Association between hospital competition and quality of prostate cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals account for approximately 6% of United States' gross domestic product. We examined the association between hospital competition and outcomes in elderly with localized prostate cancer (PCa). We also assessed if race moderated this association. METHODS: Retrospective study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) - Medicare database. Cohort included fee-for-service, African American and white men aged ≥ 66, diagnosed with localized PCa between 1998 and 2011 and their claims between 1997 and 2016. We used Hirschman-Herfindahl index (HHI) to measure of hospital competition. Outcomes were emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, Medicare expenditure and mortality assessed in acute survivorship phase (two years post-PCa diagnosis), and long-term mortality. We used Generalized Linear Models for analyzing expenditure, Poisson models for ER visits and hospitalizations, and Cox models for mortality. We used propensity score to minimize bias. RESULTS: Among 253,176 patients, percent change in incident rate of ER visit was 17% higher for one unit increase in HHI (IRR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.15-1.19). Incident rate of ER was 24% higher for whites and 48% higher for African Americans. For one unit increase in HHI, hazard of short-term all-cause mortality was 7% higher for whites and 11% lower for African Americans. The hazard of long-term all-cause mortality was 10% higher for whites and 13% higher for African Americans. CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospital competition was associated with impaired outcomes of localized PCa care. Magnitude of impairment was higher for African Americans, compared to whites. Future research will explore process through which competition affects outcomes and racial disparity.

Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Designed for a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making prior to initiating lung cancer screening (LCS). However, evidence is lacking on how to best implement shared decision-making in clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the impact of an LCS Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) on the quality of decision-making and LCS uptake. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at Veteran Affairs Medical Centers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and West Haven, Connecticut, from March 18, 2019, to September 29, 2021, with follow-up through July 18, 2022. Individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years who were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years were eligible to participate. Individuals with LCS within 15 months were excluded. Of 1047 individuals who were sent a recruitment letter or had referred themselves, 140 were enrolled. Intervention: A web-based patient- and clinician-facing LCS decision support tool vs an attention control intervention. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was decisional conflict at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict immediately after intervention and 3 months after intervention, knowledge, decisional regret, and anxiety immediately after intervention and 1 and 3 months after intervention and LCS by 6 months. Results: Of 140 enrolled participants (median age, 64.0 [IQR, 61.0-69.0] years), 129 (92.1%) were men and 11 (7.9%) were women. Of 137 participants with data available, 75 (53.6%) were African American or Black and 62 (44.3%) were White; 4 participants (2.9%) also reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Mean decisional conflict score at 1 month did not differ between the LCSDecTool and control groups (25.7 [95% CI, 21.4-30.1] vs 29.9 [95% CI, 25.6-34.2], respectively; P = .18). Mean LCS knowledge score was greater in the LCSDecTool group immediately after intervention (7.0 [95% CI, 6.3-7.7] vs 4.9 [95% CI, 4.3-5.5]; P < .001) and remained higher at 1 month (6.3 [95% CI, 5.7-6.8] vs 5.2 [95% CI, 4.5-5.8]; P = .03) and 3 months (6.2 [95% CI, 5.6-6.8] vs 5.1 [95% CI, 4.4-5.8]; P = .01). Uptake of LCS was greater in the LCSDecTool group at 6 months (26 of 69 [37.7%] vs 15 of 71 [21.1%]; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of an LCSDecTool compared with attention control, no effect on decisional conflict occurred at 1 month. The LCSDecTool used in the primary care setting did not yield a significant difference in decisional conflict. The intervention led to greater knowledge and LCS uptake. These findings can inform future implementation strategies and research in LCS shared decision-making. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02899754.

Racial Disparity in Outcomes Among Prostate Cancer Patients in the Post-Affordable Care Act Period.

INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to assess whether Medicaid expansion is associated with reduced racial disparity in quality of care measured as 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmission in prostate cancer patients receiving surgery. METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to extract a cohort of African American and White men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2015 and surgically treated. We used 2004-2009 data to observe preexisting racial disparity in outcomes. We used 2010-2015 data to assess racial disparity in outcomes and the interaction of race and Medicaid expansion status. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2009, 179,762 men met our criteria. In this period, African American patients reported higher hazard of 30- and 90-day mortality and higher odds of 30-day readmission compared to White patients. Between 2010 and 2015, 174,985 men met our criteria. Of these 84% were White and 16% were African American. Main effects models showed that compared to White men, African American men had higher odds of 30-day mortality (OR=1.96, 95% CI = 1.46, 2.67), 90-day mortality (OR=1.40, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.77), and 30-day readmission (OR=1.28, 95% CI = 1.19, 1.38).The interactions between race and Medicaid expansion were not significant (P = .1306, .9499, and .5080, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Improved access to care via Medicaid expansion may not translate into reduced racial disparity in quality-of-care outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated surgically. System-level factors such as availability of and referrals to care, and complex socioeconomic structure may also play a role in improving quality of care and reducing disparities.

Trajectory of Depression among Prostate Cancer Patients: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: While psychological difficulties, such as depression, among prostate cancer patients are known, their longitudinal burden remains understudied. We assessed the burden of depression across low-, intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer groups, and the association between regret and long-term depression. Methods: Secondary analysis of data from a multi-centered randomized controlled study among localized prostate cancer patients was carried out. Assessments were performed at baseline, and at 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up. Depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. A CES-D score ≥ 16 indicates high depression. Regret was measured using the regret scale of the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC). The proportion of patients with high depression was compared over time, for each risk category. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between regret, and long-term depression after adjusting for age, race, insurance, smoking status, marital status, income, education, employment, treatment, number of people in the household and study site. Results: The study had 743 localized prostate cancer patients. Median depression scores at 6, 12 and 24 months were significantly larger than the baseline median score, overall and for the three prostate cancer risk groups. The proportion of participants with high depression increased over time for all risk groups. Higher regret at 24-month follow-up was significantly associated with high depression at 24-month follow-up, after adjusting for covariates. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of localized prostate cancer patients continued to experience long-term depression. Patient-centered survivorship care strategies can help reduce depression and regret, and improve outcomes in prostate cancer care.

Continuity of care and advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care is an important element of advanced prostate cancer care due to the availability of multiple treatment options, and associated toxicity. However, the association between continuity of care and outcomes across different racial groups remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of provider continuity of care with outcomes among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with advanced prostate cancer and its variation by race. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. SUBJECTS: African American and white Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 or older, and diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer between 2000 and 2011. At least 5 years of follow-up data for the cohort was used. MEASURES: Short-term outcomes were emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and cost during acute survivorship phase (2-year post-diagnosis), and mortality (all-cause and prostate cancer-specific) during the follow-up period. We calculated continuity of care using Continuity of Care Index (COCI) and Usual Provider Care Index (UPCI), for all visits, oncology visits, and primary care visits in acute survivorship phase. We used Poisson models for ER visits and hospitalizations, and log-link GLM for cost. Cox model and Fine-Gray competing risk models were used for survival analysis, weighted by propensity score. We performed similar analysis for continuity of care in the 2-year period following acute survivorship phase. RESULTS: One unit increase in COCI was associated with reduction in short-term ER visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64, 0.67), hospitalizations (IRR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.64, 0.67), and cost (0.64, 95% CI 0.61, 0.66) and lower hazard of long-term mortality. Magnitude of these associations differed between African American and white patients. We observed comparable results for continuity of care in the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Continuity of care was associated with improved outcomes. The benefits of higher continuity of care were greater for African Americans, compared to white patients. Advanced prostate cancer survivorship care must integrate appropriate strategies to promote continuity of care.

