean multicenter cohort study

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1725 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Many people struggle with the choice in a series of processes, from prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis to treatment. We investigated the degree of regret after the prostate biopsy (PBx) and relevant factors in patients recommended for biopsy for suspected PCa.

Methods

From 06/2020 to 05/2022, 198 people who performed PBx at three institutions were enrolled and analyzed through a questionnaire before and after biopsy. Before the biopsy, a questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the sociodemographic information, anxiety scale, and health literacy, and after PBx, another questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the decision regret scale. For patients diagnosed as PCa after biopsy, a questionnaire was conducted when additional tests were performed at PCa staging work-up.

Results

190 patients answered the questionnaire before and after PBx. The mean age was 66.2 ± 7.8 years. Overall, 5.5% of men regretted biopsy, but there was no significant difference between groups according to the PCa presence. Multivariate analysis, to identify predictors for regret, revealed that the case when physicians did not properly explain what the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test was like and what PSA elevation means (OR 20.57, [95% CI 2.45–172.70], p = 0.005), low media literacy (OR 10.01, [95% CI 1.09–92.29], p = 0.042), and when nobody to rely on (OR 8.49, [95% CI 1.66–43.34], p = 0.010) were significantly related.

Conclusions

Overall regret related to PBx was low. Decision regret was more significantly related to media literacy rather than to educational level. For patients with relatively low media literacy and fewer people to rely on in case of serious diseases, more careful attention and counseling on PBx, including a well-informed explanation on PSA test, is helpful.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a common disease in relatively older patients, and some patients often lack an overall medical knowledge of PCa, including a screening process for diagnosis, and an understanding of treatment need [1]. As a result, many people have difficulty making their choice in a series of processes from diagnosis to treatment, and if they experience unrecognizable side effects, they may often resent physicians who treated them and regret deciding on tests and treatments that they have chosen. However, if there were comprehensible explanation of the disease and treatment from the physicians, patients might have fewer regrets even if some problems have occurred in the process of diagnosis or treatment [2]. In line with this background, the importance of so-called shared decision making has been emphasized in various medical fields including Urology [3,4,5]. Meanwhile, there are several studies reporting treatment-related decision regret in PCa [6,7,8,9].

However, it should be noted that these studies are not directly relevant to decision regret for the diagnostic process, including prostate biopsy (PBx). Moreover, there are insufficient studies in Asian countries including South Korea, or Japan compared to some Western studies [10,11,12] which have reported on this shared decision making in the urology field, especially in the process of diagnosing and treating PCa. This might be a result from combination of factors, including Asian-specific Confucian ideas and the difference between perceptions of doctors, and the tendency that older Asian patients want doctors to take care of themselves by doctors’ decision rather than making their own choices. There are also few large-scaled studies reporting impact of PCa presence on decision regret after PBx.

In this study, as the first step in the process of diagnosing and treating PCa in Asian patients, we investigated the degree of regret after biopsy and various factors related to it for PBx candidate due to suspicion of PCa. We also aimed to evaluate if there is any potential impact of receiving a PCa diagnosis on decision regret concerning PBx.

Patients and methods

Study cohort

198 Korean patients who underwent PBx and questionnaires at three tertiary referral centers between 06/2020 and 05/2022 were included in this prospective analysis. Patients over 40 years of age scheduled for PBx who have high serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level or who are suspected of PCa from digital rectal examination were included. Patients recommended for biopsy from other institutions were also included. Patients with the poor cognitive ability to the extent that they could not understand the contents of the questionnaire or were deemed inappropriate for study subjects by investigators’ judgment were excluded from the study.

To evaluate the effect of PCa diagnosis on decision regret regarding PBx, patients were classified into two groups based on PCa diagnosis (non-PCa vs. PCa). Irrespective of the institution PBx was conducted, all biopsies were performed with a pre-procedural enema. PBx was performed under ultrasound guidance via a transrectal approach after local anesthesia. Patients were admitted on the day of PBx. Depending on the patients’ condition, they were discharged several hours after PBx or after one more day of observation if desired by the patient or as determined by physicians. All participants provided informed consent. All study protocols were in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration after approval by institutional review board (IRB number: IS21QIMI0015).

