Survival by first-line therapy and prognostic group among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a heterogeneous disease with prognoses varying from months to years at time of castration-resistant diagnosis. Optimal first-line therapy for those with different prognoses is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of men in a national healthcare delivery system receiving first-line therapy for mCRPC (abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or ketoconazole) from 2010 to 2017, with follow-up through 2019. Using commonly drawn prognostic labs at start of mCRPC therapy (hemoglobin, albumin, and alkaline phosphatase), we categorized men into favorable, intermediate, or poor prognostic groups depending on whether they had none, one to two, or all three laboratory values worse than designated laboratory cutoffs. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to examine prostate specific antigen (PSA) progression-free and overall survival (OS) according to prognostic group and first-line therapy, and multivariable cox regression to determine variables associated with survival outcomes. RESULTS: Among 4135 patients, median PSA progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.6-7.3), and median OS 18.8 months (95% CI 18.0-19.6), ranging from 5.7 months (95% CI 4.8-7.0) in the poor prognosis group to 31.3 months (95% CI 29.7-32.9) in the favorable group. OS was similar regardless of initial treatment received for favorable and intermediate groups, but worse for those in the poor prognostic group who received ketoconazole (adjusted hazard ratio 2.07, 95% CI 1.2-3.6). PSA PFS was worse for those who received ketoconazole compared to abiraterone across all prognostic groups (favorable HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.31; intermediate HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.41-2.25; poor HR 8.01, 95% CI 2.93-21.9). CONCLUSION: Commonly drawn labs at mCRPC treatment start may aid in predicting survival and response to therapies, potentially informing discussions with care teams. First-line treatment selection impacts disease progression for all men with mCRPC regardless of prognostic group, but impacted OS only for men with poor prognosis at treatment start.

Social Determinants of Health and the Availability of Cancer Clinical Trials in the United States.

This cohort study investigates whether county-level social determinants of health are associated with cancer clinical trial availability in the United States.

Unpacking overuse of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer to inform de-implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. METHODS: Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. RESULTS: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity-Social, Motivation-Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680.

National Long-term Survival Estimates After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine survival and disease control outcomes, including metastasis-related survival outcomes, in a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy from 2005 to 2015 with follow-up through 2019 in the Veterans Health Administration. We defined biochemical recurrence (BCR) as a prostate-specific antigen ≥0.2 ng/mL. We used a validated natural language processing encoded dataset to identify incident metastatic prostate cancer. We estimated overall survival from time of surgery, time of BCR, and time of first metastasis using the Kaplan-Meier method. We then estimated time from surgery to BCR, BCR to metastatic disease, and prostate-cancer-specific survival from various time points using cumulative incidence considering competing risk of death. RESULTS: Of 21,992 men undergoing radical prostatectomy, we identified 5951 (27%) who developed BCR. Of men with BCR, 677 (11%) developed metastases. We estimated the 10-year cumulative incidence of BCR and metastases after BCR were 28% and 20%, respectively. Median overall survival after BCR was 14years, with 10-year survival of 70%. From the time of metastasis, median overall survival approached 7years, with 10-year overall survival of 34%. Prostate cancer-specific survival for the entire cohort at 10years was 94%. CONCLUSION: In this large contemporary national cohort, survival for men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer is longer than historical cohorts. When counseling patients and designing clinical studies, these updated estimates may serve as more reliable reflections of current outcomes.