A Veteran-Centric Web-Based Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening: Usability Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Web-based tools developed to facilitate a shared decision-making (SDM) process may facilitate the implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS), an evidence-based intervention to improve cancer outcomes. Veterans have specific risk factors and shared experiences that affect the benefits and potential harms of LCS and thus may value a veteran-centric LCS decision tool (LCSDecTool). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct usability testing of an LCSDecTool designed for veterans receiving care at a Veteran Affairs medical center. METHODS: Usability testing of the LCSDecTool was conducted in a prototype version (phase 1) and a high-fidelity version (phase 2). A total of 18 veterans and 8 clinicians participated in phase 1, and 43 veterans participated in phase 2. Quantitative outcomes from the users included the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) in phase 1 and the SUS, EUCS, and Patient Engagement scale in phase 2. Qualitative data were obtained from observations of user sessions and brief interviews. The results of phase 1 informed the modifications of the prototype for the high-fidelity version. Phase 2 usability testing took place in the context of a pilot hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial. RESULTS: In the phase 1 prototype usability testing, the mean SUS score (potential range: 0-100) was 81.90 (SD 9.80), corresponding to an excellent level of usability. The mean EUCS score (potential range: 1-5) was 4.30 (SD 0.71). In the phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing, the mean SUS score was 65.76 (SD 15.23), corresponding to a good level of usability. The mean EUCS score was 3.91 (SD 0.95); and the mean Patient Engagement scale score (potential range 1 [low] to 5 [high]) was 4.62 (SD 0.67). The median time to completion in minutes was 13 (IQR 10-16). A thematic analysis of user statements documented during phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing identified the following themes: a low baseline level of awareness and knowledge about LCS increased after use of the LCSDecTool; users sought more detailed descriptions about the LCS process; the LCSDecTool was generally easy to use, but specific navigation challenges remained; some users noted difficulty understanding medical terms used in the LCSDecTool; and use of the tool evoked veterans' struggles with prior attempts at smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the development and use of this eHealth technology in the primary care clinical setting as a way to engage veterans, inform them about a new cancer control screening test, and prepare them to participate in an SDM discussion with their provider.

Photodynamic therapy for stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer: A SEER-Medicare analysis 2000-2016.

ABSTRACT: We analyzed mortality (all-cause and lung cancer-specific) and time to follow-up treatment in stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with photodynamic therapy (PDT) compared with ablation therapy and radiation therapy.From Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data, patients diagnosed with stage I and II NSCLC between 2000 and 2015 were identified. Outcomes were mortality (overall and lung cancer-specific) and time to follow-up treatment. We analyzed mortality using Cox proportional hazard models. We used generalized linear model to assess time to follow-up treatment (PDT and ablation groups). Models were adjusted for inverse probability weighted propensity score.Of 495,441 NSCLC patients, 56 with stage I and II disease received PDT (mono or multi-modal), 477 received ablation (mono or multi-modal), and 14,178 received radiation therapy alone. None from PDT group had metastatic disease (M0) and 70% had no nodal involvement (N0). Compared with radiation therapy alone, PDT therapy was associated with lower hazard of overall (hazard ratio = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.39-0.80), and lung cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.43-0.97). Unadjusted mean time to follow-up treatment was 70days (standard deviation = 146) for PDT group and 67 days (standard deviation = 174) for ablation group. Compared with ablation, PDT was associated with an average increase of 125days to follow-up treatment (P = .11).Among stage I and II NSCLC patients, PDT was associated with improved survival, compared with radiation alone; and longer time to follow-up treatment compared with ablation. Currently, PDT is offered in various combinations with surgery and radiation. Larger studies can investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of these combinations.

Adapting the design of a Web-based decision support clinical trial during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The public health crises that emerged in the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the provision of medical care and placed sudden restrictions on ongoing clinical research. Patient-facing clinical research confronted unique challenges in which recruitment and study protocols were halted and then adapted to meet safety procedures during the pandemic. Our study protocol included the use of a Lung Cancer Screening Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) in the context of a primary care visit and was considerably impacted by the pandemic. We describe our experience adapting a multi-site clinical trial of the LCSDecTool within the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the LCSDecTool to a control intervention. Outcomes included lung cancer screening (LCS) knowledge, shared decision-making, and uptake and adherence to LCS protocol. We identified three strategies that led to the successful adaptation of the study design during the pandemic: (1) multi-level coordination and communication across the organization and study sites, (2) flexibility and adaptability in research during a time of uncertainty and changes in regulation, and (3) leveraging technology to deliver the intervention and conduct study visits, which raised issues concerning equity and internal and external validity. CONCLUSION: Our experience highlights strategies successfully employed to adapt an intervention and behavioral research study protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic. This experience will inform clinical research moving forward both during and subsequent to the constraints placed on research and clinical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continuity of care in acute survivorship phase, and short and long-term outcomes in prostate cancer patients.

