Making Active Surveillance a path towards health promotion: A qualitative study on prostate cancer patients' perceptions of health promotion during Active Surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: Health promotion is a key aspect for health outcomes of prostate cancer (PCa) patients. However, it has been poorly explored among patients following monitoring programmes, for example Active Surveillance (AS). This study aimed to explore PCa patients' perceptions of health promotion during AS. METHODS: An explorative qualitative research design was adopted. Four focus groups were used to collected data from 24 men enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Research International: AS (PRIAS) protocol. A thematic analysis with an inductive approach was performed. RESULTS: Participants described promoting health during AS as challenged by mental, age-related, informational and organisational issues. It was reported as an effort to stay in the present with a positive outlook, despite the worries for the future ("the mental theme"). It was perceived as impacted by being older and having to manage physical and mental struggles related to age ("the life-course theme"). It depended, in their accounts, on obtaining reliable information and personalised education ("the educational theme"). Finally, it was related on taking responsibility on the care process ("the organisational theme"). CONCLUSION: This study suggested ways of promoting health during AS that can help healthcare professionals and organisations building a "health-promoting AS," able to improve overall health outcomes.

Eleven-year management of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: what have we learned?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of active surveillance (AS) on patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and to identify predictors of disease reclassification. METHODS: In 2005, we defined an institutional AS protocol (Sorveglianza Attiva Istituto Nazionale Tumori [SAINT]), and we joined the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study in 2007. Eligibility criteria included clinical stage ≤T2a, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <10 ng/mL, and Gleason Pattern Score (GPS) ≤3 + 3 (both protocols); ≤25% positive cores with a maximum core length containing cancer ≤50% (SAINT); and ≤2 positive cores and PSA density <0.2 ng/mL/cm3 (PRIAS). Switching to active treatment was advised for a worsening of GPS, increased positive cores, or PSA doubling time <3 years. Active treatment-free survival (ATFS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors associated with ATFS were evaluated with a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 818 patients were included: 200 in SAINT, 530 in PRIAS, and 88 in personalized AS monitoring. Active treatment-free survival was 50% after a median follow-up of 60 months. A total of 404/818 patients (49.4%) discontinued AS: 274 for biopsy-related reclassification, 121/404 (30%) for off-protocol reasons, 9/404 (2.2%) because of anxiety. Biopsy reclassification was associated with PSA density (hazard ratio [HR] 1.8), maximum percentage of core involvement (HR 1.5), positive cores at diagnostic biopsy (HR 1.6), older age (HR 1.5), and prostate volume (HR 0.6) (all p<0.01). Patients from SAINT were significantly more likely to discontinue AS than were the patients from PRIAS (HR 1.65, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Five years after diagnosis, 50% of patients with early PCa were spared from active treatment. Wide inclusion criteria are associated with lower ATFS. However, at preliminary analysis, this does not seem to affect the probability of unfavorable pathology.

The 6-year attendance of a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic in Italy: incidence of management changes.

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Therapy (decision analysis) Level of Evidence 2b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The benefits of the multidisciplinary approach in oncology are widely recognised. In particular, managing patients with prostate cancer within a multidisciplinarity and multiprofessional context is of paramount importance, to address the complexity of a disease where patients may be offered multiple therapeutic and observational options handled by different specialists and having severe therapy-induced side-effects. The present study describes the establishing of a multidisciplinary clinic at the Prostate Cancer Programme of Milan Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, its effects on the quality of care provided, and strategies implemented to meet upcoming needs and improve quality standards. Having analysed the data of the 2260 multidisciplinary clinics held from March 2005 to March 2011, our dynamic and modifiable organisational model was evaluated for ways to optimise the human resources, offer high-quality standards, meet new needs and ultimately reduce costs. The study is focused on the organisational aspects and adds a perspective from one of the major oncological centres of reference in Italy and in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To describe the establishing of a multidisciplinary clinic for men with prostate cancer at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan. • To evaluate the quality of care provided and to describe the management changes implemented to improve standards and meet new needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In March 2005, we established a multidisciplinary clinic comprising weekly clinics and case-discussion sessions. • We have altered the organisational model periodically to meet new needs and improve quality. RESULTS: We held 2260 multidisciplinary clinics up to March 2011. • For stage distribution, patients with low-risk prostate cancer increased to a peak of 61% in 2009, probably because of the anticipation of diagnosis and the active surveillance expertise of the Prostate Cancer Programme at Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan. The slight decrease in 2010 might be due to the availability of robot-assisted prostatectomy in several hospitals in Milan, and the start of a multicentre active surveillance protocol in December 2009. • In terms of the efficacy of our multidisciplinary strategy, 11% of drug therapies (mostly hormones) prescribed outside our institute were terminated in the multidisciplinary clinic, and 6% of indications formulated in the multidisciplinary clinics were altered during the case-discussion sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary approach needs to be adaptable to meet new needs and improve quality. • Our experience has proved successful for both physicians and patients. The team agrees on strategies; complex cases are managed by a multidisciplinary team; dedicated psychologists contribute their knowledge and perspectives; and patients report the feeling of being cared for.

Multidisciplinary Versus One-on-One Setting: A Qualitative Study of Clinicians' Perceptions of Their Relationship With Patients With Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Previous studies indicate that a multidisciplinary approach could be suitable for dealing with the complex issues faced by physicians in the management of prostate cancer; however, few studies have investigated clinicians' perceptions of multidisciplinary care. Our aim was to evaluate clinicians' perceptions of the patient-clinician relationship in a multidisciplinary context, and to compare this with physicians' perceptions of providing care independently. METHODS: A qualitative observational study was performed in 2009. Three radiation oncologists, three urologists, three medical oncologists and one psychologist from the multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) team at the Prostate Program of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy, were interviewed to assess their perceptions of their relationship with the patient. RESULTS: Clinicians reported that the MDC has advantages regarding providing patients with more accurate information and acquiring information from patients, but a clear preference for a multidisciplinary setting did not emerge. Clinicians reported that in one-on-one examinations (1) they feel more comfortable listening to the patient and more able to manage communication, and that (2) the process of building trust is easier. CONCLUSION: Clinicians appear to recognize the value of the MDC in terms of effective communication with patients but feel that other aspects of relationship building are hindered in a multidisciplinary setting. Organizational and teamwork issues need to be addressed to optimize the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach.