Perceptions of Urologists About the Conversational Elements Leading to Treatment Decision-Making Among Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Patients.

Widespread adoption and use of the practice of shared decision-making among health-care providers, especially urologists, has been limited. This study explores urologists' perceptions about their conversational practices leading to decision-making by newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients facing treatment. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 12 community and academic urologists practicing in the St. Louis, MO, region. Data were analyzed using a consensus coding approach. Urologists reported spending 30-60 min with newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients when discussing treatment options. They frequently encouraged family members' involvement in discussions about treatment, especially patients' spouses and children. Participants perceived these conversations to be difficult given the emotional burden associated with a cancer diagnosis, and encouraged patients to postpone their decisions or to get a second opinion before finalizing their treatment of choice. Initial discussions included a presentation of treatment options relevant to the patient's condition, side effects, outcome probabilities, and next steps. Urologists seldom used statistics while talking about treatment outcome probabilities and preferred to explain outcomes in terms of the patient's practical, emotional, and social experiences. Their styles to elicit the patient's preferences ranged from explicitly asking questions to making assumptions based on clinical experience and subtle patient cues. In conclusion, urologists' routine conversations included most elements of shared decision-making. However, shared decision-making required urologists to have nuanced discussions and be skilled in elicitation methods and risk discussions which requires further training. Further research is required to explore roles of family and clinical staff as participants in this process.

Barriers and Strategies to Participation in Tissue Research Among African-American Men.

Before the burgeoning field of biospecimen collection can advance prevention and treatment methods, researchers must access diverse molecular data samples. However, minorities, especially African-American men, remain reticent to join these studies. This study, using theory-based approaches, investigated African-American men's barriers to participating in biorepository research. Fourteen focus groups were conducted among 70 African-American men (ages 40 to 80). The groups were stratified by prostate cancer history and educational attainment background. Participants identified perceived factors that promoted or hindered study participation when questioned about their knowledge and attitudes about biospecimen research. Ninety-four percent of participants indicated never participating in a study that collected biological samples. Barriers to their participation included lack of knowledge and understanding regarding biospecimen research practices and uses. In addition, they extensively cited a prevalent mistrust of the medical community and discomfort with study recruitment practices. African-American males were more willing to participate in biorepository studies with physician endorsement or if they understood that participation could benefit future generations. Men also wanted more recruitment and advertising done in familiar places.

Molecular and Pathologic Characterization of YAP1-Expressing Small Cell Lung Cancer Cell Lines Leads to Reclassification as SMARCA4-Deficient Malignancies.

PURPOSE: The classification of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) into distinct molecular subtypes defined by ASCL1, NEUROD1, POU2F3, or YAP1 (SCLC-A, -N, -P, or -Y) expression, paves the way for a personalized treatment approach. However, the existence of a distinct YAP1-expressing SCLC subtype remains controversial. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: To better understand YAP1-expressing SCLC, the mutational landscape of human SCLC cell lines was interrogated to identify pathogenic alterations unique to SCLC-Y. Xenograft tumors, generated from cell lines representing the four SCLC molecular subtypes, were evaluated by a panel of pathologists who routinely diagnose thoracic malignancies. Diagnoses were complemented by transcriptomic analysis of primary tumors and human cell line datasets. Protein expression profiles were validated in patient tumor tissue. RESULTS: Unexpectedly, pathogenic mutations in SMARCA4 were identified in six of eight SCLC-Y cell lines and correlated with reduced SMARCA4 mRNA and protein expression. Pathologist evaluations revealed that SMARCA4-deficient SCLC-Y tumors exhibited features consistent with thoracic SMARCA4-deficient undifferentiated tumors (SMARCA4-UT). Similarly, the transcriptional profile SMARCA4-mutant SCLC-Y lines more closely resembled primary SMARCA4-UT, or SMARCA4-deficient non-small cell carcinoma, than SCLC. Furthermore, SMARCA4-UT patient samples were associated with a YAP1 transcriptional signature and exhibited strong YAP1 protein expression. Together, we found little evidence to support a diagnosis of SCLC for any of the YAP1-expressing cell lines originally used to define the SCLC-Y subtype. CONCLUSIONS: SMARCA4-mutant SCLC-Y cell lines exhibit characteristics consistent with SMARCA4-deficient malignancies rather than SCLC. Our findings suggest that, unlike ASCL1, NEUROD1, and POU2F3, YAP1 is not a subtype defining transcription factor in SCLC. See related commentary by Rekhtman, p. 1708.