Feasibility and delivery of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice among racially diverse bladder and prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of enrollment and collecting patient-reported outcome (PRO) data as part of routine clinical urologic care for bladder and prostate cancer patients and examine overall patterns and racial variations in PRO use and symptom reports over time. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recruited 76 patients (n = 29 Black and n = 47 White) with prostate or bladder cancer at a single, comprehensive cancer center. The majority of prostate cancer patients had intermediate risk (57%) disease and underwent either radiation or prostatectomy. Over half (58%) of bladder cancer patients had muscle invasive disease and underwent cystectomy. Patients were asked to complete PRO symptom surveys using their preferred mode [web- or phone-based interactive voice response (IVR)]. Symptom summary reports were shared with providers during visits. Surveys were completed at 3 time points and assessed urinary, sexual, gastrointestinal, anxiety/depression, and sleep symptoms. Feasibility of enrollment and survey completion were calculated, and linear mixed effects models estimated differences in outcomes by race and time. RESULTS: Sixty three percent of study participants completed all PRO measures at all 3 time points. Black patients were more likely to select IVR as their survey mode (40% vs. 13%, P < 0.05), and less likely to complete all surveys (55% vs. 74%, P = 0.13). Patients using IVR were also less likely to complete all surveys (41% vs. 69%, P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Reported preferences for survey mode and completion rates differ by race, which may influence survey completion rates and highlight potential obstacles for equitable implementation of PROs into clinical care.

Integrating Patient Preference into Treatment Decisions for Men with Prostate Cancer at the Point of Care.

PURPOSE: Men with clinically localized prostate cancer face an archetypal "preference sensitive" treatment decision. A shared decision making process incorporating patient values and preferences is paramount. We evaluated the benefit of a novel decision making application, and investigated associations between patient preferences and treatment choice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a novel, web based application that provides education, preference measurement and personalized decision analysis for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Preferences are measured using conjoint analysis. The application ranks treatment options according to their "fit" (expected value) based on clinical factors and personal preferences, and serves as the basis for shared decision making during the consultation. We administered the decisional conflict scale before and after completion of the application. Additionally, we compared post-visit perceptions of shared decision making between a baseline "usual care" cohort and a cohort seen after the application was integrated into clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 109 men completed the application before their consultation, and had decisional conflict measured before and after use. Overall decisional conflict decreased by 37% (p <0.0001). Analysis of the decisional conflict subscales revealed statistically significant improvements in all 5 domains. Patients completing the decision making application (33) felt more included in (88% vs 57%, p=0.01) and jointly responsible for (94% vs 52%, p <0.0001) the decision about further treatment compared to those receiving usual care (24). More patients who completed the application strongly agreed that different treatment options were discussed (94% vs 74%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of this web based intervention was associated with decreased decisional conflict and enhanced elements of shared decision making.