Bladder Cancer Survivors Who Do Not Smoke Have Better Longitudinal Health-Related Quality of Life Measures: An Assessment of the Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Health in Bladder Cancer (CEASE-BC) Study.

PURPOSE: Cigarette smoking is the most common risk factor for the development of bladder cancer (BC), yet there is a paucity of data characterizing the relationship between smoking status and longitudinal health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in patients with BC. We examined the association between smoking status and HRQoL among patients with BC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were sourced from a prospective, longitudinal study open between 2014 and 2017, which examined HRQoL in patients aged ≥ 18 years old diagnosed with BC across North Carolina. The QLQ-C30 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core instrument) was administered at 3, 12, and 24 months after BC diagnosis. Our primary exposure of interest was current smoking status. Linear regression using generalized estimating equations was used to analyze the relationship between smoking status and various domains of the QLQ-C30. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients enrolled in the study. Eighteen percent were classified as smoking at 3 months from diagnosis, and packs per day ranged from < 0.5 to 2. When controlling for time from diagnosis, demographic covariates, cancer stage, and treatment type, mean differences for physical function (7.4), emotional function (5.6), and fatigue measures (-8.2) were significantly better for patients with BC who did not smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BC who do not smoke have significantly better HRQoL scores in the domains of physical function, emotional function, and fatigue. These results underscore the need to treat smoking as an essential component of BC care.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Outcomes of a Mobile Health Tool for Radical Cystectomy Recovery.

PURPOSE: Postoperative education and symptom tracking are essential following cystectomy to reduce readmission rates and information overload. To address these issues, an internet-based tool was developed to provide education, alerts, and symptom tracking. We aimed to evaluate the tool's feasibility, acceptability, and impact on complication and readmission rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three eligible patients over 18 years old scheduled for cystectomy were enrolled. Patients were asked to use the mobile health (mHealth) tool daily for the first 2 weeks, then less frequently up to 90 days after discharge. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study variables. Feasibility was defined as at least 50% of patients using the tool once a week, and acceptability as patient satisfaction of > 75%. RESULTS: Use of the mHealth tool was feasible, with 90% of patients using it 1 week after discharge, but engagement declined over time to 50%, with technological difficulties being the main reason for nonengagement. Patient and provider acceptability was high, with satisfaction > 90%. Within 90 days, 36% experienced complications after discharge and 30% were readmitted. Engagement with the mHealth application varied but was not statistically associated with readmission (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that the electronic mobile health intervention for patients undergoing cystectomy was feasible, acceptable, and provided valuable educational content and symptom management. Future larger studies are needed to determine the tool's effectiveness in improving patient outcomes and its potential implementation into routine clinical care.

