Comparative Performance of Common Fecal Immunochemical Tests : A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, data to guide test selection are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance characteristics of 5 commonly used FITs, using colonoscopy as the reference standard. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03264898). SETTING: Three U.S. academic medical centers and affiliated endoscopy units. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 to 85 years undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Participants completed 5 different FITs before their colonoscopy, including 4 qualitative tests (Hemoccult ICT, Hemosure iFOB, OC-Light S FIT, QuickVue iFOB) and 1 quantitative test (OC-Auto FIT, which was run at the manufacturer's threshold for positivity of >100 ng/mL). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was test performance (sensitivity and specificity) for each of the 5 FITs for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN), defined as advanced polyps or CRC. Positivity rates, positive and negative predictive values, and rates of unevaluable tests were compared. Multivariable models were used to identify factors affecting sensitivity. RESULTS: A total of 3761 participants were enrolled, with a mean age of 62.1 years (SD, 7.8); 63.2% of participants were female, 5.7% were Black, 86.4% were White, and 28.7% were Hispanic. There were 320 participants with ACN (8.5%), including 9 with CRC (0.2%). The test positivity rate varied 4-fold (3.9% to 16.4%) across FITs. Rates of unevaluable FITs ranged from 0.2% to 2.5%. The sensitivity for ACN varied from 10.1% to 36.7%, and specificity varied from 85.5% to 96.6%. Differences in sensitivity between FITs were all statistically significantly different except between Hemosure iFOB and QuickVue iFOB, and specificity differences were all statistically significantly different from one another. In addition to FIT brand, distal location of ACN was also associated with higher FIT sensitivity. LIMITATION: The study did not assess the programmatic sensitivity of annual FIT. CONCLUSION: Although considered a single class, FITs have varying test performance for detecting ACN and should not be considered interchangeable. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Current challenges and future directions for shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

Shared decision making (SDM) between health care professionals and patients is essential to help patients make well informed choices about lung cancer screening (LCS). Patients who participate in SDM have greater LCS knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and improved adherence to annual screening compared with patients who do not participate in SDM. SDM tools are acceptable to patients and clinicians. The importance of SDM in LCS is emphasized in recommendations from professional organizations and highlighted as a priority in the 2022 President's Cancer Panel Report. The updated 2022 national coverage determination from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reaffirms the value of SDM in offering LCS to eligible beneficiaries. The Shared Decision-Making Task Group of the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable undertook a group consensus process to identify priorities for research and implementation related to SDM for LCS and then evaluated current knowledge in these areas. Priority areas included: (1) developing feasible, adaptable SDM training programs for health care professionals; (2) understanding the impact of alternative health system LCS models on SDM practice and outcomes; (3) developing and evaluating new patient decision aids for use with diverse populations and in varied settings; (4) offering conceptual clarity about what constitutes a high-quality decision and developing appropriate quality measures; and (5) studying the use of prediction-augmented screening to support SDM in practice. Gaps in current research in all areas were observed. The authors conclude with a research and implementation agenda to advance the quality and implementation of SDM for persons who might benefit from LCS.

After PSA screening, MRI-targeted vs. systematic biopsy detected fewer clinically insignificant prostate cancers.

SOURCE CITATION: Hugosson J, Månsson M, Wallström J, et al. Prostate cancer screening with PSA and MRI followed by targeted biopsy only. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:2126-37. 36477032.

The Association Between State Characteristics and Latinx People's Treated Hypertension in Established and New Latinx Destination States: A Multilevel Analysis.

This study sought to quantify the contributions of state-level factors including income inequality, state's legislature political control, and Medicaid expansion in new and established Latinx destination states on Latinx individuals' treated hypertension. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were conducted to analyze 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 7524 Latinx adults nested within 39 states. Overall, 70% reported being pharmacologically treated for hypertension, and 66% resided in established destination states. Compared with Latinx people in established destination states, Latinx people in new destinations had lower odds of having treated hypertension (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.54-0.95). Within established Latinx destinations, the odds of treated hypertension were lower in states where legislatures expanded Medicaid than in states that did not expand Medicaid (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79-0.89). However, after controlling for the effects of individual-level factors, this association was no longer statistically significant. In new Latinx destination states, Medicaid expansion, legislatures' political control, and income inequality were not associated with treated hypertension. The study results highlight the importance of considering both individual- and state-level factors, as the interplay of such factors could hinder the successful implementation of cardiovascular risk reduction interventions.

