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.

Practice patterns and outcomes of urgent versus elective ureteroscopy in a statewide surgical collaborative.

PURPOSE: Urgent indications for nephrolithiasis treatment include obstruction with intractable pain or renal impairment without untreated infection. Patients and hospitals may benefit from urgent primary ureteroscopy. We aimed to examine variation in urgent ureteroscopy utilization and associated outcomes. METHODS: Using Reducing Operative Complications from Kidney Stones (ROCKS), we identified all ureteroscopy's between 2016 and 2019. Cases were classified by acuity (elective versus urgent). We assessed practice/urologist variation in urgent ureteroscopy performance. We characterized patients demographic, operative and outcomes data, making bivariate comparisons with elective ureteroscopy to understand implications of urgent surgery. We performed multilevel modeling to understand factors associated with unplanned healthcare encounters after urgent ureteroscopy. RESULTS: 12,859 cases were identified from 33 practices and 204 urologists, 10,854 (84.4%) elective and 2005 (15.6%) urgent. Urgent ureteroscopy was performed on younger patients (53 vs 57, p < 0.001), with higher rates of ureteral stones (72.8% vs 56.8%, p < 0.001). Urgent ureteroscopy rates varied widely by practice (2-70%) and urologist (0-98%). Urgent ureteroscopy had higher stenting rates (77.4% vs 72.5%, p < 0.001), stone free rates (66% vs 58.4%, p < 0.001), and postoperative ED visits (11% vs 7.2%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in intraoperative complications or unplanned hospitalizations. Factors predictive of ED visits in urgent ureteroscopy included concomitant ureteral/renal stone location (OR = 1.53, CI = 1.05-2.23, p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In Michigan elective ureteroscopy is performed 5 times more frequently than urgent ureteroscopy with wide variation. Urgent ureteroscopy demonstrated low morbidity. Urgent ureteroscopy produced modestly higher stone free rates with a slightly increased frequency of unscheduled ED visits particularly for ureteral stones.

Shockwave Lithotripsy Use in the State of Michigan: American Urological Association Guideline Adherence and Clinical Implications.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how treatment of patients with urinary stones by shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) aligns with current published practice guidelines. METHODS: We used the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative Reducing Operative Complications for Kidney Stones registry to understand SWL use in the state of Michigan. This prospectively maintained clinical registry includes data from community and academic urology practices and contains clinical and operative data for patients undergoing SWL and ureteroscopy (URS). We identified patients undergoing SWL from 2016 to 2019. In accordance with AUA guidelines, we evaluated practice patterns in relation to recommendations for treatment selection for SWL as well as clinical implications of guideline nonadherence. RESULTS: Four thousand, two hundred and nine SWL procedures performed across 34 practices were analyzed. Perioperative antibiotics were administered to 61.3% of patients undergoing SWL. A ureteral stent was placed at the time of SWL in 2.7% of patients. For lower pole renal stones >1 cm or large (>2 cm) renal stones in the registry, 32.2% and 58.9% of patients, respectively, underwent SWL, while the remainder were treated with URS. In these instances, SWL was associated with inferior stone-free rate (SFR) relative to URS. In patients with residual stones after SWL, 34.6% were treated with repeat SWL with lower SFR than those treated with subsequent URS. Postoperatively, 42.1% of patients were prescribed alpha-blockers with no benefit seen in terms of SFR. CONCLUSION: Substantial variation exists among urology practices with regard to SWL use. These data serve to inform quality improvement efforts regarding appropriateness criteria for SWL in Michigan.