Patient and Provider Perception of Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor vs Chemoablation for Nonmuscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this mixed methods study was to investigate patient and provider perceptions of repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumors to improve counseling as new nonsurgical treatment modalities for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer emerge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quantitative data were collected via a web-based survey through the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network of patients with nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer who had undergone at least 1 transurethral resection of bladder tumor. Bivariable and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate associations of patient demographics and clinical variables with treatment preference. Qualitative data were collected with 60 in-depth telephone interviews with patients (n=40) and urologists (n=20) to understand experiences with bladder cancer and transurethral resection of bladder tumor. Telephone interviews were conducted by trained qualitative experts. Transcripts were imported into Dedoose to facilitate analysis. RESULTS: Survey data of 352 patients showed 210 respondents (60%) preferred repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor while 142 (40%) preferred intravesical chemoablation. Patients who preferred repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor were more likely to prioritize initial treatment effectiveness (63%), whereas those who preferred chemoablation prioritized risk of recurrence (55%). Variables associated with a preference for intravesical chemoablation included U.S. residence (OR=2; 95% CI 1.1, 3.8), or if they expressed their reason for treatment preference as priority of recurrence risk over effectiveness (OR=14.6; 95% CI 7.4, 28.5). Predominant interview themes varied across participants, with patients but not urologists emphasizing the emotional toll of the procedure along with the need for improved counseling regarding recurrence, terminology, and cancer-related signs and symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist in the way patients and urologists perceive repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor for bladder cancer. Understanding transurethral resection of bladder tumor perception will aid in shared decision making as novel treatments emerge for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Minimal Patient-Reported Side Effects for a Chemoablative Gel (UGN-102) Used as Frontline Treatment in Adults with Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: Optima II ("OPTimized Instillation of Mitomycin for Bladder Cancer Treatment," clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03558503) was a phase 2b trial evaluating a nonsurgical alternative as a primary treatment for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Patients received 6 weekly instillations of UGN-102, a mitomycin-containing reverse thermal gel. This is the first study to report on patient-reported side effects of UGN-102. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-three patients enrolled in Optima II from 20 sites. Of these 63 patients, 44 were in the cohort completing a quarterly patient-reported outcome measure assessing side effects. Changes in side effects were evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Associations of 3-month outcomes with demographic and clinical characteristics were examined with regression, controlling for baseline values. Ten of 44 patients (23%) were interviewed after the trial to understand tolerability for future patients making treatment decisions. Transcripts were double-coded using standard methods. RESULTS: In the patient-reported outcome measure cohort (44), 61% were men, 57% aged 65+ years and 89% were non-Hispanic White. UGN-102 did not cause decrements in patient-reported urinary symptoms, bloating/flatulence or malaise at the primary endpoint of 3 months. Sexual function mildly worsened. Future health worries improved. Demographics were not correlated with changes. Clinically, sexual function was correlated with new NMIBC and bloating/flatulence was associated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor within 12 months. In interviews, patients appreciated a nonsurgical alternative, would recommend the gel to other patients and would choose the gel over surgery. CONCLUSIONS: A nonsurgical, chemoablative gel (UGN-102) used as a primary treatment for NMIBC offers a more patient-centered therapeutic approach than standard treatments.

Patterns of Current Cigarette Smoking, Quit Attempts and Cessation Counseling among Survivors of Smoking-Related and Nonsmoking-Related Urological Malignancies: A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Analysis.

PURPOSE: Cigarette smoking is the leading modifiable risk factor for several genitourinary malignancies. Although smoking cessation after genitourinary cancer diagnosis is a critical component of survivorship, factors related to continued smoking are under studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the National Health Interview Survey (2014-2018). Our primary study outcome was the prevalence and correlates of cigarette smoking among adults with a history of smoking-related (kidney or bladder) urological cancer compared to a nonsmoking-related control (prostate cancer). We used regression analyses to assess the association of having a smoking-related genitourinary cancer history with continued cigarette smoking after diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were yearly smoking trends, quit attempts and reported receipt of smoking cessation counseling. RESULTS: A total of 2,664 respondents reported a history of genitourinary cancer, representing weighted estimates of 990,820 (smoking-related genitourinary cancer) and 2,616,596 (prostate cancer) adults. Survivors of smoking-related genitourinary cancers had a significantly higher overall prevalence of current cigarette use (14.8% vs 8.6%, p <0.001) and also reported more frequent receipt of counseling (79.8% vs 66.2%, p=0.02) but did not attempt to quit any more often than those with prostate cancer (52.4% vs 47.2%, p=0.44). Time trends demonstrated stable and persistent cigarette use among survivors of all genitourinary cancers. After adjustment for sociodemographic confounders, cancer type was not associated with current cigarette smoking (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.86-1.77). However, older age and more advanced educational attainment were associated with lower odds of current cigarette smoking, while single marital status was associated with higher odds. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cross-sectional study of survivors of genitourinary cancers, those with a reported smoking-related genitourinary cancer had a higher prevalence of current cigarette smoking compared to those with prostate cancer, our nonsmoking-related control. Those with smoking-related genitourinary cancers reported more frequent receipt of smoking cessation counseling.

