Urban relatives ameliorate survival disparities for genitourinary cancer in rural patients.

INTRODUCTION: Patients living in rural areas have worse cancer-specific outcomes. This study examines the effect of family-based social capital on genitourinary cancer survival. We hypothesized that rural patients with urban relatives have improved survival relative to rural patients without urban family. METHODS: We examined rural and urban based Utah individuals diagnosed with genitourinary cancers between 1968 and 2018. Familial networks were determined using the Utah Population Database. Patients and relatives were classified as rural or urban based on 2010 rural-urban commuting area codes. Overall survival was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: We identified 24,746 patients with genitourinary cancer with a median follow-up of 8.72 years. Rural cancer patients without an urban relative had the worst outcomes with cancer-specific survival hazard ratios (HRs) at 5 and 10 years of 1.33 (95% CI 1.10-1.62) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.24-1.73), respectively relative to urban patients. Rural patients with urban first-degree relatives had improved survival with 5- and 10-year survival HRs of 1.21 (95% CI 1.06-1.40) and 1.16 (95% CI 1.03-1.31), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest rural patients who have been diagnosed with a genitourinary cancer have improved survival when having relatives in urban centers relative to rural patients without urban relatives. Further research is needed to better understand the mechanisms through which having an urban family member contributes to improved cancer outcomes for rural patients. Better characterization of this affect may help inform policies to reduce urban-rural cancer disparities.

Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

Low-Value Prostate Cancer Screening Among Young Men With Private Insurance.

INTRODUCTION: No professional society guidelines recommend PSA screening in men younger than age 40; however, data suggest testing occurs at meaningful rates in this age group. The purpose of this study was to identify the rate of PSA testing in men under 40. METHODS: This is a population-based, retrospective cohort study from 2008 to 2017. Using the MarketScan database, rates of testing for the sum of the annual population of men at risk were evaluated. Descriptive statistics and statistical analyses were performed in men continuously enrolled in the database for at least 5 year. Results were stratified by receipt of PSA testing and by age group. The association of diagnoses and Charlson Comorbidity Index with receipt of PSA test was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified 3,230,748 men ages 18 to 39 who were enrolled for at least 5 years. The rate of ever receiving PSA testing was 0.6%, 1.7%, 8.5%, and 9.1% in men less than 25, 25 to 29, 30 to 34, and 35 to 39 years, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression showed that relative to all men 18 to 39, patients who received PSA testing had higher odds of a diagnosis of hypogonadism (OR 11.77) or lower urinary tract symptoms (OR 4.19). CONCLUSIONS: This study found a remarkable number of young men receive PSA testing, with a strong association with diagnoses of lower urinary tract symptoms and hypogonadism. Clinicians need to be educated that assessment and management guidelines for other urologic diagnoses now defer PSA testing to prostate cancer screening guidelines.

Interruptions in bladder cancer care during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

