Qualitative study on decision-making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To explore and identify factors that influence physicians' decisions while monitoring patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify physicians treating prostate cancer from diverse clinical backgrounds and geographic areas across the USA. We conducted 24 in-depth interviews from July to December 2015, until thematic saturation was reached. The Applied Thematic Analysis framework was used to guide data collection and analysis. Interview transcripts were reviewed and coded independently by two researchers. Matrix analysis and NVivo software were used for organization and further analysis. RESULTS: Eight key themes emerged to explain variation in AS monitoring: (i) physician comfort with AS; (ii) protocol selection; (iii) beliefs about the utility and quality of testing; (iv) years of experience and exposure to AS during training; (v) concerns about inflicting 'harm'; (vi) patient characteristics; (vii) patient preferences; and (viii) financial incentives. CONCLUSION: These qualitative data reveal which factors influence physicians who manage patients on AS. There is tension between providing standardized care while also considering individual patients' needs and health status. Additional education on AS is needed during urology training and continuing medical education. Future research is needed to empirically understand whether any specific protocol is superior to tailored, individualized care.

How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: While major prostate cancer active surveillance programs recommend repeat testing such as prostate specific antigen and prostate biopsy, to our knowledge compliance with such testing is unknown. We determined whether men in the community receive the same intensity of active surveillance testing as in prospective active surveillance protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of men 66 years old or older in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare database. These men were diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2001 to 2009, did not receive curative therapy in the year after diagnosis and underwent 1 or more post-diagnosis prostate biopsies. We used multivariable adjusted Poisson regression to determine the association of the frequency of active surveillance testing with patient demographics and clinical features. In 1,349 men with 5 years of followup we determined the proportion who underwent testing as intense as that recommended by the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and PRIAS (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance) programs, including 14 or more PSA tests and 2 or more biopsies, and The Johns Hopkins program, including 10 or more prostate specific antigen tests and 4 or more biopsies. RESULTS: Among 5,192 patients undergoing active surveillance greater than 80% had 1 or more prostate specific antigen tests per year but fewer than 13% underwent biopsy beyond the first 2 years. Magnetic resonance imaging was rarely done during the study period. On multivariable analysis recent diagnosis and higher income were associated with a higher frequency of surveillance biopsy while older age and greater comorbidity were associated with fewer biopsies. African American men underwent fewer prostate specific antigen tests but a similar number of biopsies. During 5 years of active surveillance only 11.1% and 5.0% of patients met the testing standards of the Sunnybrook/PRIAS and The Johns Hopkins programs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the community few elderly men receive the intensity of active surveillance testing recommended in major prospective active surveillance programs.

Quantifying downstream impact of inappropriate staging imaging in a cohort of veterans with low- and intermediate-risk incident prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: According to current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, routine imagining for staging low-risk prostate cancer is not recommended. However, extensive overuse of guideline-discordant imaging continues to persist. Incidental findings are common on imaging and little is known about the optimal management. Rates of incidental findings vs. false positive diagnosis from inappropriate imaging are poorly understood and have yet to be quantified for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of positive radiologic findings in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer during initial staging at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients' medical records from the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System for diagnosis from 2005 to 2015. We reviewed each individual's prebiopsy prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, and clinical stage. We also determined if imaging obtained yielded a false positive, incidental finding, or if metastatic disease occurred within the 6 months following initial diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 414 men, who were classified as low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer and underwent inappropriate staging imaging of 4,306 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Of these 414 men, 178 (43%) had additional follow-up imaging for positive findings. We calculated an incidental finding rate of 10% and a false positive rate of 38% for patients. Five (1%) patients had metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Despite guideline recommendations, imaging overuse remains an issue for low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. The false positive rate found in this analysis is alarmingly high at 38%. This use of scans is burdensome to the healthcare system and patient. This study highlights the frequency of inappropriate imaging and its negative consequences.

