The Patient Perspective on Colectomy for Recurrent Diverticulitis: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Understand the patient's decision-making process regarding colectomy for recurrent diverticulitis. BACKGROUND: The decision to pursue elective colectomy for recurrent diverticulitis is highly preference-sensitive. Little is known about the patient's perspective in this decision-making process. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study utilizing focus groups of patients with recurrent diverticulitis at 3 centers across the United States. Using an iterative inductive/deductive approach, we developed a conceptual framework to capture the major themes identified in the coded data. RESULTS: From March 2019 to July 2020, 39 patients were enrolled across 3 sites and participated in 6 focus groups. After coding the transcripts using a hierarchical coding system, a conceptual framework was developed. Major themes identified included participants' beliefs about surgery, such as normative beliefs (eg, subjective, value placed on surgery), control beliefs (eg, self-efficacy, stage of change), and anticipated outcomes (eg, expectations, anticipated regret); the role of behavioral management strategies (eg, fiber, eliminate bad habits); emotional experiences (eg, depression, embarrassment); current symptoms (eg, severity, timing); and quality of life (eg, cognitive load, psychosocial factors). Three sets of moderating factors influencing patient choice were identified: clinical history (eg, source of diagnosis, multiple surgeries), clinical protocols (eg, pre-op and post-op education), and provider-specific factors (eg, specialty, choice of surgeon). CONCLUSIONS: Patients view the decision to undergo colectomy through 3 major themes: their beliefs about surgery, their psychosocial context, and moderating factors that influence participant choice to undergo surgery. This knowledge is essential both for clinicians counseling patients who are considering colectomy and for researchers studying the process to optimize care for recurrent diverticulitis.

What is cancer? A focus on Grade Group 1 prostate cancer.

Since the widespread adoption of prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer, the prevalence of Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer has risen. Historically, these patients were subjected to overtreatment of this otherwise indolent disease process, leading to significant quality-of-life detriments. Active surveillance as a primary management strategy has allowed for a focus on early detection while minimising morbidity from unnecessary intervention. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of GG1 prostatic adenocarcinoma, including its histological features, genomic differentiators, clinical progression, and implications for treatment guidelines, all supporting the movement to reclassify GG1 disease as a non-cancerous entity.

Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

Enzalutamide and Survival in Nonmetastatic, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary trial results showed that enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival among men who had nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and rapidly increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while taking androgen-deprivation therapy. Results from the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (defined on the basis of conventional imaging and a PSA doubling time of ≤10 months) who were continuing to receive androgen-deprivation therapy were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg or placebo once daily. Overall survival was assessed with a group sequential testing procedure and an O'Brien-Fleming-type alpha-spending function. RESULTS: As of October 15, 2019, a total of 288 of 933 patients (31%) in the enzalutamide group and 178 of 468 (38%) in the placebo group had died. Median overall survival was 67.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.0 to not reached) in the enzalutamide group and 56.3 months (95% CI, 54.4 to 63.0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The exposure-adjusted rate of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 17 per 100 patient-years in the enzalutamide group and 20 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. Adverse events in the enzalutamide group were consistent with those previously reported for enzalutamide; the most frequently reported events were fatigue and musculoskeletal events. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy resulted in longer median overall survival than placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising PSA level. The risk of death associated with enzalutamide was 27% lower than with placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; PROSPER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02003924.).

Coping Mechanisms for Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Survey-based Assessment.

PURPOSE: Assessments of financial toxicity among patients with metastatic prostate cancer are lacking. Using patient surveys, we sought to identify coping mechanisms and assess characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surveys were administered to all patients seen at a single center's Advanced Prostate Cancer Clinic over a 3-month period. Surveys included the COST-FACIT (COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity) and coping mechanism questionnaires. Patients with metastatic disease (lymph nodes, bone, visceral) were included for analysis. Coping mechanisms were compared between patients experiencing low (COST-FACIT >24) vs high (COST-FACIT ≤24) financial toxicity using Fisher's exact test. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity. RESULTS: Overall, 281 patients met inclusion criteria of which 79 reported high financial toxicity. In multivariable analysis, characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity included older age (estimate: 0.36, 95%CI: 0.21-0.52), applying for patient assistance programs (estimate: 4.42, 95%CI: 1.72-7.11), and an annual income of at least $100,000 (estimate: 7.81, 95%CI: 0.97, 14.66). Patients with high financial toxicity were more likely to decrease spending on basic goods (35% vs 2.5%, P < .001) and leisure activities (59% vs 15%, P > .001), as well as use savings (62% vs 17%, P < .001) to pay for their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional study, patients with metastatic prostate cancer and high financial toxicity were more likely to decrease spending on basic goods and leisure activities and use savings to pay for care. Understanding the impact of financial toxicity on patients' lives is crucial to inform shared decision-making and interventions designed to mitigate financial toxicity in this population.