Evaluation of a Novel Question Prompt List in Pediatric Surgical Oncology.

INTRODUCTION: Parents of children with cancer describe interactions with clinicians as emotionally distressing. Patient engagement in treatment discussions decreases decisional conflict and improves decision quality which may limit such distress. We have shown that parents prefer to engage surgeons by asking questions, but parents may not know what to ask. Question Prompt Lists (QPLs), structured lists of questions designed to help patients ask important questions, have not been studied in pediatric surgery. We developed a QPL designed to empower parents to ask meaningful questions during pediatric surgical oncology discussions. We conducted a mixed methods analysis to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of using the QPL. METHODS: Key stakeholders at an academic children's hospital participated in focus groups to discuss the QPL. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed. Participants were surveyed regarding QPL acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Thematic content analysis of transcripts was performed. RESULTS: Four parents, five nurses, five nurse practitioners, five oncologists, and four surgeons participated. Seven key themes were identified: (1) QPL as a tool of empowerment; (2) stick to the surgical details; (3) QPLs can impact discussion quality; (4) time consuming, but not overly disruptive; (5) parental emotion may impact QPL use; (6) provide QPLs prior to surgical consultation in both print and digital formats; and (7) expansion of QPLs to other disciplines. Over 70% of participants agreed that the QPL was acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel QPL is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible to use with parents of pediatric surgical oncology patients.

A valued voice: A qualitative analysis of parental decision-making preferences in emergent paediatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making, with an emphasis on patient autonomy, is often advised in healthcare decision-making. However, this may be difficult to implement in emergent settings. We have previously demonstrated that when considering emergent operations for their children, parents prefer surgeon guidance as opposed to shared decision-making. Here, we interviewed parents of paediatric patients who had undergone emergent operations to better understand parental decision-making preferences. METHODS: Parents of paediatric patients who underwent surgery over the past 5 years at a University-based, tertiary children's hospital for cancer, an emergent operation while in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were invited to complete a 60-min semi-structured interview. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was performed via deductive and inductive analysis. An iterative approach to thematic sampling/data analysis was used. RESULTS: Thematic saturation was achieved after 12 interviews (4 cancer, 5 NICU and 3 ECMO). Five common themes were identified: (1) recommendations from surgeons are valuable; (2) 'lifesaving mode': parents felt there were no decisions to be made; (3) effective ways of obtaining information about treatment; (4) shared decision-making as a 'dialogue' or 'discussion' and (5) parents as a 'valued voice' to advocate for their children. CONCLUSIONS: When engaging in decision-making regarding emergent surgical procedures for their children, parents value a surgeon's recommendation. Parents felt that discussion or dialogue with surgeons defined shared decision-making, and they believed that the opportunity to ask questions gave them a 'valued voice', even when they felt there were no decisions to be made. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: For this study, we interviewed parents of paediatric patients who had undergone emergent operations to better understand parental decision-making preferences. Parents thus provided all the data for the study.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: a Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening on lung cancer (LC) outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyze LDCT lung cancer screening trials. METHODS: We identified studies by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , and reference lists from retrieved publications. We abstracted data on study design features, stage I LC diagnoses, LC and overall mortality, false positive results, harm from invasive diagnostic procedures, overdiagnosis, and significant incidental findings. We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We used random-effects models to calculate relative risks and assessed effect modulators with subgroup analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: We identified 9 studies that enrolled 96,559 subjects. The risk of bias across studies was judged to be low. Overall, LDCT screening significantly increased the detection of stage I LC, RR = 2.93 (95% CI, 2.16-3.98), I2 = 19%, and reduced LC mortality, RR = 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.93), I2 = 0%. The number needed to screen to prevent an LC death was 265. Women had a lower risk of LC death (RR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.40-1.21) than men (RR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.66-1.13), p value for interaction = 0.11. LDCT screening did not reduce overall mortality, RR = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91-1.01), I2 = 0%. The pooled false positive rate was 8% (95% CI, 4-18); subjects with false positive results had < 1 in 1000 risk of major complications following invasive diagnostic procedures. The most valid estimates for overdiagnosis and significant incidental findings were 8.9% and 7.5%, respectively. DISCUSSION: LDCT screening significantly reduced LC mortality, though not overall mortality, with women appearing to benefit more than men. The estimated risks for false positive results, screening complications, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings were low. Long-term survival data were available only for North American and European studies limiting generalizability.

