Type of treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction play an important role in primary care contact during prostate cancer follow-up: results from the population-based PROFILES registry.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing attention for the role of General Practitioners (GPs) after cancer treatment, it is important to better understand the involvement of GPs following prostate cancer treatment. This study investigates factors associated with GP contact during follow-up of prostate cancer survivors, such as patient, treatment and symptom variables, and satisfaction with, trust in, and appraised knowledge of GPs. METHODS: Of 787 prostate cancer survivors diagnosed between 2007 and 2013, and selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, 557 (71%) responded to the invitation to complete a questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate which variables were associated with GP contact during follow- up. RESULTS: In total, 200 (42%) prostate cancer survivors had contact with their GP during follow-up, and 76 (16%) survivors preferred more contact. Survivors who had an intermediate versus low educational level (OR = 2.0) were more likely to have had contact with their GP during follow-up. Survivors treated with surgery (OR = 2.8) or hormonal therapy (OR = 3.5) were also more likely to seek follow-up care from their GP compared to survivors who were treated with active surveillance. Patient reported bowel symptoms (OR = 1.4), hormonal symptoms (OR = 1.4), use of incontinence aids (OR = 1.6), and being satisfied with their GP (OR = 9.5) were also significantly associated with GP contact during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Education, treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction were associated with GP contact during prostate cancer follow-up. These findings highlight the potential for adverse side-effects to be managed in primary care. In light of future changes in cancer care, evaluating prostate cancer follow-up in primary care remains important.

Cancer survivors' preference for follow-up care providers: a cross-sectional study from the population-based PROFILES-registry.

BACKGROUND: The best practice for the organization of follow-up care in oncology is under debate, due to growing numbers of cancer survivors. Understanding survivors' preferences for follow-up care is elementary for designing patient-centred care. Based on data from prostate cancer and melanoma survivors, this study aims to identify: 1) preferences for follow-up care providers, for instance the medical specialist, the oncology nurse or the general practitioner; 2) characteristics associated with these preferences and 3) the preferred care provider to discuss cancer-related problems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Survivors diagnosed with prostate cancer (N = 535) and melanoma (N = 232) between 2007 and 2013 as registered in The Netherlands Cancer Registry returned a questionnaire (response rate was 71% and 69%, respectively). A latent class cluster model analysis was used to define preferences and a multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to identify survivor-related characteristics associated with these preferences. RESULTS: Of all survivors, 29% reported no preference, 40% reported a preference for the medical specialist, 20% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner and 11% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the oncology nurse. Survivors who were older, lower/intermediate educated and women were more likely to have a preference for the medical specialist. Lower educated survivors were less likely to have a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner. Overall, survivors prefer to discuss diet, physical fitness and fatigue with the general practitioner, and hereditary and recurrence with the medical specialist. Only a small minority favored to discuss cancer-related problems with the oncology nurse. CONCLUSION: Survivors reported different preferences for follow-up care providers based on age, education level, gender and satisfaction with the general practitioner, showing a need for tailored follow-up care in oncology. The results indicate an urgency to educate patients about transitions in follow-up care.

Variation in the Prescription of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radiotherapy in the Netherlands, and Adherence to European Association of Urology Guidelines: A Population-based Study.

BACKGROUND: According to (inter-)national guidelines, (neo-)adjuvant and concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is optional for intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients and is the recommended standard treatment for high-risk PCa patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to provide insight into the prescription of ADT in intermediate- and high-risk PCa patients treated with EBRT in the Netherlands, and to evaluate adherence to European Association of Urology guidelines and factors affecting prescription. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: All intermediate- and high-risk PCa patients between October 2015 and April 2016 were identified through the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Variation in the prescription of ADT in patients with EBRT was evaluated. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the probability of ADT and to examine the role of patient-, tumour-, and hospital-related factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 29% of patients with intermediate-risk PCa received ADT varying from 3% to 73% between institutions. From the multivariable regression analysis, higher Gleason grade, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography (CT)-positron-emission tomography/CT prior to radiotherapy appeared to be associated with increased prescription of ADT. Among high-risk patients, 83% received ADT, varying from 57% to 100% between departments. A higher prostate-specific antigen level, more advanced tumour stage, and a higher Gleason grade were associated with increased prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-third of intermediate-risk PCa patients treated with EBRT receive ADT. The variation in the prescription of ADT between different institutions is substantial. This suggests that the prescription is largely dependent on different institutional policies. The guideline adherence in high-risk PCa is fairly good, as the vast majority of patients received ADT as recommended. However, given the clear recommendations in the guidelines, adherence could be improved. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we looked at the variation of hormonal treatment in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. We found substantial variation between institutions.

Immediate treatment vs. active-surveillance in very-low-risk prostate cancer: the role of patient-, tumour-, and hospital-related factors.

BACKGROUND: To provide insight in the treatment variation of very-low-risk prostate cancer patients and to assess the role of hospital-related factors. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with very-low-risk prostate cancer (cT1c-cT2a, PSA < 10 ng/ml, Gleason score <7 and <3 positive cores) in 2015 and 2016 were identified through the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the crude and case-mix adjusted probability of immediate treatment vs. active-surveillance (AS) according to hospital of diagnosis and to evaluate the effect of patient-, tumour-, and hospital-related factors. RESULTS: In all, 2047 (85.4%) of the 2396 patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer were managed with AS. The crude proportion of patients with AS varied from 33.3 to 100% between hospitals. Case-mix adjusted probability varied from 71 to 97%. Tumour stage cT2a vs. cT1c (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1-3.6), two vs. one positive core (OR 2.8, 95%CI 1.6-4.7), diagnostic MRI (OR 2.8, 95%CI 1.5-5.2), discussion of a patient in a multi-disciplinary team (OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.1-4.5), discussion of treatment options with the patient (OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.5-7.4) and type of hospital (non-university referral hospital vs. community hospital: OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.2-0.9) were associated with immediate treatment. CONCLUSION: The majority of Dutch very-low-risk prostate cancer patients is managed with AS but variation between hospitals exists. Part of the variation is explained by patient- and tumour characteristics but also hospital-related factors play a role. This implies that clinical practice could be improved.

Patient positioning based on a radioactive tracer implanted in patients with localized prostate cancer: a performance and safety evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance and safety of a radiation therapy positioning system (RealEye) based on tracking a radioactive marker (Tracer) implanted in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a single-arm multi-institutional trial in 20 patients. The iridium-192 ((192)Ir)-containing Tracer was implanted in the patient together with 4 standard gold seed fiducials. Patient prostate-related symptoms were evaluated with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire. Computed tomography (CT) was performed for treatment planning, during treatment, and after treatment to evaluate the migration stability of the Tracer. At 5 treatment sessions, cone beam CT was performed to test the positioning accuracy of the RealEye. RESULTS: The Tracer was successfully implanted in all patients. No device or procedure-related adverse events occurred. Changes in IPSS scores were limited. The difference between the mean change in Tracer-fiducial distance and the mean change in fiducial-fiducial distance was -0.39 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] upper boundary, -0.22 mm). The adjusted mean difference between Tracer position according to RealEye and the Tracer position on the CBCT for all patients was 1.34 mm (95% CI upper boundary, 1.41 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the Tracer is feasible and safe. Migration stability of the Tracer is good. Prostate patients can be positioned and monitored accurately by using RealEye.