Health System Perspective on Cost for Delivering a Decision Aid for Prostate Cancer Using Time-driven Activity-based Costing.

BACKGROUND: Previsit decision aids (DAs) have promising outcomes in improving decisional quality, however, the cost to deploy a DA is not well defined, presenting a possible barrier to health system adoption. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to define the cost from a health system perspective of delivery of a DA. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We interviewed or observed relevant personnel at 3 institutions with implemented DA distribution programs targeting men with prostate cancer. We then created process maps for DA delivery based on interview data. Cost determination was performed utilizing time-driven activity-based costing. Clinic visit length was measured on a subset of patients. Decisional quality measures were collected after the clinic visit. RESULTS: Total process time (minutes) for DA delivery was 10.14 (UCLA), 68 (Olive View-UCLA), and 25 (Vanderbilt). Total average costs (USD) per patient were $38.32 (UCLA), $59.96 (Olive View-UCLA), and $42.38 (Vanderbilt), respectively. Labor costs were the largest contributors to the cost of DA delivery. Variance analyses confirmed the cost efficiency of electronic health record (EHR) integration. We noted a shortening of clinic visit length when the DA was used, with high levels of decision quality. CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing is an effective approach to determining true inclusive costs of service delivery while also elucidating opportunities for cost containment. The absolute cost of delivering a DA to men with prostate cancer in various settings is much lower than the system costs of the treatments they consider. EHR integration streamlines DA delivery efficiency and results in substantial cost savings.

National Variation in Elective Colon Resection for Diverticular Disease.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize the extent of geographic variation in elective sigmoid resection for diverticulitis and to identify factors associated with observed variation. INTRODUCTION: National guidelines for treatment of recurrent diverticulitis fail to offer strong recommendations for or against surgical intervention. We hypothesize that healthcare market factors will be significantly associated with geographic variation in colon resection for diverticulitis, a discretionary surgical intervention. METHODS: We used Center for Medicare Services 100% inpatient Limited Data Set (LDS) files from January 2013 through September 2015 to calculate an observed to expected standardized colon resection ratio for each hospital referral region (HRR). We then analyzed patient, hospital-, and market-level factors associated with variation of colectomy. For each HRR, a Herfindahl-Hirschman index, a measure of market competition, was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 19,557 Medicare patients underwent an elective colon resection for diverticulitis at 2462 hospitals over the study period. Standardized colon resection ratios ranged from 0 in the Tuscaloosa HRR to 3.7 in the Royal Oak, MI HRR. Few patient factors were associated with variation, but a number of hospital factors (size, area, profit status, and critical access designation) all were associated with variation. In an analysis of market factors, increased surgeon density, and decreased market competition were associated with higher predicted rates of colon resection. CONCLUSION: We observed pronounced variation (excess of 3-fold) in standardized colon resection ratios for recurrent diverticulitis. Surgeon density and hospital level factors were strongly associated with this variation and may be the main drivers of colonic resection for diverticular disease. Further investigation and stronger national guidelines are needed to optimize patient selection for colectomy.

Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden Associated With Contemporary Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer Among Commercially Insured Patients.