BACKGROUND: Academic and community urology centers participating in a pragmatic clinical trial in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer completed monthly surveys assessing restrictions in aspects of bladder cancer care due to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. Our objective was to describe pandemic-related restrictions on bladder cancer care. METHODS: We invited 32 sites participating in a multicenter pragmatic bladder cancer trial to complete monthly surveys distributed through REDCap beginning in May 2020. These surveys queried sites on whether they were experiencing restrictions in the use of elective surgery, transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT), radical cystectomy, office cystoscopy, and intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) availability. Responses were collated with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 32 eligible sites, 21 sites had at least a 50% monthly response rate over the study period and were included in the analysis. Elective surgery was paused at 76% of sites in May 2020, 48% of sites in January 2021, and 52% of sites in January 2022. Over those same periods, coinciding with COVID-19 incidence waves, TURBT was restricted at 10%, 14%, and 14% of sites, respectively, radical cystectomy was restricted at 10%, 14%, and 19% of sites, respectively, and cystoscopy was restricted at 33%, 0%, and 10% of sites, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bladder cancer care was minimally restricted compared with more pronounced restrictions seen in general elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Association between adherence to radiation therapy quality metrics and patient reported outcomes in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown significant variability in the quality of prostate cancer care in the US with questionable associations between quality measures and patient reported outcomes. We evaluated the impact of compliance with nationally recognized radiation therapy (RT) quality measures on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) cohort. METHODS: CEASAR is a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer from which we identified 649 who received primary RT and completed HRQOL surveys for inclusion. Eight quality measures were identified based on national guidelines. We analyzed the impact of compliance with these measures on HRQOL assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years after treatment. Multivariable analysis was performed controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS: Among eligible participants, 566 (87%) patients received external beam radiation therapy and 83 (13%) received brachytherapy. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range: 64-73), 33% had low-, 43% intermediate-, and 23% high-risk disease. 28% received care non-compliant with at least one measure. In multivariable analyses, while some statistically significant associations were identified, there were no clinically significant associations between compliance with evaluated RT quality measures and patient reported urinary irritative, urinary incontinence, bowel, sexual or hormonal function. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with RT quality measures was not meaningfully associated with patient-reported outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. Further work is needed to identify patient-centered quality measures of prostate cancer care.

Impact of choosing wisely on imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Encouraging the appropriate use of staging imaging in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer remains a challenge. Assessing the effects of national efforts may help guide future initiatives in curtailing low-value care. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the Choosing Wisely campaign on imaging utilization among men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results - Medicare data were used to complete a longitudinal population-based study of men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2007 to 2015. An interrupted time series analysis evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely campaign on trends of imaging utilization. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2015 imaging utilization in low-risk patients decreased, with computed tomography (CT) usage declining from 45.0% to 34.4% (P<0.001) and nuclear medicine bone scan (NMBS) from 27.8% to 11.7% (P<0.001). Choosing Wisely likely contributed to an absolute reduction of 2.9% (P=0.03) in utilization of NMBS in the low-risk population. Imaging usage for all modalities increased in the high-risk population, but with 32.8% continuing to not receive guideline-supported imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In 2012, the Choosing Wisely campaign sought to decrease inappropriate staging imaging for men with low-risk prostate cancer and encourage stewardship of medical resources. Overall decreases in staging imaging trends suggest a move towards higher value care. However, this study found that the Choosing Wisely recommendations had a modest impact on utilization of NMBS, but not CT or PET scans. These results may help inform future efforts to promote guideline concordant imaging.

Initial outcomes and insights from a novel high-risk prostate cancer screening clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines for germline testing in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) are identifying family members who require additional surveillance given pathogenic variants (PVs) that confer increased PCa risk. We established an interdisciplinary clinic for cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals aimed to implement screening recommendations. This study aimed to characterize the clinical features of this cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Prostate Cancer Risk Clinic (PCRC) was established for unaffected individuals with germline PVs or a strong PCa family history. PCa screening, urine labs, and questionnaires were included in the visit. Individuals with BRCA1/2 PVs underwent clinical breast exam as well. Data from the initial visit were abstracted from the medical record and questionnaires for analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-five individuals with increased PCa risk were followed by the PCRC with a median age of 47 years of age. Twenty individuals (57%) had a family history of PCa, and 34 (97%) had a germline PV associated with an increased risk for developing PCa. Four individuals underwent biopsy due to care in the PCRC, with one PCa identified in an individual with TP53 PV. Median patient response scores indicated mild symptoms of an enlarged prostate (AUASS), normal erectile function (SHIM), and relatively low anxiety about developing PCa (MAX-PC). However, there were notable "outlier" scores on each questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with prostates and BRCA1/2 PVs, among other germline PVs, can benefit from a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach to high-risk management. PCa was identified in an individual with a non-BRCA PV, emphasizing the importance and need for high-risk screening guidelines across all genes with increased risk for PCa. "Outlier" patient response scores demonstrate that some participants experienced worse symptoms or anxiety than was indicated by median scores alone.

