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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Provider Involvement in Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Care.

CONTEXT: While prior research has examined how primary care providers (PCPs) can care for breast and colon cancer survivors, little is known about their role in thyroid cancer survivorship. OBJECTIVE: To understand PCP involvement and confidence in thyroid cancer survivorship care. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed PCPs identified by thyroid cancer patients from the Georgia and LA SEER registries (n = 162, response rate 56%). PCPs reported their involvement in long-term surveillance and confidence in handling survivorship care (role of random thyroglobulin levels and neck ultrasound, and when to end long-term surveillance and refer back to the specialist). We examined: 1) PCP-reported factors associated with involvement using multivariable analyses; and 2) bivariate associations between involvement and confidence in handling survivorship care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PCP involvement (involved vs not involved) and confidence (high vs low). RESULTS: Many PCPs (76%) reported being involved in long-term surveillance. Involvement was greater among PCPs who noted clinical guidelines as the most influential source in guiding treatment (OR 4.29; 95% CI, 1.56-11.82). PCPs reporting high confidence in handling survivorship varied by aspects of care: refer patient to specialist (39%), role of neck ultrasound (36%) and random thyroglobulin levels (27%), and end long-term surveillance (14%). PCPs reporting involvement were more likely to report high confidence in discussing the role of random thyroglobulin levels (33.3% vs 7.9% not involved; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While PCPs reported being involved in long-term surveillance, gaps remain in their confidence in handling survivorship care. Thyroid cancer survivorship guidelines that delineate PCP roles present one opportunity to increase confidence about their participation.

The Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivor Clinic: lessons learned in our first 4 years.

PURPOSE: We established the Primary Care for Cancer Survivor (PCCS) Clinic in 2015 to address transition and care delivery challenges unique to cancer survivors. We describe the clinical program, detail patients from the first 4 years of implementation, and discuss lessons learned during the process. METHODS: We abstracted relevant patient information from the electronic medical record, administered a needs assessment survey at initial visits, and collected relative value unit (RVU) data. RESULTS: Between August 2015 and May 2019, we saw 230 PCCS patients with an increasing number of referrals yearly; nearly half were breast cancer survivors. At the initial visit, patients reported a median of 9 needs, with emotional needs most prevalent; over a third received at least one referral. PCCS patients generated higher billing codes and average RVUs compared with general patients. CONCLUSIONS: In its first 4 years, the PCCS program has thrived as a unique model of cancer survivorship centered in primary care. PCCS patients reported numerous needs, emphasizing the critical need for a multi-disciplinary approach in this population. With increasing referrals, we have considered different risk stratification and staffing models for capacity and expansion. By generating more RVUs per visit compared with the general clinic, PCCS has demonstrated financial sustainability. Buy-in from our oncology colleagues, divisional support from general medicine, along with our collaboration of like-minded internists have allowed us to be a robust program. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Models of survivorship care embedded in primary care can provide meaningful, patient-centered care for cancer survivors.

Association between PSA values and surveillance quality after prostate cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Although prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is used for prostate cancer detection and posttreatment surveillance, thresholds in these settings differ. The screening cutoff of 4.0 ng/mL may be inappropriately used during postsurgery surveillance, where 0.2 ng/mL is typically used, creating missed opportunities for effective salvage radiation treatment. We performed a study to determine whether guideline concordance with annual postoperative PSA surveillance increases when PSA values exceed 4 ng/mL, which represents a screening threshold that is not relevant after surgery. METHODS: We used US Veterans Health Administration data to perform a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of men diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer from 2005 to 2008 who underwent radical prostatectomy. We used logistic regression to examine the association between postoperative PSA levels and receipt of an annual PSA test. RESULTS: Among 10 400 men and 38 901 person-years of follow-up, annual guideline concordance decreased from 95% in year 1 to 79% in year 7. After adjustment, guideline concordance was lower for the youngest and oldest men, Black, and unmarried men. Guideline concordance significantly increased as PSA exceeded 4 ng/mL (adjusted odds ratio 2.20 PSA > 4-6 ng/mL vs PSA > 1-4 ng/mL, 95% confidence interval 1.20-4.03; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Guideline concordance with prostate cancer surveillance increased when PSA values exceeded 4 ng/mL, suggesting a screening threshold not relevant after prostate cancer surgery, where 0.2 ng/mL is considered treatment failure, is impacting cancer surveillance quality. Clarification of PSA thresholds for early detection vs cancer surveillance, as well as emphasizing adherence for younger and Black men, appears warranted.