Patient-reported sexual quality of life after different types of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: Analysis of a population-based prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although patients with prostate cancer face many treatment options, to the authors' knowledge the comparative effects of different surgical and radiotherapy (RT) options on sexual function are unclear. METHODS: In the current study, a population-based cohort of 835 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer from 2011 through 2013 was recruited throughout North Carolina in collaboration with the Rapid Case Ascertainment system of the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. All men were enrolled prior to treatment and followed prospectively using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices (PCSI) instrument. This analysis compares the sexual dysfunction scores of the PCSI among patients who received external-beam RT (EBRT), EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), brachytherapy, nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP), and non-nerve-sparing RP. Propensity scores were used to balance patient characteristics across groups, and multiple imputation was used for missing data. RESULTS: EBRT and brachytherapy resulted in similar PCSI scores through 24 months. Compared with those receiving EBRT, patients treated with EBRT with ADT and RP with or without nerve sparing were found to have worse PCSI scores at all posttreatment time points. Preservation of useful sexual function at 24 months was associated with treatment type, baseline score, and age. Predicted preservation rates were 14.1% to 70.7% for EBRT, 8.4% to 52.3% for EBRT with ADT, 4.7% to 45.3% for nerve-sparing RP, and 4.8% to 34.5% for non-nerve-sparing RP. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study indicate that RT alone results in the best preservation of sexual function, and brachytherapy provides similar outcomes. RT with ADT and nerve-sparing RP yielded similar outcomes, whereas patients treated with non-nerve-sparing RP experienced the worst sexual function. These results help patients to make decisions among the specific types of surgery and RT they face based on each individual's diagnosis.

Factors influencing prostate cancer treatment decisions for African American and white men.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer racial disparities in mortality outcomes are the largest in all of oncology, and less aggressive treatment received by African American (AA) patients versus white patients is likely a contributing factor. However, the reasons underlying the differences in treatment are unclear. METHODS: This study examined a prospective, population-based cohort of 1170 men with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic prostate cancer enrolled from 2011 to 2013 before treatment throughout North Carolina. By phone survey, each participant was asked to rate the aggressiveness of his cancer, and his response was compared to the actual diagnosis based on a medical record review. Participants were also asked to rate the importance of 10 factors for their treatment decision-making process. RESULTS: Among AA and white patients with low-risk cancer (according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines), 78% to 80% perceived their cancers to be "not very aggressive." However, among high-risk patients, 54% of AA patients considered their cancers to be "not very aggressive," whereas 24% of white patients did (P < .001). Although both AA and white patients indicated that a cure was a very important decision-making factor, AAs were significantly more likely to consider cost, treatment time, and recovery time as very important. In a multivariable analysis, perceived cancer aggressiveness and cure as the most important factor were significantly associated with receiving any aggressive treatment and were associated with surgery (vs radiation). After adjustments for these factors and sociodemographic factors, race was not significantly associated with the treatment received. CONCLUSIONS: Racial differences in perceived cancer aggressiveness and factors important in treatment decision making provide novel insights into reasons for the known racial disparities in prostate cancer as well as potential targets for interventions to reduce these disparities.