Prostate volume, baseline urinary function, and their association with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function in men treated for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia, lower urinary tract symptoms, and prostate cancer often co-occur. Their effect on urinary function is an important consideration regarding prostate cancer treatment choices. While prostate volume (PV) and urinary symptoms are commonly used in treatment choice decision making, their association with post-treatment urinary function is unknown. We evaluated the associations between PV and baseline urinary function with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function among men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We identified 1647 patients from CEASAR, a multicenter population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer, for analysis. Primary outcomes were treatment choice and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years. Multivariable analysis was performed, controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS: Median baseline PV was 36 mL (IQR 27-48), and baseline urinary irritative/obstructive domain score was 87 (IQR 75-100). There was no observed clinically meaningful association between PV and treatment choice or post-treatment urinary function. Among patients with poor baseline urinary function, treatment with radiation or surgery was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement in urinary function at 6 months which was durable through 5 years (improvement from baseline at 5 years: radiation 20.4 points, surgery 24.5 points). CONCLUSIONS: PV was not found to be associated with treatment modality or post-treatment urinary irritative/obstructive function among men treated for localized prostate cancer. Men with poor baseline urinary irritative/obstructive function improve after treatment with surgery or radiation therapy.

The Association Between Financial Toxicity and Treatment Regret in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling. METHODS: Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations. RESULTS: Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from "finances in general" was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.

Patient-reported Outcomes After External Beam Radiotherapy With Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost vs Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Five-year Results From a Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Study.

PURPOSE: Data comparing radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost are lacking. To better guide shared decision making regarding treatment, we compared patient reported outcomes through 5 years following radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2011-2012, men aged <80 years with localized prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled and followed longitudinally. Patient reported outcomes included the Expanded Prostate Index Composite. Regression models adjusted for baseline scores and covariates were constructed. RESULTS: The study population included 112 men treated with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost and 1,553 treated with radical prostatectomy. Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive (adjusted mean score difference [95% confidence interval]: 5.0 [-8.7, -1.3]; P = .008 at 5 years) and better urinary incontinence function (13.3 [7.7, 18.9]; P < .001 at 5 years) through 5 years. Urinary function bother was similar between groups (P > .4 at all timepoints). Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with worse bowel function (-4.0 [-6.9, -1.1]; P = .006 at 5 years) through 5 years compared to radical prostatectomy. Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with better sexual function at 1 year (12.0 [6.5, 17.5]; P < .001 at 1 year) compared to radical prostatectomy, but there was insufficient evidence to reject the supposition that no difference was seen at 3 or 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive and bowel functions but better urinary incontinence function through 5 years after treatment. These patient-reported functional outcomes may clarify treatment expectations and help inform treatment choices for localized prostate cancer.

Association between Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer and Mental Health Outcomes.

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare patient-reported mental health outcomes for men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective population-based analysis using the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study. Patient-reported depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression [CES-D]) and domains of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form survey evaluating emotional well-being and energy/fatigue were assessed through 5 years after treatment with surgery, radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) and active surveillance. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, and treatment approach. RESULTS: A total of 2,742 men (median [quartiles] age 64 [59-70]) met inclusion criteria. Baseline depressive symptoms, as measured by the CES-D, were low (median 4, quartiles 1-8) without differences between groups. We found no effect of treatment modality on depressive symptoms (p=0.78), though older age, poorer health, being unmarried and baseline CES-D score were associated with declines in mental health. There was no clinically meaningful association between treatment modality and scores for either emotional well-being (p=0.81) or energy/fatigue (p=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer showed no clinically important differences in mental health outcomes including depressive symptoms, emotional well-being, and energy/fatigue according to the treatment received (surgery, radiotherapy, or surveillance). However, we identified a number of characteristics associated with worse mental health outcomes including: older age, poorer health, being unmarried, and baseline CES-D score which may allow for early identification of patients most at risk of these outcomes following treatment.