Informational needs during active surveillance for prostate cancer: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the informational needs during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer from the perspectives of patients and providers. METHODS: We conducted seven focus groups with 37 AS patients in two urban clinical settings, and 24 semi-structured interviews with a national sample of providers. Transcripts were analyzed using applied thematic analysis, and themes were organized using descriptive matrix analyses. RESULTS: We identified six themes related to informational needs during AS: 1) more information on prostate cancer (biopsy features, prognosis), 2) more information on active surveillance (difference from watchful waiting, testing protocol), 3) more information on alternative management options (complementary medicine, lifestyle modification), 4) greater variety of resources (multiple formats, targeting different audiences), 5) more social support and interaction, and 6) verified integrity of information (trusted, multidisciplinary and secure). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers described numerous drawbacks to existing prostate cancer resources and a variety of unmet needs including information on prognosis, AS testing protocols, and lifestyle modification. They also expressed a need for different types of resources, including interaction and unbiased information. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results are useful to inform the design of future resources for men undergoing AS.

Health state utilities among contemporary prostate cancer patients on active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is the most rapidly expanding management option for favorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Early studies suggested substantial decrements in utility (quality of life weights) from disease-related anxiety. Our objective was to determine utilities for contemporary AS patients using different instruments. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of PubMed, PMC and OVID for utility measurements in modern AS patients. We then examined utilities among 37 men on AS participating in focus groups between 2015-2016 using the generic EurQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS), a PCa-specific instrument. RESULTS: The systematic review found previous studies with utilities for PCa treatment and historical watchful waiting populations, but none specifically in contemporary AS. In our AS population, the mean EQ-5D-3L score was 0.90±0.16 (median, 1.00; range, 0.21-1.00) and PORPUS was 0.98±0.03 (median, 0.99; range, 0.84-1.00). The Spearman correlation between the EQ-5D-3L and PORPUS was 0.87 (P<0.0001), and 38% of patients had a difference >0.1 between instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Most contemporary AS patients had high utility scores suggesting that they perceive themselves in good health without a major decrement in quality of life from the disease. However, some patients had substantial differences in utility measured with generic versus disease-specific instruments. Further study is warranted into the optimal instrument for utility assessment in contemporary AS patients.

Uptake of Active Surveillance for Very-Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in Sweden.

IMPORTANCE: Active surveillance is an important option to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment, but it remains underutilized in many countries. Models from the United States show that greater use of active surveillance is important for prostate cancer screening to be cost-effective. OBJECTIVES: To perform an up-to-date, nationwide, population-based study on use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer in Sweden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden from 2009 through 2014. The NPCR has data on 98% of prostate cancers diagnosed in Sweden and has comprehensive linkages to other nationwide databases. Overall, 32 518 men with a median age of 67 years were diagnosed with favorable-risk prostate cancer, including 4693, 15 403, and 17 115 men with very-low-risk (subset of the low-risk group) (clinical stage, T1c; Gleason score, ≤6; prostate-specific antigen [PSA], <10 ng/mL; PSA density <0.15 ng/mL/cm3; and <8-mm total cancer length in ≤4 positive biopsy cores), low-risk (including all men in the very-low-risk group) (T1-T2; Gleason score, ≤6; and PSA, <10 ng/mL), and intermediate-risk disease (T1-T2 with Gleason score, 7 and/or PSA, 10-20 ng/mL). EXPOSURES: Diagnosis with favorable-risk prostate cancer. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Utilization of active surveillance. RESULTS: The use of active surveillance increased in men of all ages from 57% (380 of 665) to 91% (939 of 1027) for very-low-risk prostate cancer and from 40% (1159 of 2895) to 74% (1951 of 2644) for low-risk prostate cancer, with the strongest increase occurring from 2011 onward. Among men aged 50 to 59 years, 88% (211 of 240) with very-low-risk and 68% (351 of 518) with low-risk disease chose active surveillance in 2014. Use of active surveillance for intermediate-risk disease remained lower, 19% (561 of 3030) in 2014. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Active surveillance has become the dominant management for low-risk prostate cancer among men in Sweden, with the highest rates yet reported and almost complete uptake for very-low-risk cancer. These data should serve as a benchmark to compare the use of active surveillance for favorable-risk disease around the world.

