Search

BackgroundFactors that influence prostate cancer treatment decisions are complex, multifaceted, and personal, and may vary by race/ethnicity. Although research has been published to quantify factors involved in decision-making, these studies have been limited to primarily white, and to a lesser extent, Black patients, and quantitative studies are limited for discerning the cultural and contextual processes that shape decision-making.MethodsWe conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with a racially and ethnically diverse sample of patients diagnosed with low- and very-low risk prostate cancer who had undergone treatment for their prostate cancer. Interviews were transcribed, independently coded, and analyzed to identify themes salient for decision-making, with attention to sociocultural differences.ResultsWe found racial and ethnic differences in three areas. First, we found differences in how socialized masculinity influenced patient's feelings about different treatment options. Second, we found that for some men, religion and spirituality alleviated anxiety associated with the active surveillance protocol. Finally, for racially and ethnically minoritized patients, we found descriptions of how historic and social experiences within the healthcare system influenced decision-making.ConclusionsOur study adds to the current literature by expounding on racial and ethnic differences in the multidimensional, nuanced factors related to decision-making. Our findings suggest that factors associated with prostate cancer decision-making can manifest differently across racial and ethnic groups, and provide some guidance for future research.

Exposure to ambient air pollution has significant adverse health effects; however, whether air pollution is associated with urological cancer is largely unknown. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis with epidemiological studies, showing that a 5 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 exposure is associated with a 6%, 7%, and 9%, increased risk of overall urological, bladder, and kidney cancer, respectively; and a 10 μg/m3 increase in NO2 is linked to a 3%, 4%, and 4% higher risk of overall urological, bladder, and prostate cancer, respectively. Were these associations to reflect causal relationships, lowering PM2.5 levels to 5.8 μg/m3 could reduce the age-standardized rate of urological cancer by 1.5 ~ 27/100,000 across the 15 countries with the highest PM2.5 level from the top 30 countries with the highest urological cancer burden. Implementing global health policies that can improve air quality could potentially reduce the risk of urologic cancer and alleviate its burden. Whether air pollufion is associated with urological cancer is largely unknown. In this study, the authors reveal correlafions between air pollufion and urological cancer risk: an increase of 5 μg/m3 in PM2.5 and 10 μg/m3 in NO2 would raise risks by 6-9% and 3-4%, respecfively; while lowering PM2.5 to 5.8 μg/m3 may reduce urological cancer burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. Methods: Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation–Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. Results: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity–Social, Motivation–Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. Conclusions: Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Results: Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies have demonstrated that Black men may undergo definitive prostate cancer (CaP) treatment less often than men of other races, but it is unclear whether they are avoiding overtreatment of low‐risk disease or experiencing a reduction in appropriate care. The authors' aim was to assess the role of race as it relates to treatment benefit in access to CaP treatment in a single‐payer population. Methods: The authors used the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse to perform a retrospective cohort study of veterans diagnosed with low‐ or intermediate‐risk CaP between 2011 and 2017. Results: The authors identified 35,427 men with incident low‐ or intermediate‐risk CaP. When they controlled for covariates, Black men had 1.05 times the odds of receiving treatment in comparison with non‐Black men (P <.001), and high‐treatment‐benefit men had 1.4 times the odds of receiving treatment in comparison with those in the low‐treatment‐benefit group (P <.001). The interaction of race and treatment benefit was significant, with Black men in the high‐treatment‐benefit category less likely to receive treatment than non‐Black men in the same treatment category (odds ratio, 0.89; P <.001). Conclusions: Although race does appear to influence the receipt of definitive treatment in the VHA, this relationship varies in the context of the patient's treatment benefit, with Black men receiving less definitive treatment in high‐benefit situations. The influence of patient race at high treatment benefit levels invites further investigation into the driving forces behind this persistent disparity in this consequential group. Race appears to influence the receipt of definitive treatment in the Veterans Health Administration, and this relationship varies in the context of the patient's treatment benefit, with Black men receiving less definitive treatment in high‐benefit situations. The influence of patient race at high treatment benefit levels invites further investigation into