'It Just Makes Sense to Me': A qualitative study exploring patient decision-making and experiences with prostate MRI during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Introduction: Although prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the diagnosis, staging and active surveillance of prostate cancer, little is known about patient perspectives on MRI. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Interviews focused on experiences with and knowledge of prostate MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy during active surveillance. We purposively sampled patients who received prostate MRI as part of their clinical care, conducted interviews until reaching thematic saturation and performed conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Twenty patients aged 51-79 years (mean = 68 years) participated in the study. At diagnosis, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and three (15%) had a grade group 2 tumour. Overall, participants viewed prostate MRI as a valuable tool that accurately localizes and monitors prostate cancer over time, and they considered prostate MRI central to active surveillance monitoring. We identified five thematic categories related to MRI use: (1) the experiential aspects of undergoing an MRI scan; (2) the experience of visualizing one's own prostate and prostate cancer; (3) adequacy of provider explanations of MRI results; (4) confidence in prostate MRI in decision-making; and (5) the role of prostate MRI in longitudinal follow-up, including an interest in using MRI to modify the timing of, or replace, prostate biopsy. Conclusion: Patients value prostate MRI as a tool that enhances their confidence in the initial diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. This work can inform future studies to optimize patient experience, education and counselling during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Association between sociodemographic factors and diagnosis of lethal prostate cancer in early life.

OBJECTIVE: A subset of patients are diagnosed with lethal prostate cancer (CaP) early in life before prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is typically initiated. To identify opportunities for improved detection, we evaluated patient sociodemographic factors associated with advanced vs. localized (CaP) diagnosis across the age spectrum. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database, identifying patients diagnosed with CaP from 2004 to 2020. We compared characteristics of patients diagnosed at the advanced (cN1 or M1) versus localized (cT1-4N0M0) stage. Using multivariable logistic regression, we evaluated the associations among patient clinical and sociodemographic factors and advanced diagnosis, stratifying patients by age as ≤55 (before screening is recommended for most patients), 56 to 65, 66 to 75, and ≥76 years. RESULTS: We identified 977,722 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at diagnosis was 65.3 years and 50,663 (5.1%) had advanced disease. Overall, uninsured (OR = 3.20, 95% CI 3.03-3.78) and Medicaid-insured (OR 2.58, 95% CI 2.48-2.69) vs. privately insured status was associated with higher odds of diagnosis with advanced disease and this effect was more pronounced for younger patients. Among patients ≤55 years, uninsured (OR 4.14, 95% CI 3.69-4.65) and Medicaid-insured (OR 3.39, 95% CI 3.10-3.72) vs. privately insured patients were associated with higher odds of advanced cancer at diagnosis. Similarly, residence in the lowest vs. highest income quartile was associated with increased odds of advanced CaP in patients ≤55 years (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.30). Black vs. White race was associated with increased odds of advanced CaP at diagnosis later in life (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25); however, race was not significantly associated with advanced stage CaP in those ≤55 years (P = 0.635). CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic disparities in diagnosis at advanced stages of CaP were more pronounced in younger patients, particularly with respect to insurance status. These findings may support greater attention to differential use of early CaP screening based on patient health insurance.