Do radiation oncologists and urologists endorse decision aids for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: Results from a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: The degree decision aids (DAs) can promote active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) remains poorly understood. Herein, we surveyed radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (URO) about their attitudes towards DAs in counselling patients about AS for low-risk PCa. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of RO (n = 915) and URO (n = 940) to assess their attitudes about DAs for AS for patients with low-risk PCa. Respondents were queried about their attitudes towards DAs and proportion of PCa patients managed with AS. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine physician characteristics related to attitudes about DAs. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 37.3% (n = 691). Most respondents strongly agreed or agreed that DAs helped patients with low-risk PCa make informed decisions (93.9%) and also increased patient support for AS (86.6%). Having a high volume of their low-risk PCa patients on AS (>15%) was associated with endorsing the statement that use of DAs increased the likelihood of recommending AS (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.00-4.61; p = .05) and being a URO versus a RO (OR: 3.37; 95% CI: 2.46-5.79; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Most specialists view DAs as effective tools to facilitate more informed treatment decisions and facilitate greater use of AS in appropriately selected patients.

The comparative effectiveness of decision aids in diverse populations with early stage prostate cancer: a study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Alliance A191402CD.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for localized prostate cancer present challenging tradeoffs in the face of uncertain treatment benefits. These options are best weighed in a process of shared decision-making with the patient's healthcare team. Minority men experience disparities in prostate cancer outcomes, possibly due in part to a lack of optimal communication during treatment selection. Decision aids facilitate shared decision-making, improve knowledge of treatment options, may increase satisfaction with treatment choice, and likely facilitate long-term quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will compare the effect of two evidence-based decision aids on patient knowledge and on quality of life measured one year after treatment, oversampling minority men. One decision aid will be administered prior to specialist consultation, preparing patients for a treatment discussion. The other decision aid will be administered within the consultation to facilitate transparent, preference-sensitive, and evidence-informed deliberations. The study will utilize a four-arm, block-randomized design to test whether each decision aid alone (Arms 1 and 2) or in combination (Arm 3) can improve patient knowledge and quality of life compared to usual care (Arm 4). The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), will be deployed within select institutions that have demonstrated capacity to recruit minority populations into urologic oncology trials. DISCUSSION: Upon completion of the trial, we will have 1) tested the effectiveness of two evidence-based decision aids in enhancing patients' knowledge of options for prostate cancer therapy and 2) estimated whether decision aids may improve patient quality of life one year after initial treatment choice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03103321 . The trial registration date (on ClinicalTrials.gov) was April 6, 2017.

Comparative Effectiveness of Surgical Treatments for Small Renal Masses.

In the management of small renal masses (SRMs), treatment options include partial nephrectomy (PN), radical nephrectomy (RN), ablation, renal biopsy, and active surveillance. Large series retrospective and meta-analyses demonstrate PN may confer greater preservation of renal function, overall survival, and equivalent cancer control when compared with RN. As newer therapies emerge, we should critically evaluate the risks and benefits associated with the surgical management of SRMs among patients with competing comorbidities, complex tumors, and high-risk disease. Among younger patients with SRMs amenable to resection, optimization of postoperative patient health should be prioritized.

Association of race and margin status among patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy for T1 renal cell carcinoma: Results from a population-based cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship of race and margin status among patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for T1 renal tumors from a contemporary population-based cohort. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (clinical T1N0M0) who underwent RPN from 2010 to 2013. The primary outcome was positive surgical margins (PSM). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between race and PSM adjusting for patient clinicopathologic and hospital factors. RESULTS: Among 12,515 patients undergoing RPN in our cohort, 8.3% had PSM (n = 1,045). When compared to white patients undergoing RPN for T1 RCC with PSM (7.9%), we observed a higher proportion of PSM among African American (AA) (10.8%; P = 0.005) and Hispanic/Latino patients (8.8%; P = 0.005), respectively. On multivariable analysis, AA patients had higher odds of PSM compared to white patients (odds ratio = 1.40; P = 0.008). Other factors associated with higher odds of PSM were treatment at nonacademic centers relative to academic centers (10.4% vs. 6.9%; odds ratio = 1.57; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary population-based cohort, AA patients undergoing RPN for localized RCC tumors are at higher risk for PSM. These results suggest potential differences in quality of care and patient selection of RPN by race.