Continuity of care is important for prostate cancer care due to multiple treatment options, and prolonged disease history. We examined the association between continuity of care and outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries with localized prostate cancer, and the moderating effect of race using Surveillance, Epidemiological, and End Results (SEER) - Medicare data between 2000 and 2016. Continuity of care was measured as visits dispersion (continuity of care index or COCI), and density (usual provider care index or UPCI) in acute survivorship phase. Outcomes were emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and cost during acute survivorship phase and mortality (all-cause and prostate cancer-specific) over follow-up phase. Higher continuity of care was associated with improved outcomes, and interaction between race and continuity of care was significant. Continuity of care during acute survivorship phase may lower the racial disparity in prostate cancer care. Future research can analyze the mechanism of the process.

Burden of Chronic Conditions Among Persons with HIV/AIDS and Psychiatric Comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Improved survivorship among persons living with HIV translates into a higher risk of medical comorbidities. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the association between the intersection of physical (HIV) and mental health (psychiatric) conditions and intermediate outcomes. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)- Household Component between 1996 and 2016. We created four groups for persons aged ≥18: (1) HIV + psychiatric comorbidity, (2) HIV, (3) psychiatric comorbidity, and (4) no-HIV/no-psychiatric comorbidity. We compared the burden of medical comorbidities (metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disease, cancers, infectious diseases, pain, and substance use) among groups using chisquare tests. We used logistic regression to determine the association between group status and medical comorbidity. RESULTS: Of 218,133,630 (weighted) persons aged ≥18, 0.18% were HIV-positive. Forty-three percent of the HIV group and 19% of the no-HIV group had psychiatric comorbidities. Half of the HIV+ psychiatric disorder group had at least one medical comorbidity. Compared to the no- HIV/no-psychiatric comorbidity group, the HIV + psychiatric comorbidity group had the highest odds of medical comorbidity (OR= 3.69, 95% CI = 2.99, 4.52). CONCLUSION: Persons presenting with HIV + psychiatric comorbidity had higher odds of medical comorbidities of pain, cancer, cardiovascular disease, substance use, metabolic disorders and infectious diseases, beyond that experienced by persons with HIV infection or psychiatric disorders, independently. Future research will focus on the mediating effects of social determinants and biological factors on outcomes such as the quality of life, cost and mortality. This will facilitate a shift away from the single-disease framework and compress morbidity of the aging cohort of HIV-infected persons.

Long-term depression incidence and associated mortality among African American and White prostate cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common after a diagnosis of prostate cancer and may contribute to poor outcomes, particularly among African Americans. The authors assessed the incidence and management of depression and its impact on overall mortality among African American and White veterans with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: The authors used the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse to identify 40,412 African American and non-Hispanic White men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2001 to 2013. Patients were followed through 2019. Multivariable logistic regression was used to measure associations between race and incident depression, which were ascertained from administrative and depression screening data. Cox proportional hazards models were used to measure associations between incident depression and all-cause mortality, with race-by-depression interactions used to assess disparities. RESULTS: Overall, 10,013 veterans (24.5%) were diagnosed with depression after a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Incident depression was associated with higher all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.32). African American veterans were more likely than White veterans to be diagnosed with depression (29.3% vs 23.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21). Among those with depression, African Americans were less likely to be prescribed an antidepressant (30.4% vs 31.7%; aOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93). The hazard of all-cause mortality associated with depression was greater for African American veterans than White veterans (aHR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.26-1.38] vs 1.15 [95% CI, 1.07-1.24]; race-by-depression interaction P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Incident depression is common among prostate cancer survivors and is associated with higher mortality, particularly among African American men. Patient-centered strategies to manage incident depression may be critical to reducing disparities in prostate cancer outcomes.

Survival Outcomes with Photodynamic Therapy, Chemotherapy and Radiation in Patients with Stage III or Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Data regarding the association between photodynamic therapy (PDT) and mortality in lung cancer patients are limited. We analyzed the association between PDT and mortality in patients with stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between 2004 and 2016. From the NCDB, we identified patients receiving laser ablation/cryosurgery or local tumor destruction/excision (which includes PDT). From Medicare and Medicaid claims between 2000 and 2013, we identified NSCLC patients receiving PDT and those receiving bronchoscopy, then used these to confirm the PDT treatment. From NCDB, we extracted NSCLC patients who received radiation with chemotherapy, radiation alone or chemotherapy alone. We used survival analysis to determine the association between PDT and mortality. Between 2004 and 2016, 457,556 NSCLC patients with stage III or stage IV were identified, of which 147 received PDT with radiation and chemotherapy, 227,629 received radiation with chemotherapy, 106,667 had radiation therapy alone and 122,193 received chemotherapy alone. Compared to the radiation alone group, the PDT group and radiation with chemotherapy group had lower hazard of mortality (50% and 53% lower, respectively). Among the NSCLC patients with stage III or stage IV disease, the addition of PDT to radiation therapy offers survival benefit over radiation therapy alone.

