Isolating the Drivers of Racial Inequities in Prostate Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Black individuals in the United States are less likely than White individuals to receive curative therapies despite a 2-fold higher risk of prostate cancer death. While research has described treatment inequities, few studies have investigated underlying causes. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 40,137 Medicare beneficiaries (66 and older) linked to the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry who had clinically significant, non-metastatic (cT1-4N0M0, grade group 2-5) prostate cancer (diagnosed 2010-2015). Using the Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, we assessed the contributions of patient health and health care delivery on the racial difference in localized prostate cancer treatments (radical prostatectomy or radiation). Patient health consisted of comorbid diagnoses, tumor characteristics, SEER site, diagnosis year, and age. Health care delivery was captured as a prediction model with these health variables as predictors of treatment, reflecting current treatment patterns. RESULTS: A total of 72.1% and 78.6% of Black and White patients received definitive treatment, respectively, a difference of 6.5 percentage points. An estimated 15% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6-24] of this treatment difference was explained by measured differences in patient health, leaving the remaining estimated 85% (95% CI: 74-94) attributable to a potentially broad range of health care delivery factors. Limitations included insufficient data to explore how specific health care delivery factors, including structural racism and social determinants, impact differential treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show the inadequacy of patient health differences as an explanation of the treatment inequity. IMPACT: Investing in studies and interventions that support equitable health care delivery for Black individuals with prostate cancer will contribute to improved outcomes.

Prostate cancer screening in African American men: a review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in African American men, yet prostate cancer screening regimens in this group are poorly guided by existing evidence, given underrepresentation of African American men in prostate cancer screening trials. It is critical to optimize prostate cancer screening and early detection in this high-risk group because underdiagnosis may lead to later-stage cancers at diagnosis and higher mortality while overdiagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment. METHODS: We performed a review of the literature related to prostate cancer screening and early detection specific to African American men to summarize the existing evidence available to guide health-care practice. RESULTS: Limited evidence from observational and modeling studies suggests that African American men should be screened for prostate cancer. Consideration should be given to initiating screening of African American men at younger ages (eg, 45-50 years) and at more frequent intervals relative to other racial groups in the United States. Screening intervals can be optimized by using a baseline prostate-specific antigen measurement in midlife. Finally, no evidence has indicated that African American men would benefit from screening beyond 75 years of age; in fact, this group may experience higher rates of overdiagnosis at older ages. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for prostate cancer screening in African American men is limited by the lack of large, randomized studies. Our literature search supported the need for African American men to be screened for prostate cancer, for initiating screening at younger ages (45-50 years), and perhaps screening at more frequent intervals relative to men of other racial groups in the United States.

Protocol of the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options (CISTO) study: a pragmatic, prospective multicenter observational cohort study of recurrent high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer poses a significant public health burden, with high recurrence and progression rates in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Current treatment options include bladder-sparing therapies (BST) and radical cystectomy, both with associated risks and benefits. However, evidence supporting optimal management decisions for patients with recurrent high-grade NMIBC remains limited, leading to uncertainty for patients and clinicians. The CISTO (Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options) Study aims to address this critical knowledge gap by comparing outcomes between patients undergoing BST and radical cystectomy. METHODS: The CISTO Study is a pragmatic, prospective observational cohort trial across 36 academic and community urology practices in the US. The study will enroll 572 patients with a diagnosis of recurrent high-grade NMIBC who select management with either BST or radical cystectomy. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (QOL) at 12 months as measured with the EORTC-QLQ-C30. Secondary outcomes include bladder cancer-specific QOL, progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and financial toxicity. The study will also assess patient preferences for treatment outcomes. Statistical analyses will employ targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) to address treatment selection bias and confounding by indication. DISCUSSION: The CISTO Study is powered to detect clinically important differences in QOL and cancer-specific survival between the two treatment approaches. By including a diverse patient population, the study also aims to assess outcomes across the following patient characteristics: age, gender, race, burden of comorbid health conditions, cancer severity, caregiver status, social determinants of health, and rurality. Treatment outcomes may also vary by patient preferences, health literacy, and baseline QOL. The CISTO Study will fill a crucial evidence gap in the management of recurrent high-grade NMIBC, providing evidence-based guidance for patients and clinicians in choosing between BST and radical cystectomy. The CISTO study will provide an evidence-based approach to identifying the right treatment for the right patient at the right time in the challenging clinical setting of recurrent high-grade NMIBC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03933826. Registered on May 1, 2019.

