Impact of Early Confirmatory Tests on Upgrading and Conversion to Treatment in Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of confirmatory tests on active surveillance (AS) biopsy disease reclassification and progression to treatment in men with favorable risk prostate cancer (FRPC). METHODS: We searched the MUSIC registry for men with FRPC managed with AS without or with a confirmatory test. Confirmatory tests included (1) repeat prostate biopsy, (2) genomic tests, (3) prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or (4) MRI followed by a post-MRI biopsy. Confirmatory test results were deemed reassuring (RA) or nonreassuring (nonRA) according to predefined criteria. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare surveillance biopsy disease reclassification-free survival and treatment-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 2,514 men with FRPC who were managed on AS, 1211 (48%) men obtained a confirmatory test. We noted differences in the 12-month unadjusted surveillance biopsy disease reclassification-free probability (68%, 83%, and 90%, P < .0001) and 24-month unadjusted treatment-free probability (55%, 81%, and 79%, P < .0001), for men with nonRA confirmatory tests, no confirmatory test, and RA confirmatory tests, respectively. Excluding patients with genomic confirmatory tests, men with RA confirmatory tests were associated with a lower hazard (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.84, P = .005) and men with nonRA confirmatory tests had an increased hazard (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.22-3.19, P = .006) of surveillance disease reclassification compared with men without confirmatory tests in the multivariable model. CONCLUSION: These data suggest men with RA confirmatory tests have less surveillance biopsy reclassification and remain on AS longer than men with nonRA test results. Confirmatory tests may help risk stratify men considering active surveillance.

Studying the process of clinical communication: issues of context, concepts, and research directions.

Much cancer-related health communication research has involved studies of the effects of media campaigns and strategies on secondary prevention. Cancer diagnosis rates, however, continue to affect millions of people. The need exists for communication studies to address the quality of the clinical interaction, the point of actual care delivery in addressing diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Using examples from a 6-year communication and behavioral oncology research program established at the Karmanos Cancer Institute (KCI) in Detroit, Michigan, we describe selected empirical issues; models, particularly the "convergence model" (adapted from Rogers & Kincaid, 1981); and associated constructs that are relevant and promising foundations for building future research in cancer clinical settings. Two examples from our empirical research program are described.

The role of the clinician in cancer clinical communication.

Clinician communication is critical to positive outcomes for patients and families in most health contexts. Researchers have investigated areas such as defining and teaching effective communication and identifying specific outcomes that can be improved through more effective communication. In the area of cancer care, advances in detection and treatment require that clinicians develop new skills to adapt to the evolving needs of patients, families, and other members of the health care team. Some areas that require the attention of researchers are defining, assessing, and teaching effective communication in the context of the specific desires and preferences of individual patients and special populations; and meeting the needs of patients across the cancer continuum from screening, diagnosis, treatment to palliative care and survivorship. This report highlights three areas of research in cancer clinician communication including key areas of current and emerging research and theories and approaches for future research.

Influence of clinical communication on patients' decision making on participation in clinical trials.

PURPOSE: To investigate how communication among physicians, patients, and family/companions influences patients' decision making about participation in clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We video recorded 235 outpatient interactions occurring among oncologists, patients, and family/companions (if present) at two comprehensive cancer centers. We combined interaction analysis of the real-time video-recorded observations (collected at Time 1) with patient self-reports (Time 2) to determine how communication about trial offers influenced accrual decisions. RESULTS: Clinical trials were explicitly offered in 20% of the interactions. When offers were made and patients perceived they were offered a trial, 75% of patients assented. Observed messages (at Time 1) directly related to patients' self-reports regarding their decisions (2 weeks later), and how they felt about their decisions and their physicians. Specifically, messages that help build a sense of an alliance (among all parties, including the family/companions), provide support (tangible assistance and reassurance about managing adverse effects), and provide medical content in language that patients and family/companions understand are associated with the patient's decision and decision-making process. CONCLUSION: In two urban, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers, a large percentage of patients are not offered trials. When offered a trial, most patients enroll. The quality and quantity of communication occurring among the oncologist, patient, and family/companion when trials are discussed matter in the patient's decision-making process. These findings can help increase physician awareness of the ways that messages and communication behaviors can be observed and evaluated to improve clinical practice and research.