Post-imaging pulmonary nodule mathematical prediction models: are they clinically relevant?

OBJECTIVES: Post-imaging mathematical prediction models (MPMs) provide guidance for the management of solid pulmonary nodules by providing a lung cancer risk score from demographic and radiologists-indicated imaging characteristics. We hypothesized calibrating the MPM risk score threshold to a local study cohort would result in improved performance over the original recommended MPM thresholds. We compared the pre- and post-calibration performance of four MPM models and determined if improvement in MPM prediction occurs as nodules are imaged longitudinally. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A common cohort of 317 individuals with computed tomography-detected, solid nodules (80 malignant, 237 benign) were used to evaluate the MPM performance. We created a web-based application for this study that allows others to easily calibrate thresholds and analyze the performance of MPMs on their local cohort. Thirty patients with repeated imaging were tested for improved performance longitudinally. RESULTS: Using calibrated thresholds, Mayo Clinic and Brock University (BU) MPMs performed the best (AUC = 0.63, 0.61) compared to the Veteran's Affairs (0.51) and Peking University (0.55). Only BU had consensus with the original MPM threshold; the other calibrated thresholds improved MPM accuracy. No significant improvements in accuracy were found longitudinally between time points. CONCLUSIONS: Calibration to a common cohort can select the best-performing MPM for your institution. Without calibration, BU has the most stable performance in solid nodules ≥ 8 mm but has only moderate potential to refine subjects into appropriate workup. Application of MPM is recommended only at initial evaluation as no increase in accuracy was achieved over time. KEY POINTS: • Post-imaging lung cancer risk mathematical predication models (MPMs) perform poorly on local populations without calibration. • An application is provided to facilitate calibration to new study cohorts: the Mayo Clinic model, the U.S. Department of Veteran's Affairs model, the Brock University model, and the Peking University model. • No significant improvement in risk prediction occurred in nodules with repeated imaging sessions, indicating the potential value of risk prediction application is limited to the initial evaluation.

Decision-making processes among men with low-risk prostate cancer: A survey study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize decision-making processes and outcomes among men expressing early-treatment preferences for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted telephone surveys of men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer in 2012 to 2014. We analyzed subjects who had discussed prostate cancer treatment with a clinician and expressed a treatment preference. We asked about decision-making processes, including physician discussions, prostate-cancer knowledge, decision-making styles, treatment preference, and decisional conflict. We compared the responses across treatment groups with χ2 or ANOVA. RESULTS: Participants (n = 761) had a median age of 62; 82% were white, 45% had a college education, and 35% had no comorbidities. Surveys were conducted at a median of 25 days (range 9-100) post diagnosis. Overall, 55% preferred active surveillance (AS), 26% preferred surgery, and 19% preferred radiotherapy. Participants reported routinely considering surgery, radiotherapy, and AS. Most were aware of their low-risk status (97%) and the option for AS (96%). However, men preferring active treatment (AT) were often unaware of treatment complications, including sexual dysfunction (23%) and urinary complications (41%). Most men (63%) wanted to make their own decision after considering the doctor's opinion, and about 90% reported being sufficiently involved in the treatment discussion. Men preferring AS had slightly more uncertainty about their decisions than those preferring AT. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects were actively engaged in decision making and considered a range of treatments. However, we found knowledge gaps about treatment complications among those preferring AT and slightly more decisional uncertainty among those preferring AS, suggesting the need for early decision support.

Physicians' perspectives on the informational needs of low-risk prostate cancer patients.

