Negotiating Lay and Clinical Issues: Implementing a Lay Navigation Program in Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer face daunting coordination problems at a vulnerable time. Lay navigation programs offer 1 approach to address these problems, but how to best implement these programs presents challenges. We sought to describe those implementation challenges at 1 academic cancer center to inform future efforts. METHODS: We performed a mixed methods study using standard implementation outcomes 1 year after program initiation. Quantitative data from the electronic medical record and qualitative data from in-depth interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic observations were included in analyses. The study took place at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center across 12 tumor-specific clinics. RESULTS: Supportive care concerns, scheduling, and clinical-related issues were the most frequent issues navigators encountered. Effective navigation required continuous, time-consuming, invisible work, including building and maintaining a broad knowledge base of resources and health system processes, as well as cultivating relationships with diverse and changing clinical teams. The acceptability and appropriateness of lay navigator activities were mixed among clinic and social work staff, related to negotiating lines between clinical and nonclinical care. CONCLUSION: After 1 year of implementation, lay navigators still found it difficult to interpret and prioritize complex patient needs in a way that all clinical staff found appropriate. Negotiating these issues has made it difficult to develop the strong relationships with clinical teams that are needed for an integrated approach to patient care. To successfully coordinate patient care, it seems that lay navigation programs should be integrated with clinical teams to provide more seamless patient care.

Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 Score Does Not Predict for Adverse Pathologic Features at Radical Prostatectomy or for Progression-free Survival in Clinically Localized, Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether preoperative urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) scores predict for adverse pathologic features (APFs) or progression-free survival (PFS) in men with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred nine men with intermediate- (n = 52) or high-risk (n = 57) PCa who underwent RP were retrospectively identified. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association of PCA3 score with various APFs (eg, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, etc.). Among 78 men with ≥1 year of follow-up, the association between PCA3 score and PFS was assessed using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: At RP, 52% of patients had at least 1 APF, and with median follow-up of 2.3 years, overall 3-year PFS was 70%. PCA3 was not a significant predictor of any APF on multivariate analysis (MVA), whereas canonical predictors (eg, biopsy Gleason score and initial prostate-specific antigen) remained predictive of various APFs. No significant predictors for PFS were found on MVA, although certain canonical predictors (eg, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group) were significant predictors of PFS on univariate analysis (UVA). PCA3 score was not a significant predictor of PFS on either UVA or MVA. CONCLUSION: Unlike in lower risk cohorts, increasing PCA3 score was not associated with any APF in this higher risk cohort, despite enrichment for APFs, nor was it associated with PFS. Notably, multiple known preoperative predictors for APFs were significant on MVA, and multiple predictors were associated with PFS on UVA. Therefore, PCA3 may not be a useful adjunct predictive marker in men with intermediate- or high-risk PCa.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy monotherapy without androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Outcomes using high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy monotherapy (without androgen deprivation therapy or external beam radiation therapy) for National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined intermediate-risk (IR) patients are limited. We report our long-term data using HDR monotherapy for this patient population. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One-hundred ninety IR prostate cancer patients were treated 1996-2013 with HDR monotherapy. Biochemical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure was per the Phoenix definition. Acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were graded according to Common Toxicity Criteria of Adverse Events, version 4. Kaplan-Meier (KM) biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), cause-specific survival, and overall survival rates were calculated. Univariate analyses were performed to determine relationships with BPFS. The median patient age was 66 years (43-90), and the median initial PSA was 7.4 ng/mL. The Gleason score was ≤6 in 26%, 3 + 4 in 62%, and 4 + 3 in 12%. The median treatment BED1.5 was 254 Gy; 83% of patients were treated with a dose of 7.25 Gy × six fractions delivered in two separate implants. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 6.2 years, KM BPFS at 5/8 years was 97%/90%, cause-specific survival at 8 years was 100%, and overall survival at 5/8 years was 93%/88%. Late genitourinary toxicities were 36.3% Grade 1, 18.9% Grade 2, and 3.7% Grade 3. Late gastrointestinal toxicities were 6.3% Grade 1, 1.1% Grade 2, and no Grade ≥3. Of the patients with no sexual dysfunction before treatment, 68% maintained potency. Age, initial PSA, T stage, Gleason score, prostate volume, and percent positive cores did not correlate with BPFS. Stratifying by favorable vs. unfavorable IR groups did not affect BPFS. CONCLUSIONS: HDR brachytherapy monotherapy represents a safe and highly effective treatment for IR prostate cancer patients with long-term follow-up.