Change in prostate cancer presentation coinciding with USPSTF screening recommendations at a community-based urology practice.

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening are controversial. We sought to determine the change in prostate cancer presentation coinciding with the release of the United States Preventative Services Task Force recommendations against screening in a high-volume community-based urology practice. METHODS: Characteristics of men presenting for an elevated PSA at a community urology practice from August 2011 to August 2015 were queried from a prospectively collected database. A retrospective analysis of presenting PSA, Gleason grade at biopsy, and prostatectomy as well as clinical and pathologic stage was performed. Kruskal-Wallis rank sum and chi-square tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: Referrals for elevated PSA decreased from 933 in year 1 to 816 by year 4 (12.5% decrease) with a concomitant reduction in biopsies performed in newly referred men from 461 to 356 (22.8% decrease, P = 0.02). The proportion of men presenting with PSAs>10 increased from 28.1% to 36.8% (P = 0.009). First-time biopsy-positivity rate increased from 48.4% to 62.4% with a rise in the proportion having Gleason≥7 from 51.6% to 69.7% (P = 0.0001). Of the 578 men who underwent radical prostatectomy, there was a 19.4% increase in Gleason≥7 tumors (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a decrease in elevated PSA referrals, increase in PSA at the time of referral, decrease in detection of low-risk disease, and increase in detection of intermediate-/high-risk disease in a high-volume, multisite, community-based urology practice, coinciding with the United States Preventative Services Task Force recommendations against PSA screening.

Assessment of Evidence-Based Standards in the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer in a Community Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Although the monitoring of patients with advanced prostate cancer is essential to optimize treatment, little is known about adherence to guidelines. In this study we compared testing practices at an integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice with evidence-based guidelines and best practices. METHODS: Electronic medical records up to December 2014 from the integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice were queried to identify patients who received androgen deprivation therapy and in whom advanced disease was staged as androgen deprivation therapy sensitive, subcastration resistant (incompletely defined probable castration resistant prostate cancer) or castration resistant after April 2011 and for 6 months or more. Frequency of prostate specific antigen and testosterone level testing as well as imaging (magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography, positron emission tomography/computerized tomography, bone scan or x-ray) was evaluated, and compared to national guidelines and best practices. RESULTS: Overall 346 patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive prostate cancer, 90 with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and 102 with castration resistant prostate cancer met the study inclusion criteria. On average, prostate specific antigen was tested every 4.7, 3.7 and 3.3 months for patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive disease, subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively, compared with the 3 to 12 months and 3 months recommendations of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and RADAR (Prostate Cancer Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence) for patients with androgen deprivation therapy sensitive disease and nonmetastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively. Testosterone levels were assessed within 6 months of classification for 23% and 46% of patients with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively. Finally, 28% and 46% of patients with subcastration resistant prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer, respectively, underwent some type of imaging within 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study of patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy at a particular integrated urology/radiation oncology group practice demonstrated adherence to prostate specific antigen best practices. However, there was some room for improvement in terms of testosterone testing and imaging.

Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer in a Community Practice: How to Measure, Manage, and Improve?

OBJECTIVE: To measure past active surveillance (AS) adoption rates, institute the best practice, and measure the AS adoption rates following implementation. We report our findings over a 3-year period. METHODS: Patient prostate needle biopsy and treatment data from the period August 2011 to August 2014 were retrieved from an integrated electronic medical records (Allscripts) and stored in a Microsoft Access database for analysis. Structured data were queried using the automated software program WizMD and unstructured data were abstracted by manual review. AS adoption was calculated according to four different selection criteria. Between 2013 and 2014, physicians at Genesis Healthcare Partners (GHP) underwent an educational training program on the University of California, San Diego/GHP AS best practice for managing low-risk prostate cancer patients and were provided report cards on their AS adoption and comparative reporting. RESULTS: AS adoption increased for the 3 years of the study. AS adoption for all newly diagnosed patients managed at GHP increased from 12.9% to 14.74%. AS adoption for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network) increased from 31.90% to 58.46% from year 1 to year 3 of the study (P < .001), and AS adoption for the most strict (restrictive) criteria increased from 43.75% to 82.61% (P < .001) after the educational and comparative reporting intervention. CONCLUSION: These data highlight the potential benefit of physician education and comparative reporting to enhance AS adoption. AS adoption rates vary according to selection criteria used for analysis. Carefully selected outcomes from evidence-based guidelines have the potential to enhance medical quality.