Bound Isoscalar Axial-Vector bcu[over ¯]d[over ¯] Tetraquark T_{bc} from Lattice QCD Using Two-Meson and Diquark-Antidiquark Variational Basis.

We report a lattice QCD study of the heavy-light meson-meson interactions with an explicitly exotic flavor content bcu[over ¯]d[over ¯], isospin I=0, and axial-vector J^{P}=1^{+} quantum numbers in search of possible tetraquark bound states. The calculation is performed at four values of lattice spacing, ranging from ∼0.058 to ∼0.12 fm, and at five different values of valence light quark mass m_{u/d}, corresponding to pseudoscalar meson mass M_{ps} of about 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 1.0, and 3.0 GeV. The energy eigenvalues in the finite volume are determined through a variational procedure applied to correlation matrices built out of two-meson interpolating operators as well as diquark-antidiquark operators. The continuum limit estimates for DB[over ¯]^{*} elastic S-wave scattering amplitude are extracted from the lowest finite-volume eigenenergies, corresponding to the ground states, using amplitude parametrizations supplemented by a lattice spacing dependence. Light quark mass m_{u/d} dependence of the DB[over ¯]^{*} scattering length (a_{0}) suggests that at the physical pion mass a_{0}^{phys}=+0.57(_{-5}^{+4})(17) fm, which clearly points to an attractive interaction between the D and B[over ¯]^{*} mesons that is strong enough to host a real bound state T_{bc}, with a binding energy of -43(_{-7}^{+6})(_{-24}^{+14}) MeV with respect to the DB[over ¯]^{*} threshold. We also find that the strength of the binding decreases with increasing m_{u/d} and the system becomes unbound at a critical light quark mass m_{u/d}^{*} corresponding to M_{ps}^{*}=2.73(21)(19) GeV.

Primary Care Physician and Urologist Perspectives on Optimizing Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. RESULTS: Our study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: With patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer.

Primary care provider attitudes about and tendency to use non-recommended surveillance tests after curative breast cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the factors contributing to the receipt of non-recommended surveillance testing among early-stage breast cancer survivors. We assessed primary care providers (PCP) attitudes about and tendency to order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors post-adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by early-stage breast cancer survivors were surveyed (N = 518, 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how likely they would be to order bone scans, imaging and/or tumor marker testing using a clinical vignette of an early-stage asymptomatic patient where these tests are non-recommended. A composite tendency to order score was created and categorized by tertiles (low, moderate, high). PCP-reported factors associated with high and moderate tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) were estimated using multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: In this sample, 26% reported a high tendency to order non-recommended surveillance tests during survivorship for early-stage breast cancer survivors. PCPs who identified as family practice physicians and PCPs reporting more confidence in ordering surveillance testing were more likely to report a high tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) ((aOR family practice 2.09, CI 1.2, 3.8; aOR more confidence 1.9, CI 1.1, 3.3). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of PCPs caring for breast cancer survivors, over a quarter of PCPs reported they would order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors. Efforts to better support PCPs and disseminate information about appropriate surveillance for cancer survivors are warranted.

Exploring Variation in the Receipt of Recommended Active Surveillance for Men with Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer do not receive all the recommended testing. Reasons for variation in receipt are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined prospective registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, a collaborative of 46 academic and community urology practices across Michigan, with insurance claims from 2014 to 2018 for men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer. We defined receipt of recommended surveillance according to the collaborative's low-intensity criteria as: annual prostate specific antigen testing and either magnetic resonance imaging or prostate biopsy every 3 years. We assessed receipt of recommended surveillance among men with ≥36 months of followup (246). We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the influence of the urologist, urologist and primary care provider visits, and patient demographic and clinical factors on variation in receipt. RESULTS: During 3 years of active surveillance, just over half of men (56.5%) received all recommended surveillance testing (69.9% annual prostate specific antigen testing, 72.8% magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy). We found 19% of the variation in receipt was attributed to individual urologists. While increasing provider visits were not significantly associated with receipt, older men were less likely to receive magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy (≥75 vs <55 years, adjusted odds ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer did not receive all recommended surveillance. While urologists substantially influenced receipt of recommended testing, exploring how to leverage patients and their visits with their primary care providers to positively influence receipt appears warranted.