Acquisition of data

The prospectively maintained clinical database was reviewed. Before the PBx, a questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the sociodemographic information, anxiety scale ( [13], Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71), and health literacy ( [14], Cronbach’s alpha = 0.711). After the PBx, another questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the decision regret scale ( [15], Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81 to 0.92). For patients diagnosed as PCa after biopsy, a questionnaire was conducted when additional tests were performed at PCa staging work-up. Questionnaires were provided as hard copies via one of our investigators to all patients.

For assessment of Anxiety scale, four questions were utilized as follows:

  1. (i)

    ‘Do you worry about your health?’

  2. (ii)

    ‘If you have an ache or pain do you worry that it may be caused by a serious illness?’

  3. (iii)

    ‘Do you find it difficult to keep worries about your health out of your mind?’

  4. (iv)

    ‘When you read or hear about an illness on TV or radio, does it make you think you may be suffering from that illness?’

For assessment of health literacy, three questions were utilized as follows:

  1. (i)

    ‘How difficult is it for you to get advice or information about health or medical topics if you need it?’

  2. (ii)

    ‘How difficult is it for you to understand information that doctors, nurses and other health professionals tell you?’

  3. (iii)

    ‘You can find written information about health on the Internet, in newspapers and magazines, and in brochures in the doctor’s office and clinic. In general, how difficult is it for you to understand written health information?’

The English version of the questionnaire developed for the study reflects all the detailed information that investigators aimed to analyze (Supplementary file 1).

Study endpoints

In this study, the primary outcome is to check the degree of regret using the decision regret scale. The secondary outcome is whether there is a significant factor related to regret.

The Decision regret scale questionnaire consisted of five items, each using a 5-point Likert scale with response options including ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neither agree nor disagree’, ‘Disagree’, and ‘Strongly disagree’. To assess the primary outcome, we used the response to question, “I regret the choice that was made,” which, after careful discussion among investigators, was the most direct measure of decision regret out of the five questions. Authors dichotomized the responses to the question (“I regret the choice that was made.“). Then, authors identified the presence of decision regret if the respondent answered ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’ among five choices, and the absence of decision regret if the respondent answered ‘Neither agree nor disagree’, ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’.

Statistical analysis

Clinicopathological characteristics were compared between groups (non-PCa vs. PCa) using a Chi-square test for categorical variables and an independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. The univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to detect predictors for decision regret after PBx. Multivariable analysis using variables with a p-value < 0.05 in univariate analysis was performed to identify which variables were independently predictive of outcomes [16]. All tests were two sided with a value of 0.05. The statistical analysis was performed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Science Statistics for Windows (SPSS) version 27.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

190 patients were finally analyzed in the study. 8 patients did not complete the post-biopsy questionnaire due to follow-up loss. The mean age was 66.2 ± 7.8 years. When all patients were classified by PCa presence, there were significant differences between groups in age (years, 64.5 ± 8.0 vs. 68.2 ± 7.2, p = 0.001) and serum PSA level (ng/mL, 8.6 ± 6.3 vs. 28.9 ± 86.4, p = 0.030). Otherwise, no significant differences were found in biopsy core number, marital status, familial history of PCa, the final level of education, comorbidity, the rate of post-biopsy complication requiring readmission, and the distribution of post-biopsy pain severity between groups (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographics and questionnaire key results
Full size table

Only one case of PBx related complication was reported. In fact, one patient visited to the emergency department and improved after hospitalization with several days of conservative management including intravenous antibiotic therapy. No one complained of post-PBx erectile dysfunction. There were no statistically significant differences in decision regret based on age. The percentages of regret were 3.6% (1/28) for those < 60 years old, 4.0% (4/100) for those between 60 and 69 years old, and 8.1% (5/62) for those ≥ 70 years old or older (p = 0.483).

There were significant differences in some of prebiopsy questionnaire items. As for the question asking about the presence of a person to rely on when facing serious illness, Patients diagnosed as PCa after biopsy significantly responded more to the choice ‘Nobody to rely on when facing serious illness’ than non-PCa patients (6.8% vs 2.9%, p = 0.011). Patients diagnosed as PCa after biopsy also significantly answered more to the choice ‘Low media literacy’ compared to non-PCa patients (60.2% vs. 45.1%, p = 0.037). There was no difference between the groups in the question asking whether they had sufficient explanation of PSA testing and its elevation (p = 0.083) and PBx (p = 0.388) (Table 1).