When Is a Harm a Harm? Discordance between Patient and Medical Experts' Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Attributes.

BACKGROUND: A shared decision-making (SDM) process for lung cancer screening (LCS) includes a discussion between clinicians and patients about benefits and potential harms. Expert-driven taxonomies consider mortality reduction a benefit and consider false-positives, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, radiation exposure, and direct and indirect costs of LCS as potential harms. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether patients conceptualize the attributes of LCS differently from expert-driven taxonomies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with semistructured interviews and a card-sort activity. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three Veterans receiving primary care at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 55 to 73 y of age with 30 or more pack-years of smoking. Sixty-one percent were non-Hispanic African American or Black, 35% were non-Hispanic White, 4% were Hispanic, and 9% were female. APPROACH: Semistructured interviews with thematic coding. MAIN MEASURES: The proportion of participants categorizing each attribute as a benefit or harm and emergent themes that informed this categorization. KEY RESULTS: In addition to categorizing reduced lung cancer deaths as a benefit (22/23), most also categorized the following as benefits: routine annual screening (8/9), significant incidental findings (20/23), follow-up in a nodule clinic (20/23), and invasive procedures (16/23). Four attributes were classified by most participants as a harm: false-positive (13/22), overdiagnosis (13/23), overtreatment (6/9), and radiation exposure (20/22). Themes regarding the evaluation of LCS outcomes were 1) the value of knowledge about body and health, 2) anticipated positive and negative emotions, 3) lack of clarity in terminology, 4) underlying beliefs about cancer, and 5) risk assessment and tolerance for uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Anticipating discordance between patient- and expert-driven taxonomies of the benefits and harms of LCS can inform the development and interpretation of value elicitation and SDM discussions.

Sources of Information for Learning and Decision-Making in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

Information seeking is essential for effective patient-centered decision-making. However, prostate cancer patients report a gap between information needed and information received. The importance of different information sources for treatment decision remains unclear. Thus, using the Comprehensive Model of Health Information (CMIS) framework, we assessed the antecedent factors, information carrier factors, and information-seeking activities in localized prostate cancer patients. Data were collected via semistructured one-on-one, interviews and structured survey. Men with localized prostate cancer were recruited from two urban health-care centers. Following the interview, participants completed a survey about sources that were helpful in learning about prostate cancer treatment and decision-making. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and subjected to a thematic analysis using NVivo 10. Fifty localized prostate cancer survivors completed the interviews and surveys. Important antecedent factors that were observed were age, marital status, uncertainty, anxiety, caregiver burden, and out-of-pocket expenses. We identified complexity, magnitude, and reliability as information carrier characteristics. Preferred sources for information were health providers, medical websites, and pamphlets from the doctor's office. These sources were also perceived as most helpful for decision-making. Urologists, urological oncologists, and radiation/radiation oncologists were important sources of information and helpful in decision-making. Prostate cancer patients obtained information from multiple sources. Most prostate cancer patients make patient-centered choices by incorporating personal factors and medical information. By considering factors that influence patients' treatment decisions, health-care providers can enhance the patient-centeredness of care. Multiple strategies and interventions are necessary for disseminating valid, reliable, and unbiased information to prostate cancer patients to facilitate informed decisions.

Comparison by Race of Conservative Management for Low-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancers in Veterans From 2004 to 2018.