PURPOSE: Out-of-pocket costs represent an important component of financial toxicity and may impact patients' receipt of care. Herein, we evaluated patient-level factors associated with out-of-pocket costs for contemporary advanced prostate cancer treatment options. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all commercially insured men receiving treatment for advanced prostate cancer between 2007 and 2019 within the OptumLabs Data Warehouse®. Patients were categorized into 3 treatment groups: androgen deprivation monotherapy, novel hormonal therapy, and nonandrogen systemic therapy. The primary outcome was out-of-pocket costs in the first year of treatment. The associations of treatment and patient variables with out-of-pocket costs were assessed using multivariable regression models. All costs were adjusted to reflect 2019 U.S. dollars using the Consumer Price Index. RESULTS: In a cohort of 13,409 men 81% (n = 10,926) received androgen deprivation monotherapy, 6% (n = 832) novel hormonal therapy, and 12% (n = 1,651) nonandrogen systemic therapy. Mean treatment-related out-of-pocket costs in the first year were $165, $4,236, and $994 for androgen deprivation monotherapy, novel hormonal therapy, and nonandrogen systemic therapy, respectively. The adjusted difference in annual treatment-related out-of-pocket costs for novel hormonal therapy and nonandrogen systemic therapy were $2,581 (95% CI: $1,923-$3,240) and $752 (95% CI: $600-$903) higher than androgen deprivation monotherapy, respectively. Patient characteristics associated (P < .05) with higher treatment-related out-of-pocket costs included older age (65-74 years), Black race, lower comorbidity scores, and lower household income. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving novel hormonal therapy for advanced prostate cancer had substantially higher treatment-related out-of-pocket costs. In addition to raising awareness among prescribers, these data support the inclusion of treatment associated financial toxicity in shared decision making for advanced prostate cancer and call attention to subgroups of patients particularly vulnerable to financial toxicity.

Patient-reported Outcomes After External Beam Radiotherapy With Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost vs Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Five-year Results From a Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Study.

PURPOSE: Data comparing radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost are lacking. To better guide shared decision making regarding treatment, we compared patient reported outcomes through 5 years following radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2011-2012, men aged <80 years with localized prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled and followed longitudinally. Patient reported outcomes included the Expanded Prostate Index Composite. Regression models adjusted for baseline scores and covariates were constructed. RESULTS: The study population included 112 men treated with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost and 1,553 treated with radical prostatectomy. Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive (adjusted mean score difference [95% confidence interval]: 5.0 [-8.7, -1.3]; P = .008 at 5 years) and better urinary incontinence function (13.3 [7.7, 18.9]; P < .001 at 5 years) through 5 years. Urinary function bother was similar between groups (P > .4 at all timepoints). Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with worse bowel function (-4.0 [-6.9, -1.1]; P = .006 at 5 years) through 5 years compared to radical prostatectomy. Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with better sexual function at 1 year (12.0 [6.5, 17.5]; P < .001 at 1 year) compared to radical prostatectomy, but there was insufficient evidence to reject the supposition that no difference was seen at 3 or 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive and bowel functions but better urinary incontinence function through 5 years after treatment. These patient-reported functional outcomes may clarify treatment expectations and help inform treatment choices for localized prostate cancer.

Association between Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer and Mental Health Outcomes.

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare patient-reported mental health outcomes for men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective population-based analysis using the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study. Patient-reported depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression [CES-D]) and domains of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form survey evaluating emotional well-being and energy/fatigue were assessed through 5 years after treatment with surgery, radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) and active surveillance. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, and treatment approach. RESULTS: A total of 2,742 men (median [quartiles] age 64 [59-70]) met inclusion criteria. Baseline depressive symptoms, as measured by the CES-D, were low (median 4, quartiles 1-8) without differences between groups. We found no effect of treatment modality on depressive symptoms (p=0.78), though older age, poorer health, being unmarried and baseline CES-D score were associated with declines in mental health. There was no clinically meaningful association between treatment modality and scores for either emotional well-being (p=0.81) or energy/fatigue (p=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer showed no clinically important differences in mental health outcomes including depressive symptoms, emotional well-being, and energy/fatigue according to the treatment received (surgery, radiotherapy, or surveillance). However, we identified a number of characteristics associated with worse mental health outcomes including: older age, poorer health, being unmarried, and baseline CES-D score which may allow for early identification of patients most at risk of these outcomes following treatment.