the driving forces behind this persistent disparity in this consequential group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Estimates of overall patient health are essential to inform treatment decisions for patients diagnosed with cancer. The authors applied XWAS methods, herein referred to as "laboratory‐wide association study (LWAS)", to evaluate associations between routinely collected laboratory tests and survival in veterans with prostate cancer. Methods: The authors identified 133,878 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2000 and 2013 in the Veterans Health Administration using any laboratory tests collected within 6 months of diagnosis (3,345,083 results). Using the LWAS framework, the false‐discovery rate was used to test the association between multiple laboratory tests and survival, and these results were validated using training, testing, and validation cohorts. Results: A total of 31 laboratory tests associated with survival met stringent LWAS criteria. LWAS confirmed markers of prostate cancer biology (prostate‐specific antigen: hazard ratio [HR], 1.07 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.06‐1.08]; and alkaline phosphatase: HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.20‐1.24]) as well laboratory tests of general health (eg, serum albumin: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.76‐0.80]; and creatinine: HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.03‐1.07]) and inflammation (leukocyte count: HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.98‐1.26]; and erythrocyte sedimentation rate: HR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.09‐1.61]). In addition, the authors derived and validated separate models for patients with localized and advanced disease, identifying 28 laboratory markers and 15 laboratory markers, respectively, in each cohort. Conclusions: The authors identified routinely collected laboratory data associated with survival for patients with prostate cancer using LWAS methodologies, including markers of prostate cancer biology, overall health, and inflammation. Broadening consideration of determinants of survival beyond those related to cancer itself could help to inform the design of clinical trials and aid in shared decision making. Lay Summary: This article examined routine laboratory tests associated with survival among veterans with prostate cancer.Using laboratory‐wide association studies, the authors identified 31 laboratory tests associated with survival that can be used to inform the design of clinical trials and aid patients in shared decision making. The current study identifies common clinical laboratory tests that are associated with mortality in patients with prostate cancer. These tests may aid in the challenging task of estimating life expectancy among men with prostate cancer, among whom overdiagnosis is common and in whom competing risks of mortality dominate prostate cancer–specific mortality risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) testing is used for prostate cancer detection and posttreatment surveillance, thresholds in these settings differ. The screening cutoff of 4.0 ng/mL may be inappropriately used during postsurgery surveillance, where 0.2 ng/mL is typically used, creating missed opportunities for effective salvage radiation treatment. We performed a study to determine whether guideline concordance with annual postoperative PSA surveillance increases when PSA values exceed 4 ng/mL, which represents a screening threshold that is not relevant after surgery. Methods: We used US Veterans Health Administration data to perform a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of men diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer from 2005 to 2008 who underwent radical prostatectomy. We used logistic regression to examine the association between postoperative PSA levels and receipt of an annual PSA test. Results: Among 10 400 men and 38 901 person‐years of follow‐up, annual guideline concordance decreased from 95% in year 1 to 79% in year 7. After adjustment, guideline concordance was lower for the youngest and oldest men, Black, and unmarried men. Guideline concordance significantly increased as PSA exceeded 4 ng/mL (adjusted odds ratio 2.20 PSA > 4‐6 ng/mL vs PSA > 1‐4 ng/mL, 95% confidence interval 1.20‐4.03; P =.01). Conclusions: Guideline concordance with prostate cancer surveillance increased when PSA values exceeded 4 ng/mL, suggesting a screening threshold not relevant after prostate cancer surgery, where 0.2 ng/mL is considered treatment failure, is impacting cancer surveillance quality. Clarification of PSA thresholds for early detection vs cancer surveillance, as well as emphasizing adherence for younger and Black men, appears warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Utilization of pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is increasing. To optimize the usefulness of mpMRI, physicians should accurately quote patients a numerical risk of cancer based on their MRI. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) standardizes interpretation of mpMRI; however, reported rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSC) stratified by PIRADS score vary widely. While some publications use radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens as gold standard, others use biopsy. We hypothesized that much of the variation in CSC stems from differences in cancer prevalence in RP cohorts (100% prevalence) vs biopsy cohorts. To quantify the impact of this selection bias on cancer yield according to PIRADS score, we analyzed data from 614 men with 854 lesions who underwent targeted biopsy from 2014 to 2018. Of these, 125 men underwent RP. We compared the PIRADS detection rates of CSC (Gleason ≥7) on targeted biopsy between the biopsy-only and RP cohorts. For all PIRADS scores, CSC yield was much greater in patients who underwent RP. For example, CSC was found in 30% of PIRADS 3 lesions in men who underwent RP vs 7.6% in men who underwent biopsy. Our results show that mpMRI performance appears to be better in men who undergo RP compared with those who only receive biopsy. Physicians should understand the effect of this selection bias and its magnitude when discussing mpMRI results with patients considering biopsy, and take great caution in quoting CSC yields from publications using RP as gold standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This article presents a gradient-boosted model that can predict 10-year prostate cancer mortality with high accuracy. The model was developed and validated on prospective multicenter data from the PLCO trial. Using XGBoost and Shapley values, it provides interpretability to understand its prediction. It can be used online to provide predictions and support informed decision-making in PCa treatment. Prostate cancer treatment strategies are guided by risk-stratification. This stratification can be difficult in some patients with known comorbidities. New models are needed to guide strategies and determine which patients are at risk of prostate cancer mortality. This article presents a gradient-boosting model to predict the risk of prostate cancer mortality within 10 years after a cancer diagnosis, and to provide an interpretable prediction. This work uses prospective data from the PLCO Cancer Screening and selected patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer. During follow-up, 8776 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer. The dataset was randomly split into a training (n = 7021) and testing (n = 1755) dataset. Accuracy was 0.98 (±0.01), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.80 (±0.04). This model can be used to support informed decision-making in prostate cancer treatment. AI interpretability provides a novel understanding of the predictions to the users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Men with prostate cancer are often castrated with long-acting injectable drugs termed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Although many benefit, ADT is also used in patients with little or nothing to gain. The best ways to stop this practice are unknown, and range from blunt pharmacy restrictions to informed decision-making. This study will refine and pilot two different de-implementation strategies for reducing ADT use among those unlikely to benefit in preparation for a comparative effectiveness trial.Methods/design: This innovative mixed methods research program has three aims. Aim 1: To assess preferences and barriers for de-implementation of chemical castration in prostate cancer. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), urologists and patients from facilities with the highest and lowest castration rates across the VA will be interviewed to identify key preferences and de-implementation barriers for reducing castration as prostate cancer treatment. This qualitative work will inform Aim 2 while gathering rich information for two proposed pilot intervention strategies. Aim 2: To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a novel barrier prioritization approach, for de-implementation strategy tailoring. The investigators will conduct national surveys of urologists to prioritize key barriers identified in Aim 1 for stopping incident castration as localized prostate cancer treatment using a DCE experiment design. These quantitative results will identify the most important barriers to be addressed through tailoring of two pilot de-implementation strategies in preparation for Aim 3 piloting. Aim 3: To pilot two tailored de-implementation strategies to reduce castration as localized prostate cancer treatment. Building on findings from Aims 1 and 2, two de-implementation strategies will be piloted. One strategy will focus on formulary restriction at the organizational level and the other on physician/patient informed decision-making at different facilities. Outcomes will include acceptability, feasibility, and scalability in preparation for an effectiveness trial comparing these two widely varying de-implementation strategies.Discussion: Our innovative approach to de-implementation strategy development is directly aligned with state-of-the-art complex implementation intervention development and implementation science. This work will broadly advance de-implementation science for low value cancer care, and foster participation in our de-implementation evaluation trial by addressing barriers, facilitators, and concerns through pilot tailoring.