Overall regret rate, our primary outcome, was 5.3% (derived from the item ‘I regret the decision I chose.’). In detail, there was no significant difference between the groups in most items of decision regret scale questionnaire. there was only significant difference between the groups in the answer to the item ‘The choice did me a lot of harm.’ (p = 0.014) (Table 2).

Table 2 Decision regret scale
Full size table

Multivariable logistic analysis revealed that decision regret after PBx was significantly associated when there is no one to rely on in the event of a serious illness (odds ratio [OR]: 8.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.66–43.34, p = 0.010), when patients thought they had low media literacy (OR: 10.01, 95% CI: 1.09–92.29, p = 0.042), and when they thought they had insufficient explanation of PSA testing and its elevation (OR: 20.57, 95% CI: 2.45–172.70, p = 0.005) (Table 3).

Table 3 Factors associated with regret after prostate biopsy
Full size table

Discussions

Decision regret is one of the issues that should always be kept in mind for patients who are scheduled for PBx. Substantial proportion of patients diagnosed as PCa after biopsy regret their initial treatment decision [17, 18]. Davison et al [17] reported 4% of respondents expressed regret over their decision to have surgery. Lin’s study [18] reported 31% of the participants reported experiencing regret after receiving an radical prostatectomy. Wallis et al. conducted a prospective population-based study from 5 population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries across the US. They assessed regret at 5 and 3 years after treatment by using a validated prostate cancer–oriented scale among 2,072 participants who underwent radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, or active surveillance. Of these, 279 men reported having treatment-related regret at 5 years [6].

Factors associated with treatment regret among men with PCa affect quality of life and therapeutic relationships among patient, caregiver, and clinician. One study [19] reported time pressure, erectile dysfunction, and satisfaction with sexual life predict decisional regret in men with localized PCa. Lavery et al [20] revealed that superior erectile function and baseline continence independently predicted increased postoperative decision regret. Moreover, older age, postoperative incontinence, postoperative erectile dysfunction and longer time from operation were significant predictors of increased decision regret. Mahal et al [21] evaluated the impact of race on treatment regret among men with biochemically recurrent PCa after surgery or radiation. Among those without sexual problems, African American men had more treatment regret than non-African American men (26.7% vs. 8.4%), whereas among those with sexual problems, there was no difference in treatment regret between African American and non-African American men (18.8% vs. 17.3%). Another study [22] concluded spirituality may aid patients diagnosed as PCa after biopsy experience less decisional regret and stronger spiritual beliefs were associated with less decision regret. Recent study [23] also reported financial burden was associated with treatment regret at 3 years after treatment for localized PCa.

There were some studies supporting our findings. One population-based study reported educational length was associated with the chance of having a PBx in men with PSA 4–10 ng/ml. It also revealed the time between the PSA test and the biopsy was longer in men with a short education [24]. This finding suggests that accurate and understandable explanations on PSA testing and its elevation are important for patients having potential for decision regret after biopsy. Another study [12] investigated the association between health literacy, numeracy, prostate-related knowledge and treatment regret. It identified lower prostate-related knowledge in those with poor health literacy. Patients with regret were more likely to be not married, and score lower on the literacy and numeracy scales. These results might be someway related to our findings of ‘relationship among decision regret after biopsy, mass literacy, and presence of caregiver or tower of strength’.