Determining clinical perspectives and strategies for improving enrollment of minoritized communities in prostate cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Black men and other minoritized populations have represented 4-5% or less of participants in most practice-informing clinical trials. This study sought to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of clinicians around equity and inclusion in prostate cancer clinical trial initiatives in the United States. METHODS: An anonymous, web-based questionnaire was administered via REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) with questions focused on inclusivity of minoritized populations with respect to race and ethnicity in prostate cancer clinical trials research. The survey link was distributed across the United States via several professional organizations, prostate cancer groups, and social media. Responses were analyzed both quantitatively (descriptive statistics) and qualitatively (thematic analysis). RESULTS: Overall, 131 respondents completed the survey (70% self-identified as White, 17% as Asian, and 6% as Black). Most respondents practiced in an urban setting (89%). Of those who engaged in outreach with minoritized communities during the trial design process, 69% observed improved enrollment of minoritized populations. However, 18% of respondents noted that outreach alone does not overcome existing structural barriers to participation in clinical trials. Thematic analysis identified four key areas to address for improving equity: structural, health system, trial-/study-specific, and relationship-/engagement-related factors. CONCLUSION: Study participants demonstrated a knowledge of the importance of improving equity in prostate cancer clinical trials research. Designing trials that reduce issues associated with access and improving community outreach were emphasized as key focus areas for reducing health disparities in prostate cancer clinical trials research.

Inequities in Definitive Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer Among Those With Clinically Significant Mental Health Disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with mental health disorders are at risk for receiving inequitable cancer treatment, likely resulting from various structural, social, and health-related factors. This study aims to assess the relationship between mental health disorders and the use of definitive treatment in a population-based cohort of those with localized, clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study analysis in SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare (2004-2015). History of a mental health disorder was defined as presence of specific ICD (International Classification of Diseases)-9 or ICD-10 diagnostic codes in the 2 years preceding cancer diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ2 testing. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between mental health disorders and definitive treatment utilization (defined as surgery or radiation). RESULTS: Of 101,042 individuals with prostate cancer, 7,945 (7.8%) had a diagnosis of a mental health disorder. They were more likely to be unpartnered, have a lower socioeconomic status, and less likely to receive definitive treatment (61.8% vs 68.2%, P < .001). Definitive treatment rates were >66%, 62.8%, 60.3%, 58.2%, 54.3%, and 48.1% for post-traumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder, and schizophrenia, respectively. After adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, marital status and socioeconomic status, history of a mental health disorder was associated with decreased odds of receiving definitive treatment (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with mental health disorders and prostate cancer represent a vulnerable population; careful attention to clinical and social needs is required to support appropriate use of beneficial treatments.

A mixed method approach to understanding the impact of COVID-19 on patients with or at risk for aortic dissection.

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-threatening rare disease that occurs as a spontaneous tear in the wall of the aorta. Survivors of AD go on to have a chronic disease process that requires lifelong follow-up and management. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems and impacted practice in the United States, the effects of these impacts on people living with or at risk for AD is not well understood. This mixed methods project examined the experiences of people in the AD community during the COVID-19 pandemic between March and October 2020. Results reveal that the AD community lacked clear guidance on the role aortic health status plays in COVID-19 risk and experienced significant disruptions in aortic healthcare. At the same time, the new expansion in access to medical care with telehealth conferred unforeseen benefits in the form of reduced barriers for access to specialized aortic health care.

Lived experiences of people with or at risk for aortic dissection: A qualitative assessment.

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-changing event that is often accompanied by a loss of normal quality of life. Survivors of AD go on to have a chronic disease that requires lifestyle modification, medical management, and surgical repair of the aorta. Clinical care includes multiple disciplines, health care settings, and often different geographic locations. This qualitative assessment examined the experiences of people with and at risk for AD. The following four themes emerged: "unnecessary drama" at diagnosis, unmet needs for information and support, the burden of self-advocacy and care coordination, and living with unaddressed mental health impacts. Our findings inform recommendations to advance patient-centered care delivery for individuals with and at risk for AD, improving communication of timely and relevant information, and an approach to care that acknowledges the whole person in clinical decision making.

The Aortic Dissection Collaborative: Methods for building capacity for patient-centered outcomes research in the aortic dissection community.

Understanding what matters most to patients can help guide research in a direction that is best situated to provide evidence that is responsive to their core concerns. This can better inform the treatment decision-making process for patients and their physicians. The Aortic Dissection (AD) Collaborative built a collaborative AD research infrastructure involving patients and other stakeholders to facilitate patient-centered outcomes research training, support, and networking among those affected by AD. Two surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and October 2020 to gather information from people with and at risk for AD and their family members to better understand their experiences and needs. Discussion of survey and interview results were then articulated as seven key topics for future research to meet the needs of the AD community. Working groups were assembled to address each of the key topics. The groups conducted landscape reviews that were focused on providing guidance for future research that directly addresses the needs identified by the AD community. Recommendations for future research generated by the working groups were compiled by the Aortic Dissection Collaborative. From these recommendations, the Aortic Dissection Collaborative advisors and stakeholders identified high-priority research questions. The research questions form the basis for a third survey, disseminated to the Virtual Research Network between November 2021 and February 2022. Final analysis of the survey will identify top ranked research questions and assess willingness to participate. These results will inform the development of future patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research proposals.