Improving the delivery of team-based survivorship care after primary breast cancer treatment through a multi-level intervention: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We developed and tested a multi-level intervention, ConnectedCancerCare (CCC), which includes a tailored website and appointment reminder system for women with early-stage breast cancer and a provider summary letter sent to their medical oncologist and primary care provider to improve the delivery of team-based survivorship care. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to establish the feasibility and acceptability of CCC. Women diagnosed with stages 0-II breast cancer within one year of completing primary treatment were randomized to CCC (intervention) or a static online survivorship care plan (control). Participants completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys online. Post-trial interviews with 5 PCPs, 6 oncology providers, and 8 intervention patients were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 160 eligible women invited to participate, 66 completed the baseline survey and were randomized (41%) and 54 completed a follow-up survey (83%). Participants in the intervention arm found the CCC content to be acceptable, with 82% reporting it was easy to use and 86% reporting they would recommend it to other patients. Women randomized to CCC (vs. control) more often reported scheduling a PCP follow-up visit (64% vs. 42%), communicating with their PCP about provider roles (67% vs. 18%), and higher mean team-based cancer care knowledge scores (3.7 vs. 3.4). CONCLUSION: Deploying CCC in medical oncology practices was feasible, and the intervention content was acceptable. CCC shows promise for improving patient knowledge and patient-provider communication about provider roles in team-based cancer care and encouraging patients to engage with their PCP early in the survivorship period.

Using an Agent-based Model to Examine Deimplementation of Breast Cancer Screening.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the potential impact of provider social networks and experiences with patients on deimplementation of breast cancer screening. RESEARCH DESIGN: We constructed the Breast Cancer-Social network Agent-based Model (BC-SAM), which depicts breast cancer screening decisions, incidence, and progression among 10,000 women ages 40 and over and the screening recommendations of their providers over a 30-year period. The model has patient and provider modules that each incorporate social network influences. Patients and providers were connected in a network, which represented patient-patient peer connections, provider-provider peer connections, connections between providers and patients they treat, and friend/family relationships between patients and providers. We calibrated provider decisions in the model using data from the CanSNET national survey of primary care physicians in the United States, which we fielded in 2016. RESULTS: First, assuming that providers' screening recommendations for women ages 50-74 remain unchanged but their recommendations for screening among younger (below 50 y old) and older (75+ y old) women decrease, we observed a decline in predicted screening rates for women ages 50-74 due to spillover effects. Second, screening rates for younger and older women were slow to respond to changes in provider recommendations; a 78% decline in provider recommendations to older women over 30 years resulted in an estimated 23% decline in patient screening in that group. Third, providers' experiences with unscreened patients, friends, and family members modestly increased screening recommendations over time (7 percentage points). Finally, we found that provider peer effects can have a substantial impact on population screening rates and can entrench existing practices. CONCLUSION: Modeling cancer screening as a complex social system demonstrates a range of potential effects and may help target future interventions designed to reduce overscreening.

Primary Care Providers' Perceptions About Participating in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Primary care provider's (PCP) role in cancer care is expanding and may include supporting patients in their treatment decisions. However, the degree to which PCPs engage in this role for low-risk prostate cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Characterize PCP perceptions regarding their role in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, national survey. MAIN MEASURES: For men with low-risk prostate cancer, PCP reports of (1) confidence in treatment decision-making (high vs. low); (2) intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making (more vs. less). KEY RESULTS: A total of 347 from 741 eligible PCPs responded (adjusted response rate 56%). Half of respondent PCPs (50.3%) reported high confidence about engaging in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. The odds of PCPs reporting high confidence were greater among those in solo practice (vs working with > 1 PCP) (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.14-4.17) and with higher volume of prostate cancer patients (> 15 vs. 6-10 in past year) (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.02-4.61). PCP report of their intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making varied: discussing worry (62.4%), reviewing benefits (48.5%) and risks (41.8%), and reviewing all treatment options (34.2%). PCPs who reported high confidence had increased odds of more participation in all aspects of active surveillance decision-making: reviewing all treatment options (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.82-5.32), discussing worry (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.28-3.51), and reviewing benefits (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.89-5.16) and risks (OR 3.20; 95% CI 1.91-5.36). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PCPs were confident about engaging with patients in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making, though their intended participation varied widely across four key aspects of active surveillance care. With active surveillance being considered for other low-risk cancers (such as breast and thyroid), understanding factors influencing PCP involvement will be instrumental to supporting team-based cancer care.