Association Between Choice of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy, or Active Surveillance and Patient-Reported Quality of Life Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have to decide among treatment strategies that may differ in their likelihood of adverse effects. Objective: To compare quality of life (QOL) after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, and brachytherapy vs active surveillance. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based prospective cohort of 1141 men (57% participation among eligible men) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were enrolled from January 2011 through June 2013 in collaboration with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Median time from diagnosis to enrollment was 5 weeks, and all men were enrolled with written informed consent prior to treatment. Final follow-up date for current analysis was September 9, 2015. Exposures: Treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of life using the validated instrument Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices was assessed at baseline (pretreatment) and 3, 12, and 24 months after treatment. The instrument contains 4 domains-sexual dysfunction, urinary obstruction and irritation, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems-each scored from 0 (no dysfunction) to 100 (maximum dysfunction). Propensity-weighted mean domain scores were compared between each treatment group vs active surveillance at each time point. Results: Of 1141 enrolled men, 314 pursued active surveillance (27.5%), 469 radical prostatectomy (41.1%), 249 external beam radiotherapy (21.8%), and 109 brachytherapy (9.6%). After propensity weighting, median age was 66 to 67 years across groups, and 77% to 80% of participants were white. Across groups, propensity-weighted mean baseline scores were 41.8 to 46.4 for sexual dysfunction, 20.8 to 22.8 for urinary obstruction and irritation, 9.7 to 10.5 for urinary incontinence, and 5.7 to 6.1 for bowel problems. Compared with active surveillance, mean sexual dysfunction scores worsened by 3 months for patients who received radical prostatectomy (36.2 [95% CI, 30.4-42.0]), external beam radiotherapy (13.9 [95% CI, 6.7-21.2]), and brachytherapy (17.1 [95% CI, 7.8-26.6]). Compared with active surveillance at 3 months, worsened urinary incontinence was associated with radical prostatectomy (33.6 [95% CI, 27.8-39.2]); acute worsening of urinary obstruction and irritation with external beam radiotherapy (11.7 [95% CI, 8.7-14.8]) and brachytherapy (20.5 [95% CI, 15.1-25.9]); and worsened bowel symptoms with external beam radiotherapy (4.9 [95% CI, 2.4-7.4]). By 24 months, mean scores between treatment groups vs active surveillance were not significantly different in most domains. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, each treatment strategy was associated with distinct patterns of adverse effects over 2 years. These findings can be used to promote treatment decisions that incorporate individual preferences.

Ascertainment of postprostatectomy radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data are frequently used to examine receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), but to the authors' knowledge the accuracy of data regarding second-course treatments is unknown. METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare-linked data, the authors identified a cohort of men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer with indications for RT due to adverse pathologic risk factors. Receipt of RT was compared between the SEER database and Medicare claims, with the latter considered to be the "gold standard." Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with ascertainment of RT in SEER. RESULTS: A total of 3842 men were analyzed, 749 of whom were found to have Medicare claims for RT within 1 year of undergoing prostatectomy. SEER ascertainment of postprostatectomy RT was 56% overall: 76% among patients who received RT within 2 months of prostatectomy, 73% among patients who received RT between 2 to 4 months after prostatectomy, 63% among patients who received RT between 4 to 6 months after prostatectomy, 44% among patients who received RT between 6 to 8 months after prostatectomy, and 21% among patients who received RT between 8 to 12 months after prostatectomy. On multivariable analysis, increasing time from prostatectomy to RT was found to be significantly associated with decreased SEER ascertainment (odds ratio, 0.70 per month; P<.001). There also was variation noted by SEER region and urban/rural locale. CONCLUSIONS: SEER underascertains the receipt of postprostatectomy RT compared with Medicare claims, and the magnitude of the underascertainment increases with longer time between prostatectomy and RT. These findings have direct implications for the use of SEER data alone to assess patterns of care and guideline concordance for second-course treatment. Cancer 2016;122:3069-3074. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Use of stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the United States from 2004 through 2012.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a newer treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer. The rates of diffusion of this technology across the United States are unknown. The goal of the current study was to describe the use of SBRT among patients with prostate cancer based on different risk groups (low, intermediate, or high risk) and by type of facility (community cancer program, comprehensive community cancer program, or academic program) in which patients were treated. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base, a national registry that contains approximately 70% of patients with cancer in the United States, the authors identified 274,466 men between the ages of 40 to 80 years who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2012 with localized prostate cancer and received radiation therapy (RT) as their initial treatment. The authors described the prevalence of SBRT use each year, and multivariable analysis was used to examine factors associated with the receipt of SBRT. RESULTS: In 2004, SBRT use was low (<1% in all patient groups), and was observed to increase steadily each year. By 2012, 8.8% of low-risk patients treated at academic centers with RT received SBRT. Uptake of SBRT was highest in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk disease. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that year of diagnosis, type of center, risk group, and race were all significantly associated with the use of SBRT. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first report of the adoption of SBRT for localized prostate cancer across the United States. Diffusion was noted to be slowest at community cancer programs, reflecting potential barriers of cost or expertise for this new technology. Adoption of SBRT was found to be highest among patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk disease, in accordance with the bulk of patients included in published SBRT studies. Cancer 2016;122:2234-41. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of adding androgen deprivation to modern dose-escalated radiotherapy for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown that androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy (RT). The benefit of ADT to patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with modern dose-escalated RT is unknown. This study evaluated the effectiveness of ADT on survival of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with dose-escalated RT. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer from 2004 to 2007 in the National Cancer Data Base. Favorable intermediate-risk disease was defined as 1 adverse risk factor (prostate-specific antigen level of 10-20 ng/mL or Gleason score of 7) and clinical T1/T2 prostate cancer. All patients were treated with primary dose-escalated RT (≥75.6 Gy or RT with a brachytherapy boost). Overall survival was analyzed with propensity score adjustment and Cox multivariate modeling. RESULTS: The study included 18,598 patients. The use of ADT decreased from 43.5% in 2004 to 39.5% in 2007. The propensity score-adjusted survival analysis demonstrated similar 8-year overall survival for men treated with dose-escalated RT and ADT and men treated with RT alone (77.7% vs 78.4%). ADT was not associated with improved survival in any age or comorbidity subgroup. In a sensitivity analysis using Cox multivariate modeling, the receipt of ADT was not associated with overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.07; P = .768). CONCLUSIONS: Adding ADT to modern dose-escalated RT was not associated with improved survival for patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The applicability of the survival benefit seen in older trials to modern patients is unclear. Because of the morbidity associated with ADT, dose-escalated RT alone for patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer may be a reasonable option. Cancer 2016;122:2341-2349. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in genitourinary clinical trials leading to FDA novel drug approval: An assessment of the FDA center for drug evaluation and research drug trials snapshot.