Despite the evidence indicating that decision aids (DA) improve informed treatment decision making for prostate cancer (PCa), physicians do not routinely recommend DAs to their patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with urologists (n = 11), radiation oncologists (n = 12) and primary care physicians (n = 10) about their methods of educating low-risk PCa patients regarding the treatment decision, their concerns about recommending DAs, and the essential content and format considerations that need to be addressed. Physicians stressed the need for providing comprehensive patient education before the treatment decision is made and expressed concern about the current unevaluated information available on the Internet. They made recommendations for a DA that is brief, applicable to diverse populations, and that fully discloses all treatment options (including active surveillance) and their potential side effects. Echoing previous studies showing that low-risk PCa patients are making rapid and potentially uninformed treatment decisions, these results highlight the importance of providing patient education early in the decision-making process. This need may be fulfilled by a treatment DA, should physicians systematically recommend DAs to their patients. Physicians' recommendations for the inclusion of particular content and presentation methods will be important for designing a high quality DA that will be used in clinical practice.

Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this analysis was to compare long-term urinary, bowel, and sexual function after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy. METHODS: The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (PCOS) enrolled 3533 men in whom prostate cancer had been diagnosed in 1994 or 1995. The current cohort comprised 1655 men in whom localized prostate cancer had been diagnosed between the ages of 55 and 74 years and who had undergone either surgery (1164 men) or radiotherapy (491 men). Functional status was assessed at baseline and at 2, 5, and 15 years after diagnosis. We used multivariable propensity scoring to compare functional outcomes according to treatment. RESULTS: Patients undergoing prostatectomy were more likely to have urinary incontinence than were those undergoing radiotherapy at 2 years (odds ratio, 6.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.92 to 20.29) and 5 years (odds ratio, 5.10; 95% CI, 2.29 to 11.36). However, no significant between-group difference in the odds of urinary incontinence was noted at 15 years. Similarly, although patients undergoing prostatectomy were more likely to have erectile dysfunction at 2 years (odds ratio, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.93 to 6.17) and 5 years (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.05 to 3.63), no significant between-group difference was noted at 15 years. Patients undergoing prostatectomy were less likely to have bowel urgency at 2 years (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.68) and 5 years (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.84), again with no significant between-group difference in the odds of bowel urgency at 15 years. CONCLUSIONS: At 15 years, no significant relative differences in disease-specific functional outcomes were observed among men undergoing prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Nonetheless, men treated for localized prostate cancer commonly had declines in all functional domains during 15 years of follow-up. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute.).

Sociodemographic and Clinical Predictors of Switching to Active Treatment among a Large, Ethnically Diverse Cohort of Men with Low Risk Prostate Cancer on Observational Management.

PURPOSE: We determined the clinical and sociodemographic predictors of beginning active treatment in an ethnically diverse population of men with low risk prostate cancer initially on observational treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied men diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer between 2004 and 2012 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California who did not receive any treatment within the first year of diagnosis and had at least 2 years of followup. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to determine factors associated with time from diagnosis to active treatment. RESULTS: We identified 2,228 eligible men who were initially on observation, of whom 27% began active treatment during followup at a median of 2.9 years. NonHispanic black men were marginally more likely to begin active treatment than nonHispanic white men independent of baseline and followup clinical measures (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.7). Among men who remained on observation nonHispanic black men were rebiopsied within 24 months of diagnosis at a slightly lower rate than nonHispanic white men (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.6-1.0). Gleason grade progression (HR 3.3, 95% CI 2.7-4.1) and PSA doubling time less than 48 months (HR 2.9, 95% CI 2.3-3.7) were associated with initiation of active treatment independent of race. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic factors such as ethnicity and education may independently influence the patient decision to pursue active treatment and serial biopsies during active surveillance. These factors are important for further studies of prostate cancer treatment decision making.

The Comparative Harms of Open and Robotic Prostatectomy in Population Based Samples.