Out-of-Pocket Costs for Prostate Cancer Medications Substantially Vary by Medicare Part D Plan: An Online Tool Presents an Opportunity to Mitigate Financial Toxicity.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced prostate cancer are frequently prescribed enzalutamide or abiraterone, often requiring high out-of-pocket costs. Many of these patients are insured through Medicare and have an option to select among 54 different Part D drug plans. However, less than 30% of patients report comparing costs before selecting a plan. An online Part D plan navigator is publicly available and allows patients to compare estimated out-of-pocket prescriptions costs. In this study, we examine the variability of out-of-pocket costs based on available Part D drug plans for patients with prostate cancer and demonstrate how an online tool could save patients thousands of dollars. METHODS: We identified drug plans available for selection in 2023 using the online Medicare Part D Plan Finder. We sampled plan options for 12 different zip codes within the United States. A university-sponsored specialty cancer pharmacy and online mail-order pharmacy were included for comparison. We identified out-of-pocket costs for enzalutamide and abiraterone based on all Part D plans available for selection. RESULTS: On average, 24 Part D drug plans were available for each zip code. Median annual out-of-pocket costs were $11,626 for enzalutamide and $9,275 for abiraterone. The range of annual out-of-pocket costs were $9,854 to $13,061 for enzalutamide and $1,379 to $13,274 for abiraterone. Within certain zip codes, potential out-of-pocket cost savings were $2,512 for enzalutamide and $9,321 for abiraterone. Median difference of out-of-pocket cost between enzalutamide and abiraterone was $8,758. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-pocket costs vary considerably across Part D drug plans. The Medicare Part D Plan Finder is a simple and effective tool to identify affordable drug plans. Guidance on plan selection could save patients thousands of dollars and help mitigate the financial toxicity of treatment. Comprehensive cancer centers could include plan navigators as an essential component of treatment.

Outcomes after definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer in a national health care delivery system.

PURPOSE: Accurate information regarding real-world outcomes after contemporary radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer is important for shared decision-making. Clinically relevant end points at 10 years among men treated within a national health care delivery system were examined. METHODS: National administrative, cancer registry, and electronic health record data were used for patients undergoing definitive radiation therapy with or without concurrent androgen deprivation therapy within the Veterans Health Administration from 2005 to 2015. National Death Index data were used through 2019 for overall and prostate cancer-specific survival and identified date of incident metastatic prostate cancer using a validated natural language processing algorithm. Metastasis-free, prostate cancer-specific, and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier methods were estimated. RESULTS: Among 41,735 men treated with definitive radiation therapy, the median age at diagnosis was 65 years and median follow-up was 8.7 years. Most had intermediate (42%) and high-risk (33%) disease, with 40% receiving androgen deprivation therapy as part of initial therapy. Unadjusted 10-year metastasis-free survival was 96%, 92%, and 80% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. Similarly, unadjusted 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival was 98%, 97%, and 90% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. The unadjusted overall survival was lower across increasing disease risk categories at 77%, 71%, and 62% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide population-based 10-year benchmarks for clinically relevant end points, including metastasis-free survival, among patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy using contemporary techniques. The survival rates for high-risk disease in particular suggest that outcomes have recently improved.

Exploring implementation outcomes in the clinical trial context: a qualitative study of physician trial stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer clinical trials can be considered evidence-based interventions with substantial benefits, but suffer from poor implementation leading to low enrollment and frequent failure. Applying implementation science approaches such as outcomes frameworks to the trial context could aid in contextualizing and evaluating trial improvement strategies. However, the acceptability and appropriateness of these adapted outcomes to trial stakeholders are unclear. For these reasons, we interviewed cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders to explore how they perceive and address clinical trial implementation outcomes. METHODS: We purposively selected 15 cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders from our institution representing different specialties, trial roles, and trial sponsor types. We performed semi-structured interviews to explore a previous adaptation of Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework to the clinical trial context. Emergent themes from each outcome were developed. RESULTS: The implementation outcomes were well understood and applicable (i.e., appropriate and acceptable) to clinical trial stakeholders. We describe cancer clinical trial physician stakeholder understanding of these outcomes and current application of these concepts. Trial feasibility and implementation cost were felt to be most critical to trial design and implementation. Trial penetration was most difficult to measure, primarily due to eligible patient identification. In general, we found that formal methods for trial improvement and trial implementation evaluation were poorly developed. Cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders referred to some design and implementation techniques used to improve trials, but these were infrequently formally evaluated or theory-based. CONCLUSION: Implementation outcomes adapted to the trial context were acceptable and appropriate to cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders. Use of these outcomes could facilitate the evaluation and design of clinical trial improvement interventions. Additionally, these outcomes highlight potential areas for the development of new tools, for example informatics solutions, to improve the evaluation and implementation of clinical trials.

