Factors influencing prostate cancer treatment decisions for African American and white men.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer racial disparities in mortality outcomes are the largest in all of oncology, and less aggressive treatment received by African American (AA) patients versus white patients is likely a contributing factor. However, the reasons underlying the differences in treatment are unclear. METHODS: This study examined a prospective, population-based cohort of 1170 men with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic prostate cancer enrolled from 2011 to 2013 before treatment throughout North Carolina. By phone survey, each participant was asked to rate the aggressiveness of his cancer, and his response was compared to the actual diagnosis based on a medical record review. Participants were also asked to rate the importance of 10 factors for their treatment decision-making process. RESULTS: Among AA and white patients with low-risk cancer (according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines), 78% to 80% perceived their cancers to be "not very aggressive." However, among high-risk patients, 54% of AA patients considered their cancers to be "not very aggressive," whereas 24% of white patients did (P < .001). Although both AA and white patients indicated that a cure was a very important decision-making factor, AAs were significantly more likely to consider cost, treatment time, and recovery time as very important. In a multivariable analysis, perceived cancer aggressiveness and cure as the most important factor were significantly associated with receiving any aggressive treatment and were associated with surgery (vs radiation). After adjustments for these factors and sociodemographic factors, race was not significantly associated with the treatment received. CONCLUSIONS: Racial differences in perceived cancer aggressiveness and factors important in treatment decision making provide novel insights into reasons for the known racial disparities in prostate cancer as well as potential targets for interventions to reduce these disparities.

Patient-reported outcomes in cancer survivorship.

BACKGROUND: There are currently 33 million cancer survivors worldwide. With improvements in early cancer detection and treatments, patients are living longer - and it is well-recognized that many survivors develop short- and long-term physical, psychosocial and spiritual effects as a result of their diagnoses and treatments. There is increasing awareness of the importance of using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to accurately assess these effects in cancer survivors. Validated patient-reported outcome instruments: Traditionally, physicians have assessed the acute and late side effects of cancer treatments with standardized scales such as the CTCAE. However, multiple studies have demonstrated that PROs more accurately capture patient symptoms than physician assessment. In this article we describe frequently used, validated, general and cancer-specific PRO instruments that assess symptoms. We describe additional PRO instruments that assess unmet needs, interpersonal relationship issues, and psychosocial and financial problems. Published studies using these instruments have identified issues commonly faced by cancer survivors worldwide. Discussion and summary: While PROs are increasingly used in research, further efforts are needed to integrate PRO assessment into routine clinical care, so that timely and accurate assessments can translate into better management of issues - ultimately improving the lives of cancer survivors.

Geriatric assessment-identified deficits in older cancer patients with normal performance status.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether a brief geriatric assessment (GA) would identify important patient deficits that could affect treatment tolerance and care outcomes within a sample of older cancer patients rated as functionally normal (80%-100%) on the Karnofsky performance status (KPS) scale. METHODS: Cancer patients aged ≥65 years were assessed using a brief GA that included both professionally and patient-scored KPS and measures of comorbidity, polypharmacy, cognition, function, nutrition, and psychosocial status. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The sample included 984 patients: mean age was 73 years (range: 65-99 years), 74% were female, and 89% were white. GA was conducted before (23%), during (41%), or after (36%) treatment. Overall, 54% had a breast cancer diagnosis (n = 528), and 46% (n = 456) had cancers at other sites. Moreover, 81% of participants (n = 796) had both professionally and self-rated KPS ≥80, defined as functionally normal, and those patients are the focus of analysis. In this subsample, 550 (69%) had at least 1 GA-identified deficit, 222 (28%) had 1 deficit, 140 (18%) had 2 deficits, and 188 (24%) had ≥3 deficits. Specifically, 43% reported taking ≥9 medications daily, 28% had decreased social activity, 25% had ≥4 comorbidities, 23% had ≥1 impairment in instrumental activities of daily living, 18% had a Timed Up and Go time ≥14 seconds, 18% had ≥5% unintentional weight loss, and 12% had a Mental Health Index score ≤76. CONCLUSION: Within this sample of older cancer patients who were rated as functionally normal by KPS, GA identified important deficits that could affect treatment tolerance and outcomes.

Feasibility of geriatric assessment in community oncology clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Emerging results support the value of geriatric assessment (GA) in determining the risk and benefits of cancer treatment in older adults. A brief GA tool consisting of valid and reliable measures has been developed; however, little data exist on the ability to perform the GA in community oncology clinics. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of performing the GA in the community. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 were eligible. The GA included a health care provider assessment of performance status, cognitive function, a Timed Up and Go test, and a self-administered patient questionnaire that evaluated measures of functional status, comorbidity, psychological state, social support, and nutritional status. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2013, 1088 patients were assessed including 339 (31%) from seven community clinics across North Carolina. The median amount of time to complete the patient-report portion of the GA was 19min in the academic center versus 22min in the community. The median amount of time to complete the entire GA was 23min in the academic center and 30min in community settings. Significantly more patients in the community required assistance completing the questionnaire (24% vs. 14%); however, most patients required no assistance (76%). CONCLUSION: A brief GA can be performed in community oncology clinics. The time to complete the professional assessments and patient self-assessments were similar in both settings. Future studies are planned to determine if such assessments can improve cancer care for older patients.