Primary care provider-reported involvement in breast cancer treatment decisions.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions for patients with early-stage breast cancer often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, the extent to which primary care providers (PCPs) are involved in initial treatment decisions remains unknown. METHODS: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (n = 517; a 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy options with patients; how comfortable they were with these discussions; whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in decision making; and what their confidence was in their ability to help (on 5-item Likert-type scales). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify PCP-reported attitudes associated with more PCP participation in each treatment decision. RESULTS: In this sample, 34% of PCPs reported that they discussed surgery, 23% discussed radiation, and 22% discussed chemotherapy options with their patients. Of those who reported more involvement in surgical decisions, 22% reported that they were not comfortable having a discussion, and 17% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making. PCPs who positively appraised their ability to participate were more likely to participate in all 3 decisions (odds ratio [OR] for surgery, 6.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-8.68; OR for radiation, 8.37; 95% CI, 5.16-13.58; OR for chemotherapy, 6.56; 95% CI, 4.23-10.17). CONCLUSIONS: A third of PCPs reported participating in breast cancer treatment decisions, yet gaps in their knowledge about decision making and in their confidence in their ability to help exist. Efforts to increase PCPs' knowledge about breast cancer treatment options may be warranted.

Linking physician attitudes to their breast cancer screening practices: A survey of US primary care providers and gynecologists.

Despite changes to breast cancer screening guidelines intended to decrease screening in younger and older women, mammography rates remain high. We investigated physician attitudes towards screening younger and older women. Surveys were mailed to US primary care providers and gynecologists between May and September 2016 (871/1665, 52.3% adjusted response rate). We assessed physician (1) attitudes towards screening younger (45-49years) and older (75+ years) women and (2) recommendations for routine mammography. We used exploratory factor analysis to identify underlying themes among physician attitudes and created measures standardized to a 5-point scale. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we examined associations between physician attitudes and screening recommendations. Attitudes identified with factor analysis included: potential regret, expectations, and discordant guidelines (referred to as potential regret), patient-related hazards due to screening, physician limitations and uncertainty, and concerns about rationing care. Gynecologists had higher levels of potential regret compared to internists. In adjusted analyses, physicians with increasing potential regret (1-point increment on 5-point scale) had higher odds of recommending mammography to younger (OR 8.68; 95% CI 5.25-14.36) and older women (OR 4.62; 95% CI 3.50-6.11). Increasing concern for patient-related hazards was associated with decreased odds of recommending screening to older women (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56-0.83). Physicians were more motivated by potential regret in recommending screening for younger and older women than by concerns for patient-related hazards in screening. Addressing physicians' most salient concerns, such as fear of missing cancer diagnoses and malpractice, may present an important opportunity to improving delivery of guideline-concordant cancer screening.

Second opinions from urologists for prostate cancer: Who gets them, why, and their link to treatment.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are encouraged to obtain second opinions before starting treatment. Little is known about men with localized prostate cancer who seek second opinions, the reasons why, and the association with treatment and quality of care. METHODS: We surveyed men who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the greater Philadelphia area from 2012 to 2014. Men were asked if they obtained a second opinion from a urologist, and the reasons why. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between second opinions and definitive prostate cancer treatment and perceived quality of care. RESULTS: A total of 2386 men responded to the survey (adjusted response rate, 51.1%). After applying exclusion criteria, the final analytic cohort included 2365 respondents. Of these, 40% obtained second opinions, most commonly because they wanted more information about their cancer (50.8%) and wanted to be seen by the best doctor (46.3%). Overall, obtaining second opinions was not associated with definitive treatment or perceived quality of cancer care. Men who sought second opinions because they were dissatisfied with their initial urologist were less likely to receive definitive treatment (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.73), and men who wanted more information about treatment were less likely to report excellent quality of cancer care (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.99) compared with men who did not receive a second opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Although a large proportion of men with localized prostate cancer obtained a second opinion, the reasons for doing so were not associated with treatment choice or perceived quality of cancer care. Future study is needed to determine when second opinions contribute to increasing the value of cancer care. Cancer 2017;123:1027-34. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