The strength of this study was that this study focuses on the process of prostate cancer diagnosis and analyzes decision regret related to PBx, which is the core process. In fact, most of the studies done so far have dealt with decision regret according to the choice of treatment modality or post-treatment follow-up after diagnosis of prostate cancer. Moreover, there are few studies like this in the Asian cohort, and this leading study will serve as a cornerstone for subsequent studies in the near future, which is another strength of this study. In addition, this is the first study to analyze a multicenter cohort and find that decision regret is more significantly related to media literacy than to educational attainment. While higher levels of education might be often correlated with higher levels of media literacy, it’s important to note that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and there may be exceptions like our results. It can also be deduced from our results that while an educational degree can provide a foundation for media literacy, it’s not critical determinant of decision regret from PBx. We also found that being diagnosed with PCa had no significant impact on decision regret after PBx. Our results might help minimize decision regret, as it could be conferred that it is the background characteristics of the men undergoing PBx, rather than the biopsy results themselves, that affect decision regret related to PBx. Nevertheless, present study is not devoid of limitations. First, even with cohort from three tertiary centers, the study population was still small due to lack of voluntary participation by patients. It is worth noting that the results of our multivariable analysis might not be readily applicable to the real clinical setting due to the limited number of patients who expressed decision regret after PBx. The wide CIs for the OR, despite significant p-values, make it challenging to draw definitive conclusions. Authors acknowledged that only 10 patients reported decision regret, and it might be difficult to make meaningful comparisons between these 10 patients and the 180 patients who did not report decision regret. Second, we could not fully eliminate a selection and recall bias. Moreover, it was a study from a single ethnicity. Our study also posed a challenge in assessing whether the expense and hospitalization influenced the decision regret after PBx. In our multicenter study, there might be little variation both in the cost of prostate biopsy across institutions, and in the cost of biopsy procedure costs with or without hospitalization because costs are mostly reimbursed by domestic national health insurance. Nevertheless, the authors were unable to examine these variations specifically. Finally, linguistic validation of the Korean version of the above three questionnaires [13,14,15] has not been performed, but all of them are simple and clear questionnaires, and the number of questions is relatively small in short form, so it is considered that Korean validation is not absolutely necessary. Though the respondents in the study did not have any difficulty completing the questionnaire, it is suggested that future studies use a linguistically validated questionnaire to ensure the reproducibility of our results. Further prospective studies need to overcome these limitations.

Conclusions

Overall regret related to PBx was low. Decision regret was more significantly related to media literacy rather than to educational level. For patients with relatively low literacy of media and fewer people to rely on due to serious diseases, more careful attention and counseling on PBx, including a well-informed explanation of the PSA test, is helpful. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are mandatory to identify predictors of decision regret. Such information will benefit patients and physicians to ease shared decision-making, improve patient’s quality of life, and minimize their medical regret.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Bhuyan SS, Chandak A, Gupta N, Isharwal S, LaGrange C, Mahmood A, Gentry D. Patient-provider communication about prostate Cancer screening and treatment: New Evidence from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Am J Mens Health. 2017;11(1):134–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Connolly T, Reb J. Regret in cancer-related decisions. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4s):S29–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lowenstein LM, Basourakos SP, Williams MD, Troncoso P, Gregg JR, Thompson TC, Kim J. Active surveillance for prostate and thyroid cancers: evolution in clinical paradigms and lessons learned. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16(3):168–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gulati R, Psutka SP, Etzioni R. Personalized risks of over diagnosis for screen detected prostate Cancer incorporating patient comorbidities: estimation and communication. J Urol. 2019;202(5):936–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ginsburg K, Cole AI, Silverman ME, Livingstone J, Smith DW, Heilbrun LK, Shi D, Mehra R, Sakr WA, Morgan TM et al. Should all prostate needle biopsy Gleason score 4 + 4 = 8 prostate cancers be high risk? Implications for shared decision-making and patient counselling. Urol Oncol 2020, 38(3):78.e71-78.e76.

  6. Wallis CJD, Zhao Z, Huang LC, Penson DF, Koyama T, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Luckenbaugh AN, Klaassen Z, Conwill R, et al. Association of Treatment Modality, Functional outcomes, and baseline characteristics with treatment-related regret among men with localized prostate Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(1):50–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ghoreifi A, Kaneko M, Peretsman S, Iwata A, Brooks J, Shakir A, Sugano D, Cai J, Cacciamani G, Park D, et al. Patient-reported satisfaction and regret following focal therapy for prostate Cancer: a prospective multicenter evaluation. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;50:10–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Flegar L, Baunacke M, Buerk BT, Proschmann R, Zacharis A, Propping S, Huber J, Thomas C, Borkowetz A. Decision regret and quality of life after Focal Therapy with vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (TOOKAD®) for localized prostate Cancer. Urol Int. 2022;106(9):903–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoffman RM, Lo M, Clark JA, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, Goodman M, Penson DF, Stanford JL, Stroup AM, Hamilton AS. Treatment decision regret among long-term survivors of localized prostate Cancer: results from the prostate Cancer outcomes Study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(20):2306–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Coyle C, Morgan E, Drummond FJ, Sharp L, Gavin A. Do men regret prostate biopsy: results from the PiCTure study. BMC Urol. 2017;17(1):11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wade J, Rosario DJ, Macefield RC, Avery KN, Salter CE, Goodwin ML, Blazeby JM, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Neal DE, et al. Psychological impact of prostate biopsy: physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(33):4235–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Joyce DD, Heslop DL, Umoh JI, Brown SD, Robles JA, Wallston KA, Moses KA. Examining the association of health literacy and numeracy with prostate-related knowledge and prostate cancer treatment regret. Urol Oncol 2020, 38(8):682.e611-682.e619.