Association of Treatment Modality, Functional Outcomes, and Baseline Characteristics With Treatment-Related Regret Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Treatment-related regret is an integrative, patient-centered measure that accounts for morbidity, oncologic outcomes, and anxiety associated with prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between treatment approach, functional outcomes, and patient expectations and treatment-related regret among patients with localized prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This population-based, prospective cohort study used 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-based registries in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation cohort. Participants included men with clinically localized prostate cancer from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012. Data were analyzed from August 2, 2020, to March 1, 2021. EXPOSURES: Prostate cancer treatments included surgery, radiotherapy, and active surveillance. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient-reported treatment-related regret using validated metrics. Regression models were adjusted for demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment approach, and patient-reported functional outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 2072 men included in the analysis (median age, 64 [IQR, 59-69] years), treatment-related regret at 5 years after diagnosis was reported in 183 patients (16%) undergoing surgery, 76 (11%) undergoing radiotherapy, and 20 (7%) undergoing active surveillance. Compared with active surveillance and adjusting for baseline differences, active treatment was associated with an increased likelihood of regret for those undergoing surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.40 [95% CI, 1.44-4.01]) but not radiotherapy (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.88-2.66]). When mediation by patient-reported functional outcomes was considered, treatment modality was not independently associated with regret. Sexual dysfunction, but not other patient-reported functional outcomes, was significantly associated with regret (aOR for change in sexual function from baseline, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.81]). Subjective patient-perceived treatment efficacy (aOR, 5.40 [95% CI, 2.15-13.56]) and adverse effects (aOR, 5.83 [95% CI, 3.97-8.58]), compared with patient expectations before treatment, were associated with treatment-related regret. Other patient characteristics at the time of treatment decision-making, including participatory decision-making tool scores (aOR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.69-0.92]), social support (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.90]), and age (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.97]), were significantly associated with regret. Results were comparable when assessing regret at 3 years rather than 5 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this cohort study suggest that more than 1 in 10 patients with localized prostate cancer experience treatment-related regret. The rates of regret appear to differ between treatment approaches in a manner that is mediated by functional outcomes and patient expectations. Treatment preparedness that focuses on expectations and treatment toxicity and is delivered in the context of shared decision-making should be the subject of future research to examine whether it can reduce regret.

Association between pelvic nodal radiotherapy and patient-reported functional outcomes through 5 years among men undergoing external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: An assessment of the comparative effectiveness analysis of surgery and radiation (CEASAR) cohort.

BACKGROUND: The role of pelvic irradiation in men receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer is unclear, in part due to a lack of data on patient-reported outcomes. We sought to compare functional outcomes for men receiving prostate and pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy, longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with clinically-localized prostate cancer undergoing EBRT. We examined the effect of prostate and pelvic (n = 102) versus prostate-only (n = 485) radiotherapy on patient-reported disease-specific (using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite[EPIC]-26) and general health-related (using the SF-36) function, over 5 years. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, clinicopathologic characteristics, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). RESULTS: 587 men (median [quartiles] age 69 [64-73] years) met inclusion criteria and completed ≥1 post-treatment survey. More men treated with prostate and pelvic radiotherapy had high-risk disease (58% vs. 18%, P < 0.01) and received ADT (75% vs. 41%, P < 0.01). These men reported worse sexual (6 months-5 years), hormonal (at 6 months), and physical (6 months-5 years) function. Accounting for baseline function, patient and tumor characteristics, and use of ADT, pelvic irradiation was not associated with statistically or clinically significant differences in bowel function, urinary incontinence, irritative voiding symptoms or sexual function through 5-years (all P > 0.05). Marginally clinically important differences were noted in hormonal function at 3-years (adjusted mean difference 4.7, 95% confidence interval [1.2-8.3]; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) 4 to 6) and 5-years (4.2, [0.4-8.0]) following treatment. After adjustment, there was a transient statistically significant, but not clinically important, difference in emotional well-being at 6 months (3.0, [0.19-5.8]; MCID 6) that resolved by 1 year and no differences in physical functioning or energy and fatigue. CONCLUSION: This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT, showed no clinically important differences in disease-specific or general health-related quality of life with the addition of pelvic irradiation to prostate radiotherapy, supporting the use of pelvic radiotherapy when it may be of clinical benefit, such as men with increased risk of nodal involvement.