Differential adoption of castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment across facilities in a national healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, abiraterone and enzalutamide have largely replaced ketoconazole as oral treatments for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We investigated the differential adoption of abiraterone and enzalutamide across facilities in a national healthcare system to understand the impact a facility has on the receipt of these novel therapies. METHODS: Using data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified a cohort of men with CRPC who received the most common first-line therapies: abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or ketoconazole between 2010 and 2017. We described variability in the adoption of abiraterone and enzalutamide across facilities by time period (2010-2013 or 2014-2017). We categorized facilities depending on the timing of adoption of abiraterone and enzalutamide relative to other facilities and described facility characteristics associated with early and late adoption. RESULTS: We identified 4998 men treated with ketoconazole, docetaxel, abiraterone, or enzalutamide as first-line CRPC therapy between 2010 and 2017 at 125 national facilities. When limiting the cohort to oral therapies, most patients treated earlier in the study period (2010-2013) received ketoconazole. A dramatic shift was seen by the second half of the study period (2014-2017) with most men treated with first-line abiraterone (61%). Despite this shift and a new standard of care, some facilities persisted in the widespread use of ketoconazole in the later period, so-called late adopting facilities. After multivariable adjustment, patients who received treatment at a late adopting facility were more likely receiving care at a lower complexity, rural facility, with less urology and hematology/oncology workforce (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Many facilities persisted in their use of ketoconazole as first-line CRPC therapy, even when other facilities had adopted the new standard of care abiraterone and enzalutamide. Further work is needed to identify the effect of this late adoption on outcomes important to patients.

