Patient Perceptions of Standardized Risk Language Used in ACR Prostate MRI PI-RADS Scores.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate MRI reports use standardized language to describe risk of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) from "equivocal" (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] 3), "likely" (PI-RADS 4), to "highly likely" (PI-RADS 5). These terms correspond to risks of 11%, 37%, and 70% according to American Urological Association guidelines, respectively. We assessed how men perceive risk associated with standardized PI-RADS language. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a crowdsourced survey of 1,204 men matching a US prostate cancer demographic. We queried participants' risk perception associated with standardized PI-RADS language across increasing contexts: words only, PI-RADS sentence, full report, and full report with numeric estimate. Median perceived risk (interquartile range) and absolute under/overestimation compared with American Urological Association standards were reported. Multivariable linear mixed-effects analysis identified factors associated with accuracy of risk perception. RESULTS: Median perceived risks of csPCa (interquartile range) for the word-only context were "equivocal" 50% (50%-74%), "likely" 75% (68%-85%), and "highly likely" 87% (78%-92%), corresponding to +39%, +38%, and +17% overestimation, respectively. Median perceived risks for the PI-RADS-sentence context were 50% (50%-50%), 75% (68%-81%), and 90% (80%-94%) for PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, corresponding to +39%, +38%, and +20% overestimation, respectively. Median perceived risks for the full-report context were 50% (35%-70%), 72% (50%-80%), and 84% (54%-91%) for PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, corresponding to +39%, +35%, and +14% overestimation, respectively. For the full-report-with-numeric-estimate context describing a PI-RADS 4 lesion, median perceived risk was 70% (50%-%80), corresponding to +33% overestimation. Including numeric estimates increased correct perception of risk from 3% to 11% (P < .001), driven by men with higher numeracy (odds ratio 1.24, P = .04). CONCLUSION: Men overestimate risk of csPCa associated with standardized PI-RADS language regardless of context, especially for PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions. Changes to PI-RADS language or data-sharing policies for imaging reports should be considered.

Variation in communication of side effects in prostate cancer treatment consultations.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication of treatment side effects (SE) is critical for shared decision-making (SDM) in localized prostate cancer. We sought to qualitatively characterize how physicians communicate SE in consultations. METHODS: We transcribed 50 initial prostate cancer treatment consultations across nine multidisciplinary providers (Urologists, Radiation Oncologists, Medical Oncologists) at our tertiary referral, academic center. Coders identified quotes describing SE and used an inductive approach to establish a hierarchy for granularity of communication: (1) not mentioned, (2) name only, (3) generalization("high"), (4) average incidence without timepoint, (5) average incidence with timepoint, and (6) precision estimate. We reported the most granular mode of communication for each SE throughout the consultation overall and across specialty and tumor risk. RESULTS: Among consultations discussing surgery (n = 40), erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI) were omitted in 15% and 12%, not quantified (name only or generalization) in 47% and 30%, and noted as average incidence without timeline in 8% and 8%, respectively. In only 30% and 49% were ED and UI quantified with timeline (average incidence with timeline or precision estimate), respectively. Among consultations discussing radiation (n = 36), irritative urinary symptoms, ED, and other post-radiotherapy SE were omitted in 22%, 42%, and 64-67%, not quantified in 61%, 33%, and 23-28%, and noted as average incidence without timeline in 8%, 22%, and 6-8%, respectively. In only 3-8% were post-radiotherapy SE quantified with timeline. Specialty concordance (but not tumor risk) was associated with higher granularity of communication, though physicians frequently failed to quantify specialty-concordant SE. CONCLUSIONS: SE was often omitted, not quantified, and/or lacked a timeline in treatment consultations in our sample. Physicians should articulate, quantify, and assign a timeline for SE to optimize SDM.

Development of a Web-Based Interactive Tool for Visualizing Breast Cancer Clinical Trial Tolerability Data.

PURPOSE: Longitudinal patient tolerability data collected as part of randomized controlled trials are often summarized in a way that loses information and does not capture the treatment experience. To address this, we developed an interactive web application to empower clinicians and researchers to explore and visualize patient tolerability data. METHODS: We used adverse event (AE) data (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the NSABP-B35 phase III clinical trial, which compared anastrozole with tamoxifen for breast cancer-free survival, to demonstrate the tools. An interactive web application was developed using R and the Shiny web application framework that generates Sankey diagrams to visualize AEs and PROs using four tools: AE Explorer, PRO Explorer, Cohort Explorer, and Custom Explorer. RESULTS: To illustrate how users can use the interactive tool, examples for each of the four applications are presented using data from the NSABP-B35 phase III trial and the NSABP-B30 trial for the Custom Explorer. In the AE and PRO explorers, users can select AEs or PROs to visualize within specified time periods and compare across treatments. In the cohort explorer, users can select a subset of patients with a specific symptom, severity, and treatment received to visualize the trajectory over time within a specified time interval. With the custom explorer, users can upload and visualize structured longitudinal toxicity and tolerability data. CONCLUSION: We have created an interactive web application and tool for clinicians and researchers to explore and visualize clinical trial tolerability data. This adaptable tool can be extended for other clinical trial data visualization and incorporated into future patient-clinician interactions regarding treatment decisions.

Use of Persuasive Language in Communication of Risk during Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations.

BACKGROUND: Physician treatment preference may influence how risks are communicated in prostate cancer consultations. We identified persuasive language used when describing cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects in relation to a physician's recommendation for aggressive (surgery/radiation) or nonaggressive (active surveillance/watchful waiting) treatment. METHODS: A qualitative analysis was performed on transcribed treatment consultations of 40 men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer across 10 multidisciplinary providers. Quotes pertaining to cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects were randomized. Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations from isolated blinded quotes. Testing characteristics of consensus predictions against the physician's treatment recommendation were reported. Coders then identified persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment for each quote. Frequencies of persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment were reported. Logistic regression quantified associations between persuasive strategies and physician treatment recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 496 quotes about cancer prognosis (n = 127), life expectancy (n = 51), and side effects (n = 318) were identified. The accuracy of predicting treatment recommendation based on individual quotes containing persuasive language (n = 256/496, 52%) was 91%. When favoring aggressive treatment, persuasive language downplayed side effect risks and amplified cancer risk (recurrence, progression, or mortality). Significant predictors (P < 0.05) of aggressive treatment recommendation included favorable side effect interpretation, downplaying side effects, and long time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. When favoring nonaggressive treatment, persuasive language amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. Significant predictors of nonaggressive treatment recommendation included unfavorable side effect interpretation, favorable interpretation of cancer risk, and short time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians use persuasive language favoring their preferred treatment, regardless of whether their recommendation is appropriate. IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should quantify risk so patients can judge potential harm without solely relying on persuasive language. HIGHLIGHTS: Physicians use persuasive language favoring their treatment recommendation when communicating risks of prostate cancer treatment, which may influence a patient's treatment choice.Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations based on isolated, randomized quotes about cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects with 91% accuracy.Qualitative analysis revealed that when favoring nonaggressive treatment, physicians used persuasive language that amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. When favoring aggressive treatment, physicians did the opposite.Providers should be cognizant of using persuasive strategies and aim to provide quantified assessments of risk that are jointly interpreted with the patient so that patients can make evidence-based conclusions regarding risks without solely relying on persuasive language.

Variation in content discussed by specialty in consultations for clinically localized prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary consultations improve decisional conflict and guideline-concordant treatment for men with prostate cancer (PC), but differences in the content discussed by specialty during consultations are unknown. METHODS: We audiorecorded and transcribed 50 treatment consultations for localized PC across a multidisciplinary sample of urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. Conversation was coded for narrative content using an open coding approach, grouping similar topics into major content areas. The number of words devoted to each content area per consult was used as a proxy for time spent. Multivariable Poisson regression calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) for content-specific word count across specialties after adjustment for tumor risk and patient demographics. RESULTS: Coders identified 8 narrative content areas: overview of PC; medical history; baseline risk; cancer prognosis; competing risks; treatment options; physician recommendations; and shared decision making (SDM). In multivariable models, specialties significantly differed in proportion of time spent on treatment options, SDM, competing risks, and cancer prognosis. Urologists spent 1.8-fold more time discussing cancer prognosis than medical oncologists (IRR1.80, 95%CI:1.14-2.83) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.84, 95%CI:1.10-3.07). Urologists (IRR11.38, 95%CI:6.62-19.56) and medical oncologists (IRR10.60, 95%CI:6.01-18.72) spent over 10-fold more time discussing competing risks than radiation oncologists. Medical oncologists (IRR2.60, 95%CI:1.65-4.10) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.77, 95%CI:1.06-2.95) spent 2.6- and 1.8-fold more time on SDM than urologists, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Specialists focus on different content in PC consultations. Our results suggest that urologists should spend more time on SDM and radiation oncologists on competing risks. Our results also highlight the importance of medical oncologists in facilitating SDM.