  13. Lucock MP, Morley S. The health anxiety questionnaire. Br J Health Psychol. 1996;1(2):137–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR. The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(10):537–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, Feldman-Stewart D. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Mak. 2003;23(4):281–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hidalgo B, Goodman M. Multivariate or multivariable regression? Am J Public Health. 2013;103(1):39–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Davison BJ, So AI, Goldenberg SL. Quality of life, sexual function and decisional regret at 1 year after surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007;100(4):780–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lin YH. Treatment decision regret and related factors following radical prostatectomy. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34(5):417–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hilger C, Schostak M, Otto I, Kendel F. Time pressure predicts decisional regret in men with localized prostate cancer: data from a longitudinal multicenter study. World J Urol. 2021;39(10):3755–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lavery HJ, Levinson AW, Hobbs AR, Sebrow D, Mohamed NE, Diefenbach MA, Samadi DB. Baseline functional status may predict decisional regret following robotic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2213–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mahal BA, Chen MH, Bennett CL, Kattan MW, Sartor O, Stein K, D’Amico AV, Nguyen PL. The association between race and treatment regret among men with recurrent prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18(1):38–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mollica MA, Underwood W 3rd, Homish GG, Homish DL, Orom H. Spirituality is associated with less treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer. Psychooncology. 2017;26(11):1839–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Joyce DD, Wallis CJD, Huang LC, Hoffman KE, Zhao Z, Koyama T, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Wu XC, Paddock LE, et al. The Association between Financial Toxicity and Treatment Regret in Men with localized prostate Cancer. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2022;6(6):pkac071.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Nordström T, Bratt O, Örtegren J, Aly M, Adolfsson J, Grönberg H. A population-based study on the association between educational length, prostate-specific antigen testing and use of prostate biopsies. Scand J Urol. 2016;50(2):104–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

No funding was received specifically for this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea

    Hwanik Kim, Woojin Bang, Myungsun Shim, Cheol Young Oh & Jin Seon Cho

  2. Department of Urology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea

    Sung Yong Cho

  3. Department of Urology, International St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic Kwandong University, Incheon, Korea

    Mun Su Chung

  4. Department of Urology, Ajou University Hospital, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea

    Dae Sung Cho & Sun Il Kim

  5. Department of Urology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Seung Hwan Lee

  6. Department of Urology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Kyo Chul Koo & Kwang Suk Lee

Authors
  1. Hwanik Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Woojin Bang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Myungsun Shim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cheol Young Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sung Yong Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mun Su Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dae Sung Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sun Il Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Seung Hwan Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kyo Chul Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Kwang Suk Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jin Seon Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: JSC and SIK. Data curation: HK, MS, CYO, WB, SYC, MSC, SIK, DSC, SHL, KCK, KSL and JSC. Formal analysis: HK, WB and JSC. Funding acquisition: none. Investigation: HK. Methodology: HK. Project administration: HK. Resources: JSC and SIK. Software: HK. Supervision: JSC. Validation: HK. Visualization: HK. Writing – original draft: HK and JSC. Writing – review & editing: HK, MS, SIK, SHL, KSL and JSC. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jin Seon Cho.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All study protocols were in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration after approval by institutional review board (IRB) of Catholic Kwandong University, International St. Mary’s Hospital (IRB number: IS21QIMI0015). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects included in the study. The study was conducted according to the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, H., Bang, W., Shim, M. et al. Decision regret after prostate biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: a Korean multicenter cohort study. BMC Public Health 24, 1725 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19179-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19179-1

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us