Evaluation of Social Determinants of Health and Prostate Cancer Outcomes Among Black and White Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: As the field of medicine strives for equity in care, research showing the association of social determinants of health (SDOH) with poorer health care outcomes is needed to better inform quality improvement strategies. Objective: To evaluate the association of SDOH with prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS) among Black and White patients with prostate cancer. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search was performed of prostate cancer comparative effectiveness research from January 1, 1960, to June 5, 2020. Study Selection: Two authors independently selected studies conducted among patients within the United States and performed comparative outcome analysis between Black and White patients. Studies were required to report time-to-event outcomes. A total of 251 studies were identified for review. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Three authors independently screened and extracted data. End point meta-analyses were performed using both fixed-effects and random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed, and 2 authors independently reviewed all steps. All conflicts were resolved by consensus. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was PCSM, and the secondary outcome was OS. With the US Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2030 initiative, an SDOH scoring system was incorporated to evaluate the association of SDOH with the predefined end points. The covariables included in the scoring system were age, comorbidities, insurance status, income status, extent of disease, geography, standardized treatment, and equitable and harmonized insurance benefits. The scoring system was discretized into 3 categories: high (≥10 points), intermediate (5-9 points), and low (<5 points). Results: The 47 studies identified comprised 1 019 908 patients (176 028 Black men and 843 880 White men; median age, 66.4 years [IQR, 64.8-69.0 years]). The median follow-up was 66.0 months (IQR, 41.5-91.4 months). Pooled estimates found no statistically significant difference in PCSM for Black patients compared with White patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.99-1.19]; P = .08); results were similar for OS (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.95-1.07]; P = .68). There was a significant race-SDOH interaction for both PCSM (regression coefficient, -0.041 [95% CI, -0.059 to 0.023]; P < .001) and OS (meta-regression coefficient, -0.017 [95% CI, -0.033 to -0.002]; P = .03). In studies with minimal accounting for SDOH (<5-point score), Black patients had significantly higher PCSM compared with White patients (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.41; P < .001). In studies with greater accounting for SDOH variables (≥10-point score), PCSM was significantly lower among Black patients compared with White patients (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that there is a significant interaction between race and SDOH with respect to PCSM and OS among men with prostate cancer. Incorporating SDOH variables into data collection and analyses are vital to developing strategies for achieving equity.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer with refractory lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to enlarged prostates.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and significantly enlarged symptomatic prostates on active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is not well defined. We report our single-institution initial experience with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for LUTS in men with low-risk PCa being managed with AS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men on AS who underwent HoLEP between 2013 and 2019 were identified. Data regarding preoperative cancer workup, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), perioperative outcomes, and voiding parameters were analyzed. Postoperative surveillance for PCa including PSA nadir, prostate magnetic resonance imaging, prostate biopsy (PBx), and PSA at last follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty men met the inclusion criteria. Preoperative mean max flow 7.9 ml/s, median postvoid residual 101 cc, and mean transrectal ultrasound prostate size 99 cc. Patients had a median adjusted preoperative PSA of 8.5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.8-13.2) ng/ml. Mean resected tissue weight was 65.5 g with improved postoperative flow rate and significantly decreased residual. A total of 5/20 men had PCa in the specimen (all Gleason Grade Group 1). The median postoperative PSA nadir was 1.2 (IQR: 0.5-1.8) ng/ml at median of 5 months. At the last follow-up (median 18.5 months, IQR: 10.5-37.8), the median postoperative PSA was 1.4 (IQR: 0.63-2.48) ng/ml. Nine men underwent postoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with the identification of a new prostate imaging reporting and data system 5 lesion in one patient who underwent negative fusion biopsy. Five men underwent post-HoLEP PBx with progression in two patients, who both successfully underwent radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Men on AS for low-risk PCa can safely undergo HoLEP with significantly improved voiding parameters. Postoperative monitoring with PSA, mpMRI, and PBx can detect disease progression requiring definitive treatment. Further research is needed to optimize surveillance strategies and long-term cancer-specific outcomes.

Applying implementation frameworks to the clinical trial context.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials advance science, benefit society, and provide optimal care to individuals with some conditions, such as cancer. However, clinical trials often fail to reach their endpoints, and low participant enrollment remains a critical problem with trial conduct. In these ways, clinical trials can be considered beneficial evidence-based practices suffering from poor implementation. Prior approaches to improving trials have had difficulties with reproducibility and limited impact, perhaps due to the lack of an underlying trial improvement framework. For these reasons, we propose adapting implementation science frameworks to the clinical trial context to improve the implementation of clinical trials. MAIN TEXT: We adapted an outcomes framework (Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework) and a determinants framework (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) to the trial context. We linked these frameworks to ERIC-based improvement strategies and present an inferential process model for identifying and selecting trial improvement strategies based on the Implementation Research Logic Model. We describe example applications of the framework components to the trial context and present a worked example of our model applied to a trial with poor enrollment. We then consider the implications of this approach on improving existing trials, the design of future trials, and assessing trial improvement interventions. Additionally, we consider the use of implementation science in the clinical trial context, and how clinical trials can be "test cases" for implementation research. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials can be considered beneficial evidence-based interventions suffering from poor implementation. Adapting implementation science approaches to the clinical trial context can provide frameworks for contextual assessment, outcome measurement, targeted interventions, and a shared vocabulary for clinical trial improvement. Additionally, exploring implementation frameworks in the trial context can advance the science of implementation through both "test cases" and providing fertile ground for implementation intervention design and testing.

Envisioning clinical trials as complex interventions.