Twitter Activity Associated With U.S. News and World Report Reputation Scores for Urology Departments.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the association between US urology department Twitter presence and U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) reputation scores, to examine the content, informational value, and intended audience of these platforms, and to identify objectives for Twitter use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified Twitter accounts for urology departments scored in the 2016-2017 USNWR. Correlation coefficients were calculated between Twitter metrics (number of followers, following, tweets, and Klout influence scores) with USNWR reputation scores. We also performed a detailed content analysis of urology department tweets during a 6-month period to characterize the content. Finally, we distributed a survey to the urology department accounts via Twitter, inquiring who administers the content, and their objectives for Twitter use. RESULTS: Among 42 scored urology departments with Twitter accounts, the median number of followers, following, and tweets were 337, 193, and 115, respectively. All of these Twitter metrics had a statistically significant positive correlation with reputation scores (P <.05). Content analyses revealed that most tweets were about conferences, education, and publications, targeting the general public or urologic community. Survey results revealed that the primary reason for twitter use among urology departments was visibility and reputation, and urologists are considered the most important target audience. CONCLUSION: There is statistically significant correlation between Twitter activity and USNWR reputation scores for urology departments. Our results suggest that Twitter provides a novel mechanism for urology departments to communicate about academic and educational topics, and social media engagement can enhance reputation.

Risk of Small Bowel Obstruction After Robot-Assisted vs Open Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Whereas open radical prostatectomy is performed extraperitoneally, minimally invasive radical prostatectomy is typically performed within the peritoneal cavity. Our objective was to determine whether minimally invasive radical prostatectomy is associated with an increased risk of small bowel obstruction compared with open radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, we identified 14,147 men found to have prostate cancer from 2000 to 2008 treated by open (n = 10,954) or minimally invasive (n = 3193) radical prostatectomy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the impact of surgical approach on the diagnosis of small bowel obstruction, as well as the need for lysis of adhesions and exploratory laparotomy. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 45 and 76 months, respectively, the cumulative incidence of small bowel obstruction was 3.7% for minimally invasive and 5.3% for open radical prostatectomy (p = 0.0005). Lysis of adhesions occurred in 1.1% of minimally invasive and 2.0% of open prostatectomy patients (p = 0.0003). On multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference between minimally invasive and open prostatectomy with respect to small bowel obstruction (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.90, 1.52, p = 0.25) or lysis of adhesions (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.50, 1.40, p = 0.57). Limitations of the study include the retrospective design and use of administrative claims data. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to open radical prostatectomy, minimally invasive radical prostatectomy is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative small bowel obstruction and lysis of adhesions.

A qualitative study to understand guideline-discordant use of imaging to stage incident prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of veterans with low-risk prostate cancer receive guideline-discordant imaging. Our objective was to identify and describe (1) physician knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to the use of imaging to stage prostate cancer, (2) patient attitudes and behaviors related to use of imaging, and (3) to compare responses across three VA medical centers (VAMCs). METHODS: A qualitative approach was used to explore patient and provider knowledge and behaviors relating to the use of imaging. We conducted 39 semi-structured interviews total-including 22 interviews with patients with newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and 17 interviews with physicians caring for them-between September 2014 and July 2015 at three VAMCs representing a spectrum of inappropriate imaging rates. After core theoretical concepts were identified, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was selected to explore linkages between themes within the dataset and existing domains within the framework. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then coded and analyzed using Nvivo software. RESULTS: Themes from patient interviews were categorized within four TDF domains. Patients reported little interest in staging as compared to disease treatment (goals), and many could not remember if they had imaging at all (knowledge). Patients tended to trust their doctor to make decisions about appropriate tests (beliefs about capabilities). Some patients expressed a minor concern for radiation exposure, but anxiety about cancer outcomes outweighed these fears (emotion). Themes from physician interviews were categorized within five TDF domains. Most physicians self-reported that they know and trust imaging guidelines (knowledge) yet some were still likely to follow their own intuition, whether due to clinical suspicion or years of experience (beliefs about capabilities). Additionally, physicians reported that medico-legal concerns, fear of missing associated diagnoses (beliefs about consequences), influence from colleagues who image frequently (social influences), and the facility where they practice influences rates of imaging (environmental context). CONCLUSIONS: Interviews with patients and physicians suggest that physicians are the primary (and in some cases only) decision-makers regarding staging imaging for prostate cancer. This finding suggests a physician-targeted intervention may be the most effective strategy to improve guideline-concordant prostate cancer imaging.