PURPOSE: Robotic assisted radical prostatectomy has largely replaced open radical prostatectomy for the surgical management of prostate cancer despite conflicting evidence of superiority with respect to disease control or functional sequelae. Using population cohort data, in this study we examined sexual and urinary function in men undergoing open radical prostatectomy vs those undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects surgically treated for prostate cancer were selected from 2 large population based prospective cohort studies, the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (enrolled 1994 to 1995) and the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (enrolled 2011 to 2012). Subjects completed baseline, 6-month and 12-month standardized patient reported outcome measures. Main outcomes were between-group differences in functional outcome scores at 6 and 12 months using linear regression, and adjusting for baseline function, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate outcomes between patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy within and across CEASAR and PCOS. RESULTS: The combined cohort consisted of 2,438 men, 1,505 of whom underwent open radical prostatectomy and 933 of whom underwent robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Men treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy reported better urinary function at 6 months (mean difference 3.77 points, 95% CI 1.09-6.44) but not at 12 months (1.19, -1.32-3.71). Subjects treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy also reported superior sexual function at 6 months (8.31, 6.02-10.56) and at 12 months (7.64, 5.25-10.03). Sensitivity analyses largely supported the sexual function findings with inconsistent support for urinary function results. CONCLUSIONS: This population based study reveals that men undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy likely experience less decline in early urinary continence and sexual function than those undergoing open radical prostatectomy. The clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain and longer followup will be required to establish whether these benefits are durable.

Patient Perspectives on Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening, New Mexico, 2014.

INTRODUCTION: National guidelines call for annual lung cancer screening for high-risk smokers using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). The objective of our study was to characterize patient knowledge and attitudes about lung cancer screening, smoking cessation, and shared decision making by patient and health care provider. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with patients with histories of heavy smoking who received care at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC Clinic) and at a comprehensive cancer center-affiliated chest clinic (Chest Clinic) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The interviews, conducted from February through September 2014, focused on perceptions about health screening, knowledge and attitudes about LDCT screening, and preferences regarding decision aids. We used a systematic iterative analytic process to identify preliminary and emergent themes and to create a coding structure. RESULTS: We reached thematic saturation after 22 interviews (10 at the FQHC Clinic, 12 at the Chest Clinic). Most patients were unaware of LDCT screening for lung cancer but were receptive to the test. Some smokers said they would consider quitting smoking if their screening result were positive. Concerns regarding screening were cost, radiation exposure, and transportation issues. To support decision making, most patients said they preferred one-on-one discussions with a provider. They also valued decision support tools (print materials, videos), but raised concerns about readability and Internet access. CONCLUSION: Implementing lung cancer screening in sociodemographically diverse populations poses significant challenges. The value of tobacco cessation counseling cannot be overemphasized. Effective interventions for shared decision making to undergo lung cancer screening will need the active engagement of health care providers and will require the use of accessible decision aids designed for people with low health literacy.

Influence of age on incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease in prostate cancer survivors receiving androgen deprivation therapy.

PURPOSE: Observational data suggest that androgen deprivation therapy increases the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Using data from the population based PCOS we evaluated whether age at diagnosis and comorbidity impact the association of androgen deprivation therapy with incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer diagnosed from 1994 to 1995 who were followed through 2009 to 2010. We used multivariable logistic regression models to assess the relationship of androgen deprivation therapy exposure (2 or fewer years, greater than 2 years or none) with incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease, adjusting for age at diagnosis, race, stage and comorbidity. RESULTS: Of 3,526 eligible study participants 2,985 without diabetes and 3,112 without cardiovascular disease comprised the cohorts at risk. Androgen deprivation therapy was not associated with an increased risk of diabetes or cardiovascular disease in men diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 70 years. Prolonged androgen deprivation therapy and increasing age at diagnosis in older men was associated with an increased risk of diabetes (at age 76 years OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.0-4.4) and cardiovascular disease (at age 74 years OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.5). Men with comorbidities were at greater risk for diabetes (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-7.9) and cardiovascular disease (OR 8.1, 95% CI 4.3-15.5) than men without comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged androgen deprivation therapy exposure increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in men diagnosed with prostate cancer who are older than approximately 75 years, especially those with other comorbidities. Older men who receive prolonged androgen deprivation therapy should be closely monitored for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Self-Reported Health Status Predicts Other-Cause Mortality in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend against treating localized prostate cancer (PCa) in men with a greater than 10-year life expectancy. However, physicians have difficulty accurately estimating life expectancy. OBJECTIVE: We used data from a population-based observational study to develop a nomogram to estimate long-term other-cause mortality based on self-reported health status (SRHS), race/ethnicity, and age at diagnosis. DESIGN: This was an observational study. SUBJECTS: Men diagnosed with localized PCa from October 1994 through October 1995 participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES: Initial measures obtained 6 months after diagnosis included sociodemographic and tumor characteristics, treatment, and a single item on the SRHS, with response options ranging from excellent to poor. We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results program data to determine date and cause of death through December 2010. We estimated other-cause mortality with proportional hazards survival analyses, accounting for competing risks. KEY RESULTS: We evaluated 2,695 men, of whom 74% underwent aggressive therapy (surgery or radiotherapy). At the initial survey, 18% reported excellent (E), 36% very good (VG), 31% good (G), and 15% fair/poor (F/P) health. Healthier men were younger, and more likely to be white, better educated, and to undergo surgery. At follow-up, 44% of the cohort had died; 78% of deaths were from causes other than PCa. SRHS predicted other-cause mortality; for men reporting E, VG, G, F/P health, the cumulative incidences of other-cause mortality were 20%, 29%, 40%, and 53%, respectively, p < 0.001. Compared to a reference of excellent SRHS, multivariable hazard ratios (95% CI) for other-cause mortality for men reporting VG, G, and F/P health were 1.22 (0.97-1.54), 1.73 (1.38-2.17), and 2.71 (2.11-3.48), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Responses to a one-item SRHS measure were strongly associated with other-cause mortality 15 years after PCa diagnosis. Men reporting fair/poor health had substantial risks for other-cause mortality, suggesting limited benefit for undergoing aggressive treatment. SRHS can be considered in supporting informed decision-making about PCa treatment.