Determinants of quality prostate cancer survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface: Lessons from the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: With over 3 million US prostate cancer survivors, ensuring high-quality, coordinated cancer survivorship care is important. However, implementation of recommended team-based cancer care has lagged, and determinants of quality care across primary and specialty care remain unclear. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), we explored multidisciplinary determinants of quality survivorship care in an integrated delivery system. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with primary (4) and specialty (7) care providers across 6 Veterans Health Administration clinic sites. Using template analysis, we coded interview transcripts into the TDF, mapping statements to specific constructs within each domain. We assessed whether each construct was perceived a barrier or facilitator, examining results for both primary care providers (PCPs) and prostate cancer specialists. RESULTS: Cancer specialists and PCPs identified 2 primary TDF domains impacting their prostate cancer survivorship care: Knowledge and Environmental context and resources. Both groups noted knowledge (about survivorship care) and procedural knowledge (about how to deliver survivorship care) as positive determinants or facilitators, whereas resources/material resources (to deliver survivorship care) was noted as a negative determinant or barrier to care. Additional domains more commonly referenced by cancer specialists included Social/professional role and identity and Goals, while PCPs reported the domain Beliefs about capabilities as relevant. CONCLUSIONS: We used the TDF to identify several behavioral domains acting as determinants of high-quality, team-based prostate cancer survivorship care. These results can inform prostate cancer survivorship care plan content, and may guide tailored, multidisciplinary implementation strategies to improve survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface.

Provider Involvement in Care During Initial Cancer Treatment and Patient Preferences for Provider Roles After Initial Treatment.

PURPOSE: Patients report strong preferences regarding which provider-oncologist or primary care provider (PCP)-handles their primary care after initial cancer treatment (eg, other cancer screenings, preventive care, comorbidity management). Little is known about associations between provider involvement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for provider roles after initial treatment. METHODS: Women who received a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer in 2014 to 2015 were identified from the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries and surveyed (N = 2,502; 68% response rate). Women reported the level of their providers' involvement in their care during initial cancer treatment. Associations between level of medical oncologist's participation and PCP's engagement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for oncologist led ( v PCP led) other cancer screenings after initial treatment were examined using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: During their initial cancer treatment, 20% of women reported medical oncologists participated substantially in delivering primary care and 66% reported PCPs were highly engaged in their cancer care. Two-thirds (66%) of women preferred medical oncologists to handle other cancer screenings after initial treatment. Women who reported substantial medical oncologist participation in primary care were more likely (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.91) and those who reported high PCP engagement in cancer care were less likely (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.53) to prefer oncologist-led other cancer screenings after initial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Providers' involvement during initial cancer treatment may affect patient preferences regarding provision of follow-up primary care. Clarifying provider roles as early as during cancer treatment may help to better delineate their roles throughout survivorship.

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.

Clinical Evaluation of an Individualized Risk Prediction Tool for Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether providing individualized predictions of health outcomes to men on active surveillance (AS) alleviates cancer-related anxiety and improves risk understanding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We consecutively recruited men from our large, institutional AS program before (n = 36) and after (n = 31) implementation of a risk prediction tool. Men in both groups were surveyed before and after their regular visits to assess their perceived cancer control, biopsy-specific anxiety, and burden from cancer-related information. We compared pre-/post-visit differences between men who were and were not shown the tool using two-sample t-tests. Satisfaction with and understanding of the predictions were elicited from men in the intervention period. RESULTS: Men reported a relatively high level of cancer control at baseline. Men who were not shown the tool saw a 6.3 point increase (scaled from 0 to 100) in their perceived cancer control from before to after their visit whereas men who were shown the tool saw a 12.8 point increase, indicating a statistically significant difference between groups (p = .04). Biopsy-specific anxiety and burden from cancer information were not significantly different between groups. Men were satisfied with the tool and demonstrated moderate understanding. CONCLUSION: Providing individualized predictions to men on AS helps them better understand their cancer risk and should be considered at other clinical sites.