Contemporary risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in the active surveillance era.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether contemporary risks of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in the AS era differ from historical estimates due to changes in tumor risk case mix and improvements in risk stratification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sampled 6,682 men who underwent RP for clinically localized disease between 2000 and 2017 from the VA SEARCH database. Kaplan Meier analysis was used to calculate incidence of BCR before and after 2010 overall and within tumor risk subgroups. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis including an interaction term between era and tumor risk was used to compare risk of BCR before and after 2010 overall and across tumor risk subgroups. RESULTS: About 3,492 (52%) and 3,190 (48%) men underwent RP before and after 2010, respectively. In a limited multivariable model excluding tumor risk, overall BCR risk was higher post-2010 vs. pre-2010 (HR: 1.15, 95%CI: 1.05-1.25; 40% vs 36% at 8 years post-RP). However, this effect was eliminated after correcting for tumor risk (HR: 0.95, 95%CI: 0.87-1.04), suggesting that differences in tumor risk between eras mediated the change. Yet, within tumor-risk subgroups, BCR risk was significantly lower for favorable intermediate-risk (HR: 0.76, 95%CI:0.60-0.96) and unfavorable intermediate-risk PC (HR: 0.78, 95%CI: 0.67-0.90), but significantly higher for high-risk PC (HR: 1.22, 95%CI: 1.07-1.38) in the post-2010 era. 8-year risks of BCR in the post-2010 era were 21% (95%CI: 16%-25%), 25% (95%CI: 20%-30%), 41% (95%CI: 37%-46%), and 60% (95%CI: 56%-64%) for low-, FIR-, UIR-, and high-risk disease, respectively. Limitations include limited long-term follow-up in the post-2010 subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Overall BCR risk has increased in the AS era, driven by a higher risk case mix and increased BCR risk among high-risk patients. Physicians should quote contemporary estimates of BCR when counseling patients.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Diagnosis, Stage, and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the United States.

Background and Aims: The change in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) care continuum during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic remains unknown at a national level in the United States. We sought to determine the impact of the pandemic on incident HCC cases, clinical characteristics, and treatment in the United States. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, we analyzed incident HCC cases from 2010 to 2020. The incidence rate was calculated using the population data for each year from the census bureau. Joinpoint regression analysis was applied for trend analysis, and a polynomial regression model estimated the number of projected HCC cases in 2020 according to the trend of rates from 2010 to 2019. The distribution of cancer stage and treatment modality were assessed. Results: The pandemic led to a significant reduction in reported HCC cases, from 19,597 in 2019 to 16,188 in 2020. The projected number of HCC for 2020 was 19,011, corresponding to a 14.8% reduction in 2020. Extent of reduction in the number of incident HCC cases relative to estimated cases remains consistent in racial and ethnic subgroups. Despite underdiagnosis of HCC in 2020, proportion of patients with early tumor stage (30.5% for Tumour, Node, Metastasis stage 1) and curative treatment receipt (9.1% for surgical resection, 13% for ablation, 4.2% for liver transplant) for HCC remained stable in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: There was a significant reduction in HCC cases in 2020 compared to pre-COVID years. While tumor stage and proportion of patients receiving curative treatment remained stable, continued follow-up is needed to assess potential changes during subsequent years.