Importance: Conservative management (ie, active surveillance or watchful waiting) is a guideline-based strategy for men with low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, use of conservative management is controversial for African American patients, who have worse prostate cancer outcomes compared with White patients. Objective: To examine the association of African American race with the receipt and duration of conservative management in the Veterans Health Administration (VA), a large equal-access health system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse for 51 543 African American and non-Hispanic White veterans diagnosed with low-risk and intermediate-risk localized node-negative prostate cancer between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013. Men who did not receive continuous VA care were excluded. Data were analyzed from February 1 to June 30, 2020. Exposures: All patients received either definitive therapy (ie, prostatectomy, radiation, androgen deprivation therapy) or conservative management (ie, active surveillance or watchful waiting). Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of conservative management and (for patients receiving conservative management) time from diagnosis to definitive therapy. Results: The median (interquartile range) age of the 51 543 veterans in our cohort was 65 (61-70) years, and 14 830 veterans (28.8%) were African American individuals. Compared with White veterans, African American veterans were more likely to have intermediate-risk disease (18 988 [51.7%] vs 8526 [57.5%]), 3 or more comorbidities (15 438 [42.1%] vs 7614 [51.3%]), and high disability-related or income-related needs (9078 [24.7%] vs 4614 [31.1%]). Overall, 20 606 veterans (40.0%) received conservative management. African American veterans with low-risk disease (adjusted relative risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P < .001) and intermediate-risk disease (adjusted relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; P = .002) were less likely to receive conservative management than White veterans. Compared with White veterans, African American veterans with low-risk disease (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.50-1.95; P < .001) and intermediate-risk disease (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.69; P < .001) who received conservative management were more likely to receive definitive therapy within 5 years of diagnosis (restricted mean survival time [SE] at 5 years, 1679 [5.3] days vs 1740 [2.4] days; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, conservative management was less commonly used and less durable for African American veterans than for White veterans. Prospective trials should assess the comparative effectiveness of conservative management in African American men with prostate cancer.

Outcomes of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and airway obstruction treated with photodynamic therapy and non-photodynamic therapy ablation modalities.

BACKGROUND: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with central airway obstruction (CAO) may have better survival on systemic therapy if the airway patency is successfully restored by bronchoscopic interventions. It remains unclear which therapeutic bronchoscopic modality [laser, stenting, external beam radiation, brachytherapy and photodynamic therapy (PDT)] used for restoring airway patency positively affects outcomes in these patients. We analyzed the effectiveness of PDT in terms of mortality, and time to subsequent treatments in patients with stage III and IV NSCLC. METHODS: Study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare linked data. We categorized NSCLC patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2011 and with stage III and IV, into three treatment groups: PDT + radiation ± chemotherapy, non-PDT ablation therapy + radiation ± chemotherapy, and radiation + chemotherapy. We analyzed all-cause and cause-specific mortality using Cox proportional hazard models with an inverse probability weighted propensity score adjustment. Time to subsequent treatment was analyzed using GLM model. RESULTS: For the PDT group, hazard for all-cause and cause-specific mortality was comparable to the radiation + chemotherapy group (HR =1.03, 95% CI: 0.73-1.45; and HR =1.04, 95% CI: 0.71-1.51, respectively). The non-PDT ablation group had higher hazard for all-cause (HR =1.22, 95% CI: 1.13-1.33) and cause-specific mortality (HR =1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.20), compared to the radiation + chemotherapy group. The PDT group had longer time to follow-up treatment, compared to non-PDT ablation group. CONCLUSIONS: In our exploratory study of stage III and IV NSCLC patients with CAO, addition of PDT demonstrated hazard of mortality comparable to radiation + chemotherapy group. However, addition of non-PDT ablation showed higher mortality compared to the radiation + chemotherapy group. Future studies should investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of multimodal therapy including radiation, chemo, immunotherapy and bronchoscopic interventions.

Patient-Centered Approach to Develop the Patient's Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) Tool.

Objectives. To describe the development of our Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) tool to aid patient-centered treatment decision among localized prostate cancer patients. Methods. We incorporated patient and provider experiences to develop a patient preference elicitation tool using adaptive conjoint analysis. Our patient-centered approach used systematic literature review, semistructured patient interviews, and provider focus groups to determine the treatment attributes most important for decision making. The resulting computer-based PreProCare tool was pilot tested in a clinical setting. Results. A systematic review of 56 articles published between 1995 and 2015 yielded survival, cancer recurrence, side effects, and complications as attributes of treatment options. We conducted one-on-one interviews with 50 prostate cancer survivors and 5 focus groups of providers. Patients reported anxiety, depression, treatment specifics, and caregiver burden as important for decision making. Providers identified clinical characteristics as important attribute. Input from stakeholders' advisory group, physicians, and researchers helped finalize 15 attributes for our PreProCare preference assessment tool. Conclusion. The PreProCare tool was developed using a patient-centered approach and may be a feasible and acceptable preference clarification intervention for localized prostate cancer patients. The PreProCare tool may translate into higher participant engagement and self-efficacy, consistent with patients' personal values.