Patient and public involvement in the design and conduct of a large, pragmatic observational trial to investigate recurrent, high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered approaches to research design are particularly important for diseases with complex treatment decision-making, such as recurrent, high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The objective of this article is to describe patient and public involvement (PPI) in designing a large, pragmatic observational trial and to articulate barriers, challenges, and lessons learned for future design. METHODS: Through multistakeholder involvement, a large, pragmatic observational trial was designed to investigate the outcomes of high-risk, recurrent NMIBC, and it was titled Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO). CISTO's design used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 reporting checklist for PPI and built on prior engagement infrastructure in partnership with the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network. RESULTS: CISTO's PPI began with research prioritization to identify the highest priority questions facing patients with NMIBC. A pragmatic observational study design was selected and refined through stakeholder input. PPI included patients and caregivers organized into an advocate advisory board and clinicians, researchers, payers, and industry representatives organized into an external advisory board. An engagement plan was created to define the stages of PPI and the level and nature of the involvement of each group. PPI was measured quantitatively and qualitatively through evaluation surveys and iterative feedback from board members, with changes made for continuous improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Through intentional PPI, CISTO aims to produce pragmatic and generalizable results that will allow patients to make informed decisions for recurrent, high-risk NMIBC based on their personal experiences. LAY SUMMARY: Involving patients and other stakeholders in research ensures that it reflects the outcomes that matter most to them. This is especially important when research focuses on conditions in which patients face difficult decisions about treatment options. This article describes the key role that stakeholders played in shaping the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO) study. It compares treatments for recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer and describes how stakeholders were engaged to design and develop the study and the practices that supported their involvement.

"Help me figure this out": Qualitative explorations of patient experiences with cancer pathology reports.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with a new cancer diagnosis, the pathology report is a critical tool to support diagnosis and decision-making, yet they are designed for providers, not patients. We sought to qualitatively explore patients' experiences receiving and interpreting pathology reports for breast and colorectal cancers. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups with patients (n = 23) who had received diagnostic or surgical pathology reports for breast cancer, colorectal cancer or polypectomy. Focus groups discussed patients' experiences with pathology reports and recommendations for improving the patient-centeredness of report design. Focus groups were transcribed and thematic analysis was used to explore patient perspectives. RESULTS: Participants described experiences with pathology reports that were fraught with confusion and variability. Three central themes were identified related to how 1) the experience receiving the pathology report, 2) the pathology report language, and 3) the format of pathology reports all influence patient understanding and ability to engage in treatment decision-making. CONCLUSION: Due to their complex medical language and challenging framing, traditional pathology reports can contribute to the confusion and uncertainty patients experience as they navigate a new cancer diagnosis.

Improving the impact of clinical documentation through patient-driven co-design: experiences with cancer pathology reports.

OBJECTIVE: With the unprecedented rise of patient access to clinical documentation through electronic health records, there is a need for health systems to understand best practices for redesigning clinical documentation to support patient needs. This study used an experience-based co-design approach to inform the redesign of cancer pathology reports to improve their patient-centeredness and impact on patient engagement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple methods for data collection and stakeholder engagement were used, including Delphi prioritisation with breast and colorectal cancer experts (n=78) and focus groups with patients with cancer (n=23) in the Seattle area. Iterative rounds of consensus generation and reflection were used to elicit themes and design recommendations for the development of patient-centred pathology reports on cancer care. RESULTS: Although each cancer type had nuanced elements to consider, common design requirements emerged around two key themes: (1) clinical documentation language should be framed in a way that informs and engages patients, and (2) clinical documentation format should be leveraged to enhance readability and information flow. Study activities illuminated detailed recommendations to improve the patient-centeredness of pathology reports based on patients' and clinicians' lived experience. DISCUSSION: The design requirements that emerged from this study provide a framework that can guide the rapid development of patient-centred pathology reports for all cancer types. Even further, health systems can replicate these methods to guide experience-based co-design of clinical documentation for contexts beyond cancer care. CONCLUSION: This work offers practice-based learnings that can more effectively guide health systems in their clinical documentation redesign efforts.