Attitudes and Beliefs of Primary Care Providers in New Mexico About Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

INTRODUCTION: On the basis of results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), national guidelines now recommend using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen high-risk smokers for lung cancer. Our study objective was to characterize the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of primary care providers about implementing LDCT screening. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with primary care providers practicing in New Mexico clinics for underserved minority populations. The interviews, conducted from February through September 2014, focused on providers' tobacco cessation efforts, lung cancer screening practices, perceptions of NLST and screening guidelines, and attitudes about informed decision making for cancer screening. Investigators iteratively reviewed transcripts to create a coding structure. RESULTS: We reached thematic saturation after interviewing 10 providers practicing in 6 urban and 4 rural settings; 8 practiced at federally qualified health centers. All 10 providers promoted smoking cessation, some screened with chest x-rays, and none screened with LDCT. Not all were aware of NLST results or current guideline recommendations. Providers viewed study results skeptically, particularly the 95% false-positive rate, the need to screen 320 patients to prevent 1 lung cancer death, and the small proportion of minority participants. Providers were uncertain whether New Mexico had the necessary infrastructure to support high-quality screening, and worried about access barriers and financial burdens for rural, underinsured populations. Providers noted the complexity of discussing benefits and harms of screening and surveillance with their patient population. CONCLUSION: Providers have several concerns about the feasibility and appropriateness of implementing LDCT screening. Effective lung cancer screening programs will need to educate providers and patients to support informed decision making and to ensure that high-quality screening can be efficiently delivered in community practice.

Prostate cancer deaths and incident cases among American Indian/Alaska Native men, 1999-2009.

OBJECTIVES: We linked databases to improve identification of American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) in determining prostate cancer death and incidence rates. METHODS: We linked prostate cancer mortality and incidence data with Indian Health Service (IHS) patient records; analyses focused on residents of IHS Contract Health Service Delivery Area (CHSDA) counties. We calculated age-adjusted incidence and death rates for AI/AN and White men for 1999 to 2009; men of Hispanic origin were excluded. RESULTS: Prostate cancer death rates were higher for AI/AN men than for White men. Death rates declined for White men (-3.0% per year) but not for AI/AN men. AI/AN men had lower prostate cancer incidence rates than White men. Incidence rates declined among Whites (-2.2% per year) and AI/ANs (-1.9% per year). CONCLUSIONS: AI/AN men had higher prostate cancer death rates and lower prostate cancer incidence rates than White men. Disparities in accessing health care could contribute to mortality differences, and incidence differences could be related to lower prostate-specific antigen testing rates among AI/AN men.