RESUMEN
Background: Many individuals undergoing cancer treatment experience substantial financial hardship, often referred to as financial toxicity (FT). Those undergoing prostate cancer treatment may experience FT and its impact can exacerbate disparate health outcomes. Localized prostate cancer treatment options include: radiation, surgery, and/or active surveillance. Quality of life tradeoffs and costs differ between treatment options. In this project, our aim was to quantify direct healthcare costs to support patients and clinicians as they discuss prostate cancer treatment options. We provide the transparent steps to estimate healthcare costs associated with treatment for localized prostate cancer among the privately insured population using a large claims dataset. Methods: To quantify the costs associated with their prostate cancer treatment, we used data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters, including MarketScan Medicaid, and peer reviewed literature. Strategies to estimate costs included: (1) identifying the problem, (2) engaging a multidisciplinary team, (3) reviewing the literature and identifying the database, (4) identifying outcomes, (5) defining the cohort, and (6) designing the analytic plan. The costs consist of patient, clinician, and system/facility costs, at 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years following diagnosis. Results: We outline our specific strategies to estimate costs, including: defining complex research questions, defining the study population, defining initial prostate cancer treatment, linking facility and provider level related costs, and developing a shared understanding of definitions on our research team. Discussion and next steps: Analyses are underway. We plan to include these costs in a prostate cancer patient decision aid alongside other clinical tradeoffs.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Current screening guidelines for prostate cancer (PCa) encourage men to make individual screening decisions after consulting with their primary care provider to weigh the risks and benefits of undergoing prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, but many men at high risk of PCa diagnosis (notably African American men) are more likely to be uninsured and lack a primary care provider. An academic-community partnership redesigned its community-based screening program to ensure access to services for African American men, incorporating a session with a trained clinical educator in community settings, designed to increase knowledge and promote informed decision-making regarding PSA testing. This study evaluated effects of the intervention on decision-making outcomes. METHODS: To evaluate program efficacy, 88 men completed pre- and post-test surveys assessing outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Participants' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, anxiety levels, and self-efficacy all improved from pre- to post-test at a statistically significant level. Most notably participants' awareness that PCa is often not life-threatening, and watchful waiting is a reasonable treatment option increased after the encounter. More than half of the study sample felt they had received enough knowledge to make an informed decision about whether the PSA test was right for them. CONCLUSION: Our findings show the program had positive effects on men's ability to make informed decisions about PCa screening and demonstrate that educational outreach programs with an emphasis on informed decision-making can effectively balance screening guidelines with the needs of underserved populations in community settings to improve outcomes.