A multidimensional view of racial differences in access to prostate cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in prostate cancer treatment and outcomes are widespread and poorly understood. In the current study, the authors sought to determine whether access to care, measured across multiple dimensions, contributed to racial differences in prostate cancer. METHODS: The Philadelphia Area Prostate Cancer Access Study (P2 Access) included 2374 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014. Men were surveyed to assess their experiences accessing care (response rate of 51.1%). The authors determined appointment availability at 151 urology practices using simulated patient telephone calls and calculated travel distances using geospatial techniques. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between 5 different domains of access (availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, and acceptability) and receipt of treatment, perceived quality of care, and physician-patient communication. RESULTS: There were 1907 non-Hispanic white and 394 black men in the study cohort. Overall, approximately 85% of the men received definitive treatment with no differences noted by race. Black men were less likely to report a high quality of care (69% vs 81%; P<.001) and good physician-patient communication (60% vs 71%; P<.001) compared with white men. In adjusted models, none of the 5 domains of access were found to be associated with definitive treatment overall or with radical prostatectomy. All access domains were associated with perceived quality of care and communication, although these domains did not mediate racial disparities. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, the current study presents the first comprehensive assessment of prostate cancer care access, treatment, and patient experience, demonstrating that although access was related to overall perceived quality of care and better physician-patient communication, it did not appear to explain observed racial differences. Cancer 2017;123:4449-57. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Racial Differences in Geographic Access to Medical Care as Measured by Patient Report and Geographic Information Systems.

BACKGROUND: Geographic access-the travel burden required to reach medical care-is an important aspect of care. Studies, which typically rely on geographic information system (GIS) calculated travel times, have found some evidence of racial disparities in spatial access to care. However, the validity of these studies depends on the accuracy of travel times by patient race. OBJECTIVES: To determine if there are racial differences when comparing patient-reported and GIS-calculated travel times. RESEARCH DESIGN: Data came from the Philadelphia Area Prostate Cancer Access Study (P Access), a cohort study of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. We conducted cross-sectional analysis of 2136 men using multivariable linear mixed-effects models to examine the effect of race on differences in patient-reported and GIS-calculated travel times to urology and radiation oncology cancer providers. RESULTS: Patient-reported travel times were, on an average, longer than GIS-calculated times. For urology practices, median patient-reported travel times were 12.7 minutes longer than GIS-calculated travel times for blacks versus 7.2 minutes longer for whites. After adjusting for potential confounders, including socioeconomic status and car access, the difference was significantly greater for black patients than white patients (2.0 min; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-3.44). CONCLUSIONS: GIS-calculated travel time may underestimate access to care, especially for black patients. Future studies that use GIS-calculated travel times to examine racial disparities in spatial access to care might consider including patient-reported travel times and controlling for factors that might affect the accuracy of GIS-calculated travel times.

Racial Differences in Prostate Cancer Treatment: The Role of Socioeconomic Status.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines whether socioeconomic status (SES), measured at both the individual and neighborhood levels, is associated with receipt of definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer and whether these associations mediate racial differences in treatment between non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black men. DESIGN: The Philadelphia Area Prostate Cancer Access Study (P2 Access) is a mailed, cross-sectional survey of men sampled from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry, combined with neighborhood Census data. SETTING: Eight counties in southeastern Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: 2,386 men with prostate adenocarcinoma. MAIN MEASURES: Receipt of definitive treatment, race, self-reported income, education, employment status, and neighborhood SES. RESULTS: Overall, Black and White men were equally likely to receive definitive treatment. Men living in neighborhoods with higher SES were more likely to receive definitive treatment (OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.01, 2.42). Among men who received definitive treatment, Black men were significantly less likely to receive radical prostatectomy compared with White men (OR .71, 95% CI .52, .98), as were men with some college education compared with those with a high school education or less (OR .66, 95% CI .47, .94). SES does not mediate racial differences in receipt of definitive treatment or the type of definitive treatment received, and associations with income or employment status were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: These results stress the importance of examining racial disparities within geographic areas and highlight the unique associations that different measures of SES, particularly neighborhood SES and education, may have with prostate cancer treatment.

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.