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03579680 , First Posted July 6, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine if an automatically calculated electronic health record score can estimate intermediate-term life expectancy in men with prostate cancer to provide guideline concordant care.Methods: We identified all men (n = 36,591) diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2013-2015 in the VHA. Of the 36,591, 35,364 (96.6%) had an available Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score (range: 0-99) automatically calculated in the 30 days prior to the date of diagnosis. It was designed to estimate short-term risks of hospitalization and mortality. We fit unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to determine the association between the CAN score and overall survival among men with prostate cancer. We compared CAN score performance to two established comorbidity measures: The Charlson Comorbidity Index and Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index (PCCI).Results: Among 35,364 men, the CAN score correlated with overall stage, with mean scores of 46.5 ( ± 22.4), 58.0 ( ± 24.4), and 68.1 ( ± 24.3) in localized, locally advanced, and metastatic disease, respectively. In both unadjusted and adjusted models for prostate cancer risk, the CAN score was independently associated with survival (HR = 1.23 95%CI 1.22-1.24 & adjusted HR = 1.17 95%CI 1.16-1.18 per 5-unit change, respectively). The CAN score (overall C-Index 0.74) yielded better discrimination (AUC = 0.76) than PCCI (AUC = 0.65) or Charlson Comorbidity Index (AUC = 0.66) for 5-year survival.Conclusion: The CAN score is strongly associated with intermediate-term survival following a prostate cancer diagnosis. The CAN score is an example of how learning health care systems can implement multi-dimensional tools to provide fully automated life expectancy estimates to facilitate patient-centered cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Cost-effectiveness analysis of therapies for low/intermediate-risk prostate cancer across range of life expectancies. • Active surveillance dominates surgery/radiation (more effective and less costly) when life expectancy is <10 years in both low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. • For longer life expectancy, active surveillance fails to dominate primarily due to its high cost. • Active surveillance costs for men with longer life expectancy must be reduced. Life expectancy (LE) impacts effectiveness and morbidity of prostate cancer (CaP) treatment, but its impact on cost-effectiveness is unknown. We sought to evaluate the impact of LE on the cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT), and active surveillance (AS) for clinically localized disease. We created a Markov model to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for RP, RT, and AS over a 20-year time horizon from a Medicare payer perspective for low- and intermediate-risk CaP. Mortality outcomes varied by tumor risk and PCCI score, a validated proxy for LE. We performed 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations with 1-way sensitivity analyses of PCCI within each tumor risk subgroup to compare cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between treatments. AS dominated RP and RT for low- and intermediate-risk disease in men with LE ≤10 years (PCCI ≥7 and ≥9, respectively). However, AS failed to dominate RP and RT for men with longer LE. For men with low-risk cancer and LE>10 years (PCCI 0–6), AS had the greatest effectiveness, but failed to dominate due to higher cost relative to RP. For men with intermediate-risk cancer with LE>10 years, AS failed to dominate due to higher cost relative to RP (PCCI 0–8) and lower effectiveness relative to RT (PCCI 0–3). The range of QALYs between RP, RT, and AS varied <13% (range: 0%–12.9%) while costs varied up to 521% (range 0.5%–521%) across PCCI scores. LE strongly modulates the cost of CaP treatments. This results in AS dominating RP and RT in men with LE ≤10 years. However, in men with longer LE, AS fails to dominate primarily due to its high cumulative costs, underscoring the need for risk-adjusted AS protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A better understanding of overall survival among patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is critical to inform PCa treatment decisions, especially in light of data from the Prostate Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). We sought to describe patterns of survival for all patients with clinically localized PCa treated by the VHA. We created an analytic cohort of 35 954 patients with clinically localized PCa diagnosed from 1995 to 2001, approximating the PIVOT inclusion criteria (age of diagnosis ≤75 yr and clinical stage T2 or lower). Mean patient age was 65.9 yr, and median follow-up was 161 mo. Overall, 22.5% of patients were treated with surgery, 16.6% were treated with radiotherapy, and 23.1% were treated with androgen deprivation. Median survival of the entire cohort was 14 yr (25th, 75th percentiles, range: 7.9–20 yr). Among patients who received treatment with curative intent, median survival was 17.9 yr following surgery and 12.9 yr following radiotherapy. One-third of patients died within 10 yr of diagnosis compared with nearly half of the participants in PIVOT. This finding sounds a note of caution when generalizing the mortality data from PIVOT to VHA patients and those in the community. Patient summary More than one-third of patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer treated through the US Veterans Health Administration from 1995 to 2001 died within 10 yr of their diagnosis. Caution should be used when generalizing the estimates of competing mortality data from PIVOT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]