Racial disparities in mortality for patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although racial disparities in prostate cancer survival are well documented, the relative importance of contributing factors remains unclear. Few studies have examined the disparity between Whites and Hispanics or between Whites and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs). METHODS: Using data from the National Cancer Database for 526,690 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2004 and 2014, this study systematically evaluated the impact of clinical characteristics and factors related to access to care on survival by race. Included in the analysis were 432,640 White patients (82.1%), 63,602 Black patients (12.1%), 8990 AAPI patients (1.7%), and 21,458 Hispanic patients (4.1%). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals to measure racial survival disparities. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for imbalances of prognostic factors. RESULTS: When adjustments were made for age and year of diagnosis only, Blacks had 51% higher mortality, AAPIs had 22% lower mortality, and Hispanics had 6% lower mortality than Whites. Overall, with adjustments for all clinical factors and nonclinical factors, the Black-White survival disparity narrowed to 20%, whereas the AAPI-White disparity increased to 35%. Among the controlled-for factors, education, median household income, and insurance status contributed the most to the racial disparity. CONCLUSIONS: The overall survival disparity among men undergoing radical prostatectomy was significantly decreased, but not eliminated, for Blacks and significantly increased for AAPIs in comparison with Whites after adjustments for a number of clinical factors and factors related to access to care.

Five-year outcomes from a prospective comparative effectiveness study evaluating external-beam radiotherapy with or without low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To inform patients who are in the process of selecting prostate cancer treatment, the authors compared disease-specific function after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone versus EBRT plus a low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR). METHODS: For this prospective study, men who had localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012 were enrolled. Assessments at baseline, 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 years included the patient-reported Expanded Prostate Index Composite, the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey, and treatment-related regret. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and for patient and treatment characteristics. The minimum clinically important difference in scores on the Expanded Prostate Index Composite 26-item instrument was from 5 to 7 for urinary irritation and from 4 to 6 for bowel function. RESULTS: Six-hundred ninety-five men met inclusion criteria and received either EBRT (n = 583) or EBRT-LDR (n = 112). Patients in the EBRT-LDR group were younger (median age, 66 years [interquartile range [IQR], 60-71 years] vs 69 years [IQR, 64-74 years]; P < .001), were less likely to receive pelvic radiotherapy (10% vs 18%; P = .040), and had higher baseline 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey physical function scores (median score, 95 [IQR, 86-100] vs 90 [IQR, 70-100]; P < .001). Over a 3-year period, compared with EBRT, EBRT-LDR was associated with worse urinary irritative scores (adjusted mean difference at 3 years, -5.4; 95% CI, -9.3, -1.6) and bowel function scores (-4.1; 95% CI, -7.6, -0.5). The differences were no longer clinically meaningful at 5 years (difference in urinary irritative scores: -4.5; 95% CI, -8.4, -0.5; difference in bowel function scores: -2.1; 95% CI, -5.7, -1.4). However, men who received EBRT-LDR were more likely to report moderate or big problems with urinary function bother (adjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.2) and frequent urination (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.6) through 5 years. There were no differences in survival or treatment-related regret between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EBRT alone, EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative and bowel function over 3 years after treatment and more urinary bother at 5 years. LAY SUMMARY: In men with prostate cancer who received external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR), EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically worse urinary irritation and bowel function through 3 years but resolved after 5 years. Men who received EBRT-LDR continued to report moderate-to-big problems with urinary function bother and frequent urination through 5 years. There was no difference in treatment-related regret or survival between patients who received EBRT and those who received EBRT-LDR. These intermediate-term estimates of function may facilitate counseling for men who are selecting treatment.

Patient-Reported Financial Toxicity Associated with Contemporary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Contemporary treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer provide comparable overall and cancer-specific survival. However, the degree of financial burden imposed by treatment, the factors contributing to that burden, and how different treatments compare with regard to financial toxicity remain poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer from 2011 to 2012. Questionnaires were collected at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Differences in patient-reported financial burden were compared between active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 2,121 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 15% reported large or very large burden of treatment costs within 6 months, declining to 3% by year 5. When controlling for age, education, income and other covariates, external beam radiotherapy was associated with greater financial burden than active surveillance and radical prostatectomy at 1 year (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.3, respectively) and 3 years (OR 3.1 95% CI 1.1-8.8 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.7, respectively). Radical prostatectomy and active surveillance had similar rates of financial burden at all time points. Age, race, education, and D'Amico risk group were associated with financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: External beam radiotherapy was associated with the highest financial burden, even when controlling for age, education and income. Prospective studies that directly measure out-of-pocket and indirect costs and account more thoroughly for baseline socioeconomic differences are warranted in order to identify those most at risk.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel's discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