To determine the distribution of race and ethnicity among genitourinary oncology trial participants leading to FDA approval of novel molecular entities/biologics. Secondarily, we evaluated whether the proportion of Black participants in clinical trials increased over time. We quired the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Drug Trials Snapshot (DTS) between 2015 and 2020 for urologic oncology clinical trials leading to FDA approval of novel drugs. Enrollment data was stratified by race and ethnicity. Cochran-Armitage Trend tests were used to examine changes in Black patient participation over years. Nine clinical trials were identified that led to FDA approval of 5 novel molecular entities for prostate and 4 molecular entities for urothelial carcinoma treatment. Trials for prostate cancer included 5202 participants of which 69.8% were White, 4.0% Black, 11.0% Asian, 3.6% Hispanic, <1% American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 3% other. Trials in urothelial carcinoma had 704 participants of which 75.1% were male, 80.8% White, 2.3% Black, 2.4% Hispanic, <1% American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 5% other. Black participation rates over time did not change for urothelial (P = 0.59) or the combined cancer cohort (P = 0.29). Prostate cancer enrollment trends among Black participant declined over time (P = 0.03). Participants in genitourinary clinical trials leading to FDA approval of novel drugs are overwhelmingly white. Involving stakeholders who represent the needs and interests of underrepresented populations in the design and implementation of clinical trials of novel agents may be a strategy to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion among genitourinary clinical trials.

Patient Decision-Making Factors in Aggressive Treatment of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is underutilized for low-risk prostate cancer. This study examines decision-making factors associated with AS vs aggressive treatment in a population-based cohort of low-risk patients. METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients (n = 599) were enrolled through the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry from 2011 to 2013 and surveyed regarding 5 factors that may impact treatment decision making: perceived cancer aggressiveness, aggressiveness of treatment intent, most important goal (eg, cure, quality of life), primary information source, and primary decision maker. We examined the association between treatment decision-making factors with patient choice for AS vs aggressive treatment using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: This is a sociodemographically diverse cohort reflective of the population-based design, with 37.6% overall (47.6% among very low-risk patients) choosing AS. Aggressive treatment intent (odds ratio [OR] = 7.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.57 to 11.01), perceived cancer aggressiveness (OR = 4.93, 95% CI = 2.71 to 8.97), most important goal (cure vs other, OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.12 to 2.63), and primary information source (personal and family vs physician, OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.10 to 2.82) were associated with aggressive treatment. Overall, 88.4% of patients (92.2% among very low-risk) who indicated an intent to treat the cancer "not very aggressively" chose AS. CONCLUSIONS: These data from the patient's perspective shed new light on potentially modifiable factors that can help further increase AS uptake among low-risk patients. Helping more low-risk patients feel comfortable with a "not very aggressive" treatment approach may be especially important, which can be facilitated through patient education interventions to improve the understanding of the cancer diagnosis and AS having a curative intent.