Clinical Germline Testing Results of Men With Prostate Cancer: Patient-Level Factors and Implications of NCCN Guideline Expansion.

Germline likely pathogenic or pathogenic variants (PVs) have been identified in up to 17% of men with prostate cancer (PC) and may drive disease severity or be targetable by novel therapies. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines encouraging germline testing in metastatic PC were recently expanded to include all men with high-risk, very high-risk, or regional PC. Our aim was to assess the impact of expanded NCCN guidelines on the detection rate of germline PVs and to determine patient-level factors associated with a PV germline testing result. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with PC underwent multigene germline genetic testing for PVs from June 2016 to December 2018, and trends were compared. The association of patient-level factors with a PV germline testing result, where ≥ 1 PV was identified, was assessed using analysis of variance and univariate logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were limited to clinically actionable variants and those associated with disease severity or progression (BRCA1/2 and ATM). RESULTS: Of 408 men undergoing germline testing, 42 (10.3%) men had PVs and 366 (89.7%) men did not have PVs identified. The proportion of men identified with a germline PV remained stable following testing criteria expansion (9.4% v 10.6%, P = .73). No patient-level factors were significantly associated with increased odds of a PV germline testing result, including age at diagnosis, race, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, Gleason grade group, NCCN risk group, and family history of cancer (breast and/or ovarian, prostate, or any cancer). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a stable PV detection rate in men with PC using expanded criteria aligned to the updated NCCN testing guidelines. However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that patient-level factors are associated with PV germline testing results. These findings support the recent expansion of NCCN germline testing guidelines in PC.

Decision fatigue in low-value prostate cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Low-value prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common yet contributes substantial waste and downstream patient harm. Decision fatigue may represent an actionable target to reduce low-value urologic care. The objective of this study was to determine whether low-value PSA testing patterns by outpatient clinicians are consistent with decision fatigue. METHODS: Outpatient appointments for adult men without prostate cancer were identified at a large academic health system from 2011 through 2018. The authors assessed the association of appointment time with the likelihood of PSA testing, stratified by patient age and appropriateness of testing based on clinical guidelines. Appointments included those scheduled between 8:00 am and 4:59 pm, with noon omitted. Urologists were examined separately from other clinicians. RESULTS: In 1,581,826 outpatient appointments identified, the median patient age was 54 years (interquartile range, 37-66 years), 1,256,152 participants (79.4%) were White, and 133,693 (8.5%) had family history of prostate cancer. PSA testing would have been appropriate in 36.8% of appointments. Clinicians ordered testing in 3.6% of appropriate appointments and in 1.8% of low-value appointments. Appropriate testing was most likely at 8:00 am (reference group). PSA testing declined through 11:00 am (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64) and remained depressed through 4:00 pm (P < .001). Low-value testing was overall less likely (P < .001) and followed a similar trend, declining steadily from 8:00 am (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.42-0.56) through 4:00 pm (P < .001; OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.18-0.30). Testing patterns in urologists were noticeably different. CONCLUSIONS: Among most clinicians, outpatient PSA testing behaviors appear to be consistent with decision fatigue. These findings establish decision fatigue as a promising, actionable target for reducing wasteful and low-value practices in routine urologic care. LAY SUMMARY: Decision fatigue causes poorer choices to be made with repetitive decision making. This study used medical records to investigate whether decision fatigue influenced clinicians' likelihood of ordering a low-value screening test (prostate-specific antigen [PSA]) for prostate cancer. In more than 1.5 million outpatient appointments by adult men without prostate cancer, the chances of both appropriate and low-value PSA testing declined as the clinic day progressed, with a larger decline for appropriate testing. Testing patterns in urologists were different from those reported by other clinicians. The authors conclude that outpatient PSA testing behaviors appear to be consistent with decision fatigue among most clinicians, and interventions may reduce wasteful testing and downstream patient harms.