COVID-19 and financial toxicity in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To ascertain renal cell carcinoma (RCC) financial toxicity on COVID-19 during the COVID-19 crisis as patients are struggling with therapeutic and financial implications. METHODS: An online survey was conducted from March 22 to March 25, 2020. It included baseline demographic, clinicopathologic, treatment-related information, anxiety levels related to COVID-19, questions related to financial concerns about COVID-19 as well as the validated 11-item COST measure. RESULTS: Five-hundred-and-thirty-nine patients (39%:58% male:female) from 14 countries responded. 23% of the patients did not feel in control of their financial situation but 8% reported being very satisfied with their finances. The median COST score was 21.5 (range 1-44). Metastatic patients who have not started systemic therapy had a COST score (19.8 range 2-41) versus patients on oral systemic therapy had a COST score (23.9 range 4-44). Patients in follow-up after surgery had a median COST score at 20.8 (range 1-40). A low COST scores correlated (p < 0.001) were female gender (r = 0.108), younger age (r = 0.210), urban living situation (r = 0.68), a lower educational level (r = 0.155), lower income (r = 0.165), higher anxiety about acquiring COVID-19 (r = 0.198), having metastatic disease (r = 0.073) and a higher distress score about cancer progression (r = 0.224). CONCLUSION: Our data highlight severe financial impact of COVID-19. Acknowledging financial hardship and thorough counseling of cancer patients should be part of the conversation during the pandemic. Treatment and surveillance of RCC patients might have to be adjusted to contemplate financial and medical needs.

Benchmarking patient satisfaction scores in a colorectal patient population.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare reimbursement is rapidly moving away from a fee-for-service model toward value-based purchasing. An integral component of this new focus on quality is patient-centered outcomes. One metric used to define patient satisfaction is the Press Ganey Patient Satisfaction Survey. Data are lacking to accurately benchmark these scores based on diagnosis. We sought to identify if different colorectal disease processes affected a patient's perception of their healthcare experience. METHODS: Adult colorectal patients seen between July 2015 and September 2016 in a tertiary hospital colorectal clinic were mailed a Press Ganey survey. Patients were stratified based on diagnosis: neoplasia, IBD, anorectal and benign colorectal disease. Survey scores were compared across the groups with adjustment for confounding variables. RESULTS: 312 patients responded and formed the cohort. The mean age was 61 (range 18-93) and 56% were women. The cohort breakdown was 38% neoplasia, 32% anorectal, 21% benign, and 9% IBD. In a multivariable model, there was a difference in PG scores by diagnosis; patients with neoplasia had higher Overall scores (ß 10.2; Std Error 4.0; p = 0.01), Care Provider scores (ß 8.5; Std Error 4.2; p = 0.04), Nurse Assistant scores (ß 15.0; Std Error 5.7; p = 0.01), and Personal Issues scores (ß 11.8; Std Error 5/0; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Press Ganey scores were found to vary significantly. Patients with a neoplasia diagnosis reported higher overall satisfaction, Care Provider, Nurse Assistant, and Personal Issues scores. Adjustment for disease condition is important when assessing patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality and as a metric for reimbursement. This study adds to increasing evidence about bias in these scores.

Prostate cancer mortality and metastasis under different biopsy frequencies in North American active surveillance cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is an accepted means of managing low-risk prostate cancer. Because of the rarity of downstream events, data from existing AS cohorts cannot yet address how differences in surveillance intensity affect metastasis and mortality. This study projected the comparative benefits of different AS schedules in men diagnosed with prostate cancer who had Gleason score (GS) ≤6 disease and risk profiles similar to those in North American AS cohorts. METHODS: Times of GS upgrading were simulated based on AS data from the University of Toronto, Johns Hopkins University, the University of California at San Francisco, and the Canary Pass Active Surveillance Cohort. Times to metastasis and prostate cancer death, informed by models from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 trial, were projected under biopsy surveillance schedules ranging from watchful waiting to annual biopsies. Outcomes included the risk of metastasis, the risk of death, remaining life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs. RESULTS: Compared with watchful waiting, AS biopsies reduced the risk of prostate cancer metastasis and prostate cancer death at 20 years by 1.4% to 3.3% and 1.0% to 2.4%, respectively; and 5-year biopsies reduced the risk of metastasis and prostate cancer death by 1.0% to 2.4% and 0.6% to 1.6%, respectively. There was little difference between annual and 5-year biopsy schedules in terms of LYs (range of differences, 0.04-0.16 LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (range of differences, -0.02 to 0.09 quality-adjusted LYs). CONCLUSIONS: Among men diagnosed with GS ≤6 prostate cancer, obtaining a biopsy every 3 or 4 years appears to be an acceptable alternative to more frequent biopsies. Reducing surveillance intensity for those who have a low risk of progression reduces the number of biopsies while preserving the benefit of more frequent schedules.