Impact of the Early COVID-19 Pandemic on Incidence and Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Access to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance and treatments were disrupted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to characterize the impact of the pandemic on HCC incidence and mortality rates, treatment, and outcomes in the United States. METHODS: Two nationwide databases, the United States Cancer Statistics and the National Vital Statistics System, were used to investigate HCC incidence and mortality between 2001 and 2020. Trends in age-adjusted incidence rate (aIR) and adjusted mortality rate (aMR) were assessed using joinpoint analysis. The 2020 aIR and aMR were projected based on the prepandemic data and compared with actual values to assess the extent of underdiagnosis. We assessed differences in HCC characteristics, treatment, and overall survival between 2020 and 2018-2019. RESULTS: The aIR of HCC in 2020 was significantly reduced compared with 2019 (5.22 vs 6.03/100K person-years [PY]), representing a 12.2% decrease compared with the predicted aIR in 2020 (5.94/100K PY). The greatest extent of underdiagnosis was observed in Black (-14.87%) and Hispanic (-14.51%) individuals and those with localized HCC (-15.12%). Individuals staged as regional or distant HCC were also less likely to receive treatment in 2020. However, there was no significant difference in short-term overall survival in 2020 compared with 2018-2019, with HCC mortality rates remaining stable (aMR: 2.76 vs 2.73/100K PY in 2020 vs 2019). DISCUSSION: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in underdiagnosis of HCC, particularly early stage disease and racial ethnic minorities, and underuse of HCC-directed treatment. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCC-related mortality.

Patient perceptions underlying ctDNA molecular surveillance for HPV(+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Circulating tumor DNA assays have robust potential as molecular surveillance tools. They may also exacerbate patient distress without improving outcomes. We investigate patient acceptability of a validated ctHPVDNA assay (NavDx) during cancer surveillance for HPV(+) oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). METHODS: Consented HPV(+) OPC participants completed the NCCN Distress Thermometer, the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale both (1) before NavDx blood draw, and (2) after results were provided. Patients then completed a series of focused questions related to their perceptions of the assay. RESULTS: Overall, 55 patients completed the study, with 98.2 % showing no recurrence. For the NCCN Distress Thermometer, median patient distress decreased (2.0 (IQR 1-5) vs. 1.0 (IQR 0-3)) (p < 0.001) in association with NavDx. Using scores ≥ 4 as a cutoff point to define clinically elevated distress, scores also improved (36.4 % vs. 18.2 %, p = 0.031). For HADS, anxiety significantly improved (5.0 (IQR 2.0-7.0) vs. 3.0 (IQR 1.0-6.5)) (p = 0.037), but not depression (3.0 (IQR 1.0-7.0) vs. 3.0 (IQR 1.0-6.5)) (p = 0.870). FACT-G scores showed no substantial differences. On survey questionnaires, 95.5 % of patients believed the test to be helpful, and 100 % felt "somewhat" or "extremely" confident in the assay as a monitoring tool. While 59.1 % felt that it reduced anxiety, 88.4 % concordantly felt that it did not introduce anxiety. CONCLUSION: ctHPVDNA as a molecular surveillance tool reduced distress levels in HPV(+) OPC patients, with notably high patient confidence in the approach. Further investigation is warranted to judiciously incorporate this emerging modality in surveillance guidelines.

Baseline weight recovery and mortality risk in head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: As a surrogate of malnutrition, degree of weight loss and recovery from head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment is understudied. The influence of modifiable factors that affect weight, including speech/language pathology (SLP) and nutrition counseling, is also poorly defined. We characterize weight loss trends, baseline weight recovery (BWR), and the impact of interdisciplinary care on oncologic outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study assessing 266 newly diagnosed patients with HNC who completed curative-intent radiation (definitive or adjuvant) between January 2016 to January 2022. Relevant treatment factors were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: Altogether, 266 patients completed full-course radiation therapy (RT), encompassing definitive chemoRT (53.0%), surgery with chemoRT (18.4%), surgery with RT (17.7%), and RT alone (10.9%). Patient weight reached a nadir at median 3.0 months (IQR 3.0-11.3) after radiation, with a median weight loss of 12.6% (IQR 7.9-18.7). Notably, only 47.4% exhibited BWR. For those who recovered, median time to BWR was 10.5 months (IQR 3.0-24.0). On multivariable analysis, BWR by 6 months was significantly associated with overall survival (HR 0.28 [95% CI 0.10-0.76], p = 0.013), as was SLP consultation (HR 0.40 [95% CI 0.17-0.92], p = 0.031) and nutrition consultation (HR 0.34 [95% CI 0.13-0.89], p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: A high proportion of patients with HNC fail to recover baseline weight after treatment; those that do can take longer than expected to return. Failure to recover baseline weight is associated with a notable decrease in survival. Similarly, SLP and nutrition consultation are independent, modifiable determinants correlated with outcomes, supporting the emphasis on multidisciplinary management. Measures to promote BWR may reduce mortality.