Non-oncology clinical trial engagement in a nationally representative sample: Identification of motivators and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Enrollment in non-oncology clinical trials is often challenging and social determinants that may serve as motivators or barriers to clinical trial enrollment are largely unexplored. We sought to assess engagement in non-oncology clinical trials with a focus on social determinants of health as barriers or motivators toward participation. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of non-cancer respondents was conducted using the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) administered in 2020. Our analytic cohort was comprised of respondents with no reported history of cancer. Our primary outcome of interest was trial engagement defined as receiving an invitation to participate in a clinical trial. Secondary outcomes included participation in a clinical trial and reported motivators and barriers to clinical trial participation. RESULTS: A total of 3113 respondents with no reported history of cancer were included. Overall, 8.1% of respondents reported being invited to participate in a clinical trial. Amongst those invited to participate, 47.7% reported participating in a clinical trial. Respondents reported that clinical trial participation was motivated "somewhat" or "a lot" by "wanting to get better" (80.5%), "helping other people" (61.4%), "physician encouragement" (60.6%), "getting a chance to try new care" (60.2%), "family friend encouragement" (54.2%), or "getting paid" (50.0%). Overall, 82.5% of all respondents "don't know anything" or have "a little knowledge" about clinical trials. Reported barriers to clinical trial participation including getting transportation, childcare or paid time off work (48.4%) and standard of care not covered by insurance (62.0%) influenced the decision to participate "somewhat" or "a lot." CONCLUSION: Amongst a nationally representative sample, non-oncology clinical trial invitation is low, but participation amongst those invited is nearly 50%. This highlights the need for clinician engagement in clinical trials. Identifying modifiable social determinants of non-oncologic clinical trial participation may help promote improved engagement.

Patterns and associations of smoking and electronic cigarette use among survivors of tobacco related and non-tobacco related cancers: A nationally representative cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco-use among cancer survivors leads to preventable morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs. We sought to explore the prevalence of smoking and e-cigarette use among survivors of tobacco and non-tobacco related cancers. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the 2015-2018 National Health Interview Survey. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of current cigarette smoking or e-cigarette use among adults with self-reported history of tobacco related or non-tobacco related cancer. Logistic regression analysis was to assess the association of reported cancer type with cigarette smoking or e-cigarette use. Secondary outcomes included yearly trends and dual use. RESULTS: A total of 12,984 respondents reported a history of cancer, representing a weighted estimate of 5,060,059 individuals with a history of tobacco-related malignancy and 17,583,788 with a history of a tobacco and non-tobacco related cancer, respectively. Survivors of tobacco-related cancers had a significantly higher prevalence of current cigarette use (18.2 % vs 9.7 %, P < 0.0001), e-cigarette use (2.7 % vs 1.6 %, P < 0.0001) and similar rates of dual use. The prevalence of cigarette smoking among all survivors increased as time increased from the year of diagnosis up to 2 years post-diagnosis (P = 0.047). Odds of reporting current cigarette smoking use was higher for survivors of tobacco-related cancers, adjusted for sociodemographic factors (OR1.69, 95 % CI 1.44-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of tobacco-related cancers have a higher prevalence of current cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use compared to survivors of non-tobacco related cancers. There was a sequential increase in the prevalence of cigarette use during each subsequent year from the time of a new cancer diagnosis, underscoring the need for long term tobacco cessation support among newly diagnosed adults with cancer.

Perceptions of e-cigarette harm among cancer survivors: Findings from a nationally representative survey.