Assessing the Quality of Surgical Care for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from the CEASAR Study.

PURPOSE: Prior studies suggest that nationally endorsed quality measures for prostate cancer care are not linked closely with outcomes. Using a prospective, population based cohort we measured clinically relevant variation in structure, process and outcome measures in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) Study enrolled men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2011 to 2012 with 1,069 meeting the final inclusion criteria. Quality of life was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) and clinical data by chart review. Six quality measures were assessed, including pelvic lymphadenectomy with risk of lymph node involvement 2% or greater, appropriate nerve sparing, negative surgical margins, urinary and sexual function, treatment by high volume surgeon, and 30-day and 1-year complications. Receipt of high quality care was compared across categories of race, age, surgeon volume and surgical approach via multivariable analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in quality across race, age or surgeon volume strata, except for worse urinary incontinence in Black men. However, robotic surgery patients experienced fewer complications (3% vs 9.3% short-term and 11% vs 16% long-term), were more likely to be treated by a high volume surgeon (47% vs 25%) and demonstrated better sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort we did not identify meaningful variation in quality of care across racial groups, age groups and surgeon volume strata, suggesting that men are receiving comparable quality of care across these strata. However, we did find variation between open and robotic surgery with fewer complications, improved sexual function and increased use of high volume surgeons in the robotic group, possibly reflecting differences in quality between approaches, differences in practice patterns and/or biases in patient selection.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Colon and Rectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures to support value-based care in colorectal surgery. To draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, measures with robust measurement properties are required. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the use and quality of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal surgery. DATA SOURCES: Three major databases were searched for studies using patient-reported outcome measures in the context of colorectal surgery. STUDY SELECTION: Articles that used patient-reported outcome measures as outcome for colorectal surgical intervention in a comparative effectiveness analysis were included. Exclusion criteria included articles older than 11 years, non-English language, age <18 years, fewer than 40 patients, case reports, review articles, and studies without comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This was a quality assessment using a previously reported checklist of psychometric properties. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, 368 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. These studies used 165 distinct patient-reported outcome measures. Thirty were used 5 or more times and were selected for quality assessment. Overall, the measures were generally high quality, with 21 (70%) scoring ≥14 on an 18-point scale. Notable weaknesses included management of missing data (14%) and description of literacy level (0%). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its use of original articles for quality assessment. Measures were selected for quality analysis based on frequency of use rather than other factors, such as impact of the article or number of patients in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcome measures are widely used in colorectal research. There was a wide range of measures available, and many were used only once. The most frequently used measures are generally high quality, but a majority lack details on how to deal with missing data and information on literacy levels. As the use of patient-reported outcome measures to assess colorectal surgical intervention increases, researchers and practitioners need to become more knowledgeable about the measures available and their quality.

MR Imaging-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation of Localized Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Experience from a Single Center in a Prospective, Multi-Center, Single-Arm Clinical Trial.

This report details a single-center experience of using magnetic resonance imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) for whole-gland prostate treatment. Nine men with organ-confined low-to-intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent the TULSA procedure. The primary endpoint of reduction of more than 75% was achieved in 8 of 9 patients, and all patients demonstrated a histologic benefit at 12-month biopsy. No major urinary or gastrointestinal side effects were observed, and there were no postprocedural changes in erectile firmness. These findings suggest that TULSA is potentially safe and efficacious for patients with low-to-intermediate-risk disease.