Prostate-specific antigen testing among young men: an opportunity to improve value.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains widespread. The prevalence of PSA testing in young men is unknown and may be an appropriate target for improving health care by decreasing low-value testing in this age group. The purpose of this study was to determine PSA testing rates in men younger than current guidelines support. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Health Informational National Trends Surveys (HINTS) from 2011 to 2014 and 2017 were analyzed to establish the prevalence of PSA testing in young men and to evaluate the differences in testing rates based on race. RESULTS: The combined survey data included 5178 men, with 2393 reporting previous PSA screening. Of men ages 18-39, 7% recalled receipt of PSA testing. Twenty-two percent of men between the ages of 40 and 44 had been tested. Among men under age 40, PSA testing was more common among black men (14%) compared to white men (7%), Hispanics (6%), and men of Asian descent (8%). Logistic regression modeling demonstrates that black men under the age of 40 were more likely to undergo PSA testing than other racial or ethnic groups (odds ratio 2.14; 95% CI 1.17, 3.93). CONCLUSIONS: Current guidelines do not recommend routine PSA testing in average-risk men under the age of 40. This study found that a significant number of young men are exposed to testing, with the greatest risk among black men. This suggests that there is an opportunity to improve the value of PSA testing by decreasing testing in young men.

Five-year outcomes from a prospective comparative effectiveness study evaluating external-beam radiotherapy with or without low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To inform patients who are in the process of selecting prostate cancer treatment, the authors compared disease-specific function after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone versus EBRT plus a low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR). METHODS: For this prospective study, men who had localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012 were enrolled. Assessments at baseline, 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 years included the patient-reported Expanded Prostate Index Composite, the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey, and treatment-related regret. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and for patient and treatment characteristics. The minimum clinically important difference in scores on the Expanded Prostate Index Composite 26-item instrument was from 5 to 7 for urinary irritation and from 4 to 6 for bowel function. RESULTS: Six-hundred ninety-five men met inclusion criteria and received either EBRT (n = 583) or EBRT-LDR (n = 112). Patients in the EBRT-LDR group were younger (median age, 66 years [interquartile range [IQR], 60-71 years] vs 69 years [IQR, 64-74 years]; P < .001), were less likely to receive pelvic radiotherapy (10% vs 18%; P = .040), and had higher baseline 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey physical function scores (median score, 95 [IQR, 86-100] vs 90 [IQR, 70-100]; P < .001). Over a 3-year period, compared with EBRT, EBRT-LDR was associated with worse urinary irritative scores (adjusted mean difference at 3 years, -5.4; 95% CI, -9.3, -1.6) and bowel function scores (-4.1; 95% CI, -7.6, -0.5). The differences were no longer clinically meaningful at 5 years (difference in urinary irritative scores: -4.5; 95% CI, -8.4, -0.5; difference in bowel function scores: -2.1; 95% CI, -5.7, -1.4). However, men who received EBRT-LDR were more likely to report moderate or big problems with urinary function bother (adjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.2) and frequent urination (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.6) through 5 years. There were no differences in survival or treatment-related regret between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EBRT alone, EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative and bowel function over 3 years after treatment and more urinary bother at 5 years. LAY SUMMARY: In men with prostate cancer who received external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR), EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically worse urinary irritation and bowel function through 3 years but resolved after 5 years. Men who received EBRT-LDR continued to report moderate-to-big problems with urinary function bother and frequent urination through 5 years. There was no difference in treatment-related regret or survival between patients who received EBRT and those who received EBRT-LDR. These intermediate-term estimates of function may facilitate counseling for men who are selecting treatment.