Patient perspectives on factors influencing active surveillance adherence for low-risk prostate cancer: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. Treatment guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, which involves monitoring for progression, to avoid or delay definitive treatments and their side effects. Despite increased uptake, adherence to surveillance remains a challenge. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative, virtual interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), with men (15) who were or had been on active surveillance for their low-risk prostate cancer in 2020. Interviews were transcribed and coded under TDF's behavioral theory-based domains. We analyzed domains related to adherence to surveillance using constructivist grounded theory to identify themes influencing decision processes in adherence. RESULTS: The TDF domains of emotion, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, and social influences were most relevant to surveillance adherence-. From these four TDF domains, three themes emerged as underlying decision processes: trust in surveillance as treatment, quality of life, and experiences of self and others. Positive perceptions of these three themes supported adherence while negative perceptions contributed to non-adherence (i.e., not receiving follow-up or stopping surveillance). The relationship between the TDF domains and themes provided a theoretical process describing factors impacting active surveillance adherence for men with low-risk prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Men identified key factors impacting active surveillance adherence that provide opportunities for clinical implementation and practice improvement. Future efforts should focus on multi-level interventions that foster trust in surveillance as treatment, emphasize quality of life benefits and enhance patients' interpersonal experiences while on surveillance to optimize adherence.

Physician Specialties Involved in Thyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: Implications for Improving Health Care Disparities.

CONTEXT: Little is known about provider specialties involved in thyroid cancer diagnosis and management. OBJECTIVE: Characterize providers involved in diagnosing and treating thyroid cancer. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed patients with differentiated thyroid cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registries (N = 2632, 63% response rate). Patients identified their primary care physicians (PCPs), who were also surveyed (N = 162, 56% response rate). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Patient-reported provider involvement (endocrinologist, surgeon, PCP) at diagnosis and treatment; (2) PCP-reported involvement (more vs less) and comfort (more vs less) with discussing diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: Among thyroid cancer patients, 40.6% reported being informed of their diagnosis by their surgeon, 37.9% by their endocrinologist, and 13.5% by their PCP. Patients reported discussing their treatment with their surgeon (71.7%), endocrinologist (69.6%), and PCP (33.3%). Physician specialty involvement in diagnosis and treatment varied by patient race/ethnicity and age. For example, Hispanic patients (vs non-Hispanic White) were more likely to report their PCP informed them of their diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]: 1.68; 95% CI, 1.24-2.27). Patients ≥65 years (vs <45 years) were more likely to discuss treatment with their PCP (OR: 1.59; 95% CI, 1.22-2.08). Although 74% of PCPs reported discussing their patients' diagnosis and 62% their treatment, only 66% and 48%, respectively, were comfortable doing so. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs were involved in thyroid cancer diagnosis and treatment, and their involvement was greater among older patients and patients of minority race/ethnicity. This suggests an opportunity to leverage PCP involvement in thyroid cancer management to improve health and quality of care outcomes for vulnerable patients.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Low Risk Prostate Cancer Management: Results of a National Survey.

Introduction: Primary care providers can collaborate with urologists to ensure men with low risk prostate cancer on active surveillance receive followup testing and adhere to the management strategy, yet primary care provider attitudes about active surveillance and their roles remain unknown. Methods: We surveyed 1,000 primary care providers (347/741 eligible primary care providers responded). We assessed primary care provider support for and beliefs about active surveillance, and attitudes about and preferences for their role in various aspects of low risk prostate cancer management. We then examined associations between 1) primary care provider support for and primary care provider beliefs about active surveillance; and 2) primary care provider attitudes and preferences for their role. Results: Nearly 50% of primary care providers strongly supported active surveillance for all low risk men, and 81% strongly agreed that active surveillance allows men to avoid side effects, while 57% strongly agreed it caused worry. Primary care providers who strongly supported active surveillance were less likely to strongly agree that active surveillance contributes to worry (50.3% vs 63.7% respectively, p=0.01). Half of the primary care providers strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care (50.5%), and the majority preferred a shared care model to ordering prostate specific antigen tests (60.1%). Primary care providers who strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care were more likely to prefer a primary care provider-led (79.3% vs 20.7%) or shared care (53.9% vs 46.1%) model vs urologist-led for ordering prostate specific antigen tests (p <0.01). Conclusions: While many primary care providers supported active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer, primary care providers still had concerns with it as the primary management strategy. Understanding primary care providers perspectives on low risk prostate cancer management can inform strategies to improve high quality active surveillance care.