Association Between Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use and Diagnosis of Dementia in Men With Prostate Cancer.

Importance: The association between androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) exposure and dementia is uncertain. Objective: To analyze the association between ADT exposure and diagnosis of Alzheimer disease or dementia among elderly men with prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Participants were 154 089 elderly men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1996 and 2003. The analyses were conducted between November 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. Exposure: Androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients receiving ADT within 2 years of prostate cancer diagnosis were identified. Survival analysis was used to determine the association between ADT exposure and diagnosis of Alzheimer disease or dementia in the follow-up period. Propensity score and instrumental variable approaches were used to minimize measured and unmeasured selection bias. The association by dose of ADT was also examined. Results: Of the 295 733 men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1996 and 2003, 154 089 met the study criteria. Of these, 62 330 (mean [SD] age, 76.0 [6.0] years) received ADT within 2 years of prostate cancer diagnosis, and 91 759 (mean [SD] age, 74.3 [6.0] years) did not receive ADT. Mean (SD) follow-up was 8.3 (4.7) years. Exposure to ADT, compared with no ADT exposure, was associated with a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (13.1% vs 9.4%; difference, 3.7%; 95% CI, 3.3%-3.9%; P < .001; hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.18) and dementia (21.6% vs 15.8%; difference, 5.8%; 95% CI, 5.4%-6.2%; P < .001; HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.17-1.24). For 1 to 4 doses of ADT, the HR was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.15-1.24) for Alzheimer disease and 1.19 (95% CI, 1.15-1.23) for dementia. For 5 to 8 doses of ADT, the HR was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.22-1.35) for Alzheimer disease and 1.24 (95% CI, 1.19-1.29) for dementia. For more than 8 doses of ADT, the HR was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.16-1.34) for Alzheimer disease and 1.21 (95% CI, 1.15-1.28) for dementia. The number needed to harm was 18 patients (95% CI, 17-19 patients) and 10 patients (95% CI, 9.5-11 patients) for Alzheimer disease and dementia, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among elderly patients with prostate cancer, ADT exposure was associated with subsequent diagnosis of Alzheimer disease or dementia over a follow-up period of at least 10 years.

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for high-risk prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: To determine the comparative effectiveness of primary radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external bean radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy (BT) with or without ADT among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with high-risk prostate cancer, for 10-year, mortality (overall and prostate cancer-specific), complications, health service use, and cost. METHODS: This population-based cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results - Medicare data. Eligible patients were men aged 66 or older and diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer between 1996 and 2003. Outcomes evaluated were 10-year overall mortality and prostate cancer-specific mortality, complications, health service use, and cost. We used Cox regression, Poisson regression, and Generalized Linear Model (GLM) log-link models to assess the outcomes. MAIN FINDINGS: The 10-year overall mortality of EBRT + ADT was comparable to that of the RP group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.09, confidence interval [CI] = 0.72-1.66). The EBRT + BT ± ADT group had overall survival advantage compared to RP (HR = 0.47, CI = 0.31-0.73). Compared to the RP group, EBRT + ADT group had higher 10-year prostate cancer-specific mortality (HR = 2.19, CI = 1.92-5.21). Both EBRT + ADT and EBRT + BT ± ADT were associated with higher 10-year cost (odds ratio = 1.72, CI = 1.35-2.20; and odds ratio = 1.63, CI = 1.29-2.04), compared to RP group. Complications and health service use varied across 3 treatment groups and across phases of care. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Our results also demonstrate long-term overall survival benefits for EBRT + BT ± ADT, and greater bowel and bladder side effects over a decade, compared to RP. The RP group had advantage for long-term prostate-cancer specific mortality, compared to EBRT + ADT group. Thus, RP can provide superior cancer control with clear cost advantage for older men with high-risk disease. In terms of value proposition, our results support RP as preferred treatment option, compared to EBRT + ADT and EBRT + BT ± ADT for high-risk prostate cancer patients.