Clinical trials are critical components of modern health care and infrastructure. Trials benefit society through scientific advancement and individual patients through trial participation. In fact, billions of dollars are spent annually in support of these benefits. Despite the massive investments, clinical trials often fail to accomplish their primary aims and trial enrollment rates remain low. Prior efforts to improve trial conduct and enrollment have had limited success, perhaps due to oversimplification of the complex, multilevel nature of trials. For these reasons, the authors propose applying implementation science to the clinical trials context. In this commentary, the authors posit clinical trials as complex, multilevel evidence-based interventions with significant societal and individual benefits yet with persistent gaps in implementation. An application of implementation science concepts to the clinical trials context as means to build common vocabulary and establish a platform for applying implementation science and practice to improve clinical trial conduct is introduced. Applying implementation science to the clinical trials context can augment improvement efforts and build capacity for better and more efficient evidence-based care for all patients and trial stakeholders throughout the clinical trials enterprise.

Better Understanding the Timing Of Androgen Deprivation Trial Outcomes: Impacts of Prior Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The Timing Of Androgen Deprivation (TOAD) trial found an overall survival benefit for immediate vs delayed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-relapsed or noncurable prostate cancer. However, broad eligibility criteria allowed entry of a heterogeneous participant group, including those with prior ADT exposure, raising concerns about subsequent androgen sensitivity. For these reasons, we completed previously specified subgroup analyses to assess if prior ADT was associated with ADT timing efficacy after PSA relapse. METHODS: We examined TOAD trial patient-level data for participants with PSA relapse after local therapy. We performed Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival stratified by prior ADT and randomized treatment arm (immediate or delayed ADT). We compared group characteristics using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher exact tests. All hypothesis tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: We identified 261 patients with PSA relapse, 125 of whom received prior ADT. Patients with prior ADT had higher PSA at presentation (12.1 vs 9.0 ng/mL; P < .001), more cT3 disease (38.4% vs 25.0%; P = .007), and more likely received radiotherapy as local treatment (80.0% vs 47.8%; P < .001) but were otherwise similar to patients without prior ADT exposure. Within this prior ADT group, those who received immediate ADT (n = 56) had improved overall survival compared with those who received delayed ADT (n = 69; P = .02). This benefit was not observed in the group with no prior ADT (P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: The survival benefit demonstrated in the TOAD trial may be driven by patients who received ADT prior to trial entry. We provide possible explanations for this finding with implications for treatment of PSA-relapsed prostate cancer and future study planning.

The effect of day of discharge on hospital readmission after minimally invasive partial nephrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the association between postoperative discharge day after minimally invasive partial nephrectomy with 30-day readmission rates, and specifically compare postoperative day 1 to postoperative day 2 discharge. We hypothesized that discharge on earlier postoperative days would be associated with higher rates of readmission after partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for non-metastatic disease without chemo or radiation therapy from 2010-2014. Readmission rates were compared between postoperative discharge days. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze variables associated with 30-day readmission. RESULTS: A total of 19,300 patients undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy were included, comprising patients discharged on postoperative day 0 (POD0) (n = 601, 3%), POD1 (n = 2,999, 16%), POD2 (n = 6,866, 36%), POD3 (n = 4,568, 24%), POD4 (n = 2,068, 11%), and POD5 or later (n = 2,198, 11%). Rates of 30-day readmission were similar between POD0, POD1 and POD2 discharges (1.8%, 1.9%, 2.2%, respectively), but were higher for discharges on POD3 or later (POD3 3.0%, POD4 4.9%, POD5 or greater 5.5%). On multivariable analysis, odds of 30-day readmission were similar between POD0 (OR 0.83 [95%CI 0.45-1.55], p = 0.56) and POD1 (OR 0.84 [95%CI 0.62-1.15], p = 0.28) compared to discharge on POD2. CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged on POD2 are not readmitted any less frequently than patients discharged on POD0 or POD1. Implementing protocols with POD1 as the default discharge day after partial nephrectomy should be considered. Future studies designing and evaluating safe and acceptable implementation strategies for these protocols are necessary.

