Search

Introduction: The American Urological Association Quality Improvement Summit occurs regularly to provide education and promote dialogue around the issues of quality improvement and patient ...

Introduction Shared decision making is a collaborative approach to care that seeks to improve the quality of medical decisions by helping patients choose options concordant with their values and in accordance with the best available scientific evidence. Methods A literature review was performed targeting publications between 2003 and 2014 on the topic of shared decision making and decision aids for urological conditions. An expert panel was convened to evaluate this information and create this white paper with the purpose of educating the urological community on these issues. Results Shared decision making represents the state of the art in patient counseling. Patients who have engaged in shared decision making have greater knowledge and satisfaction as well as greater engagement with care. Numerous organizations make available free resources for shared decision making including decision aids and tools to evaluate the quality of shared decision making. Conclusions Shared decision making is an important component of high quality health care delivery and future reimbursement models. In appropriate circumstances urologists should adopt shared decision making into routine clinical practice.

Purpose The long-term effects of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) with radiation therapy on participant-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) have not been characterized in prospective multicenter studies. We evaluated HRQOL for 2 years among participants undergoing radiation therapy (RT) with or without NADT for newly diagnosed, early-stage prostate cancer. Methods and Materials We analyzed longitudinal cohort data from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction with Treatment Quality Assessment Consortium to ascertain the HRQOL trajectory of men receiving NADT with external beam RT (EBRT) or brachytherapy. HRQOL was measured using the expanded prostate cancer index composite 26-item questionnaire at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months after the initiation of NADT. We used the χ 2 or Fisher exact test to compare the shift in percentages between groups that did or did not receive NADT. Analyses were conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level. Results For subjects receiving EBRT, questions regarding the ability to have an erection, ability to reach an orgasm, quality of erections, frequency of erections, ability to function sexually, and lack of energy were in a significantly worse dichotomized category for the patients receiving NADT. Comparing the baseline versus 24-month outcomes, 24%, 23%, and 30% of participants receiving EBRT plus NADT shifted to the worse dichotomized category for the ability to reach an orgasm, quality of erections, and ability to function sexually compared with 14%, 13%, and 16% in the EBRT group, respectively. Conclusions Compared with baseline, at 2 years, participants receiving NADT plus EBRT compared with EBRT alone had worse HRQOL, as measured by the ability to reach orgasm, quality of erections, and ability to function sexually. However, no difference was found in the ability to have an erection, frequency of erections, overall sexual function, hot flashes, breast tenderness/enlargement, depression, lack of energy, or change in body weight. The improved survival in intermediate- and high-risk patients receiving NADT and EBRT necessitates pretreatment counseling of the HRQOL effect of NADT and EBRT.

55 Background: RP, EBRT, and PI for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer may negatively impact bowel function. Predictions of treatment-related bowel problems from patient-reported, prospective data may be useful in treatment decision-making. Methods: Patient-reported data on treatment-related bowel problems was obtained from 4 prospective, longitudinal, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) protocols comprising 2,668 patients treated between 1999 and 2011 by RP (n=1294), EBRT (n=630), and PI (n=744). A single HRQOL instrument was not uniformly used for each study, though all patients were asked if they experienced bother related to bowel problems using a similar 5-point scale. Patient responses were obtained at baseline and at 2 years after treatment. The endpoint of the model was bowel dysfunction, defined as bowel symptoms that were identified as a moderate-to-big problem. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to model the clinical information and follow-up data. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping. Results: Significant differences in baseline characteristics such as patient age, ethnicity, and disease severity existed between the treatment groups. Overall, 46 patients (2%) with complete data available had bowel dysfunction at baseline, including 11 (1%), 19 (4%), and 16 (3%) patients treated by RP, EBRT, and PI, respectively (p = 0.001). The overall rate of bowel dysfunction at 2 years in those patients with no bowel dysfunction at baseline was 2%, 10%, and 4% for patients treated by RP, EBRT, and PI, respectively (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, EBRT (p < 0.001), PI (p < 0.001), baseline bowel symptoms (p < 0.001), and institution (p = 0.04) were associated with bowel dysfunction. A nomogram based on the predictive parameters had a concordance index of 0.73 and predictions were well-calibrated with observed outcome. Conclusions: An externally validated nomogram that predicts 2-year incidence of bowel dysfunction after treatment for localized prostate cancer has been developed and may be useful for patient counseling regarding treatment options.