BACKGROUND: The growth in e-cigarette use may be driven by the perception that they are a safer, healthier alternative to conventional cigarettes. However, their long-term health implications are not well known and use is discouraged by most cancer societies. It is currently unclear how cancer survivors perceive the risks associated with e-cigarette and how this may influence use in this population. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) (Years 2017-2019). Our primary study outcome was the perception of harm associated with e-cigarettes compared to traditional cigarettes among adults with and without a self-reported history of cancer. We used logistic regression analyses assessing the association of a cancer history with the perception that e-cigarettes are as much or more harmful than cigarettes. RESULTS: A total of 11,846 respondents (weighted population estimate 243,728,483) were included. Of these, 26.6% reported a history of cancer. The proportion of cancer survivors who perceived e-cigarettes to be as much or more harmful than conventional cigarettes was similar to non-cancer respondents (70.6% vs 68.3%, P = 0.35). There was no difference in perception of harm among cancer and non-cancer respondents, adjusted for sociodemographic factors (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.6-1.1). Past (OR 9.06, 95% Cl 5.06-16.20) and never e-cigarette use (OR 23.40, 95% Cl 13.56-40.38) as well as having a history of cardiopulmonary disease (OR 1.28, 95% Cl 1.05-1.56) was associated with higher odds of perceiving e-cigarettes to be as much or more harmful. CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors commonly perceive e-cigarettes to be as much or more harmful than traditional cigarettes though these findings are similar to perceptions among adults without a history of cancer. There is a strong association with avoidance of e-cigarette products among those who perceive them to be harmful.

Revisiting Provider Role in Patient Use of Online Medical Records.

OBJECTIVES: Provider encouragement for patient use of online medical record (OMR) systems is poorly understood. The study examines temporal trends and predictors of provider encouragement and the effects of encouragement on OMR use. METHODS: Health Information National Trends Survey administered in 2017 and 2020 were used. Subjects were 18 to 75 years old with access to the Internet or smart devices. From 2017 and 2020, 2,558 and 3,058 subjects were included, respectively. RESULTS: In 2020, 52.8% reported receiving provider encouragement within the last year for OMR use compared with 41.3% in 2017 (p < 0.001). For respondents with chronic diseases (such as diabetes, hypertension, heart, or lung diseases [CVMD]), encouragement increased from 45.5 to 57.2% (p < 0.001). Sociodemographic determinants and clinical attributes (e.g., provider office visits, cancer history, or CVMDs) significantly (p < 0.05) predicted encouragement. Among CVMD subjects, gender and visit frequency were significant predictors. OMR use within a year grew recently (73.3% in 2020 vs. 60.6% in 2017, p = 0.002) among CVMD subjects reporting encouragement. Provider encouragement was associated (p < 0.05) with secure communication and viewing results using OMRs controlling for other predictors in the overall cohort and among CVMD subjects. CONCLUSION: Many respondents reported not receiving provider encouragement for OMR use. These subjects represent millions of U.S. adults, including those participating during the pandemic, with CVMDs or cancer history. Encouragement rates grew over time and was associated with demographic or disease attributes and with OMR use. Future research should assess the optimality of encouragement. Resources enabling provider encouragement should continue and help prevent disparity in health technology use.

Receipt of Guideline-Recommended Surveillance in a Population-Based Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Active Surveillance.

PURPOSE: Prospective clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer but also suggested that inadequate surveillance may risk missing an opportunity for cure. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used data from a population-based cohort of active-surveillance patients to examine the rigor of surveillance monitoring in the general population. RESULTS: Among 1419 patients enrolled from 2011 to 2013 throughout the state of North Carolina in collaboration with the state cancer registry and followed prospectively, 346 pursued active surveillance. Only 13% received all guideline-recommended surveillance testing (including prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, and prostate biopsy) within the first 2 years. Furthermore, adherence was <20% in all patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that "active surveillance" as implemented in the general population may not represent the rigorous monitoring regimens used in the studies that demonstrated the safety of this management approach. More real-world studies on active surveillance are needed.