Preoperative MRI PI-RADS scores are associated with prostate cancer upstaging on surgical pathology.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores can help identify clinically significant prostate cancer and improve patient selection for prostate biopsies. However, the role of PI-RADS scores in patients already diagnosed with prostate cancer remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of PI-RADS scores with prostate cancer upstaging. Upstaging on final pathology harbors a higher risk for biochemical recurrence with important implications for additional treatments, morbidity, and mortality. METHODS: All patients from a single high-volume institution who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and radical prostatectomy between 2016 and 2020 were included in this retrospective analysis. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to investigate potential associations with upstaging events, defined by pT3, pT4, or N1 on final pathology. A logistic regression model was constructed for the prediction of upstaging events based on PI-RADS score, prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D), and biopsy Gleason grade groups. We built receiver operative characteristic (ROC) curves to measure the area under the curve of different predictive models. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-four patients were included in the final analysis. Upstaging events occurred in 137 (46.5%) of patients. On univariable analysis, patients who were upstaged on final pathology had significantly higher PI-RADS scores (odds ratio [OR] 2.34 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.64-3.40, p < 0.001) but similar PSA-D (OR 2.70 95% 0.94-8.43, p = 0.188) compared with patients who remained pT1 or pT2 on final pathology. On multivariable analysis, PI-RADS remained independently significantly associated with upstaging, suggesting it is an independent risk predictor for upstaging. Lymph node metastasis only occurred in patients with PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions (n = 15). Our model using PSA-D, biopsy Gleason grade, and PI-RADS had a predictive AUC of 0.69 for upstaging events, an improvement from 0.59 using biopsy Gleason grade alone. CONCLUSION: PI-RADS scores are independent predictors for upstaging events and may play an important role in forecasting biochemical recurrence and lymph node metastasis. Modern nomograms should be updated to include PI-RADS to predict lymph node metastases and the likelihood of biochemical recurrence more accurately.

Learning from the "tail end" of de-implementation: the case of chemical castration for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Men with prostate cancer are often treated with the suppression of testosterone through long-acting injectable drugs termed chemical castration or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In most cases, ADT is not an appropriate treatment for localized prostate cancer, indicating low-value care. Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Behavior Change Wheel's Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model (COM-B), we conducted a qualitative study to identify behavioral determinants of low-value ADT use to manage localized prostate cancer, and theory-based opportunities for de-implementation strategy development. METHODS: We used national cancer registry and administrative data from 2016 to 2017 to examine the variation in low-value ADT use across Veterans Health Administration facilities. Using purposive sampling, we selected high- and low-performing sites to conduct 20 urology provider interviews regarding low-value ADT. We coded transcripts into TDF domains and mapped content to the COM-B model to generate a conceptual framework for addressing low-value ADT practices. RESULTS: Our interview findings reflected provider perspectives on prescribing ADT as low-value localized prostate cancer treatment, including barriers and facilitators to de-implementing low-value ADT. We characterized providers as belonging in 1 of 3 categories with respect to low-value ADT use: 1) never prescribe 2); willing, under some circumstances, to prescribe: and 3) prescribe as an acceptable treatment option. Provider capability to prescribe low-value ADT depended on their knowledge of localized prostate cancer treatment options (knowledge) coupled with interpersonal skills to engage patients in educational discussion (skills). Provider opportunity to prescribe low-value ADT centered on the environmental resources to inform ADT decisions (e.g., multi-disciplinary review), perceived guideline availability, and social roles and influences regarding ADT practices, such as prior training. Provider motivation involved goals of ADT use, including patient preferences, beliefs in capabilities/professional confidence, and beliefs about the consequences of prescribing or not prescribing ADT. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the TDF domains and the COM-B model enabled us to conceptualize provider behavior with respect to low-value ADT use and clarify possible areas for intervention to effect de-implementation of low-value ADT prescribing in localized prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03579680.