Envisioning clinical trials as complex interventions

Clinical trials are critical components of modern health care and infrastructure. Trials benefit society through scientific advancement and individual patients through trial participation. In fact, billions of dollars are spent annually in support of these benefits. Despite the massive investments, clinical trials often fail to accomplish their primary aims and trial enrollment rates remain low. Prior efforts to improve trial conduct and enrollment have had limited success, perhaps due to oversimplification of the complex, multilevel nature of trials. For these reasons, the authors propose applying implementation science to the clinical trials context. In this commentary, the authors posit clinical trials as complex, multilevel evidence-based interventions with significant societal and individual benefits yet with persistent gaps in implementation. An application of implementation science concepts to the clinical trials context as means to build common vocabulary and establish a platform for applying implementation science and practice to improve clinical trial conduct is introduced. Applying implementation science to the clinical trials context can augment improvement efforts and build capacity for better and more efficient evidence-based care for all patients and trial stakeholders throughout the clinical trials enterprise.

Exploring Variation in the Receipt of Recommended Active Surveillance for Men with Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer do not receive all the recommended testing. Reasons for variation in receipt are unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We combined prospective registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, a collaborative of 46 academic and community urology practices across Michigan, with insurance claims from 2014 to 2018 for men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer. We defined receipt of recommended surveillance according to the collaborative's low-intensity criteria as: annual prostate specific antigen testing and either magnetic resonance imaging or prostate biopsy every 3 years. We assessed receipt of recommended surveillance among men with ≥36 months of followup (246). We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the influence of the urologist, urologist and primary care provider visits, and patient demographic and clinical factors on variation in receipt.

RESULTS

During 3 years of active surveillance, just over half of men (56.5%) received all recommended surveillance testing (69.9% annual prostate specific antigen testing, 72.8% magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy). We found 19% of the variation in receipt was attributed to individual urologists. While increasing provider visits were not significantly associated with receipt, older men were less likely to receive magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy (≥75 vs <55 years, adjusted odds ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer did not receive all recommended surveillance. While urologists substantially influenced receipt of recommended testing, exploring how to leverage patients and their visits with their primary care providers to positively influence receipt appears warranted.

Improving Guideline Adherence in Urology

CONTEXT

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) distil an evidence base into recommendations. CPG adherence is associated with better patient outcomes. However, preparation and dissemination of CPGs are a costly task involving multiple skilled personnel. Furthermore, dissemination alone does not ensure CPG adherence. Reasons for nonadherence are often complex, but understanding practice variations and reasons for nonadherence is key to improving CPG adherence and harmonising clinically appropriate and cost-effective care.

OBJECTIVE

To overview approaches to improving guideline adherence, to provide urology-specific examples of knowledge-practice gaps, and to highlight potential solutions informed by implementation science.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Three common approaches to implementation science (the Knowledge-To-Action framework, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and the Behaviour Change Wheel), are summarised.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Three implementation problems in urology are illustrated: underuse of single instillation of intravesical chemotherapy in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, overuse of androgen deprivation therapy in localised prostate cancer, and guideline-discordant imaging in prostate cancer. Research using implementation science approaches to address these implementation problems is discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Urologists, patients, health care providers, funders, and other key stakeholders must commit to reliably capturing and reporting data on patient outcomes, practice variations, guideline adherence, and the impact of adherence on outcomes. Leverage of implementation science frameworks is a sound next step towards improving guideline adherence and the associated benefits of evidence-based care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Clinical practice guideline documents are created by expert panels. These documents provide overviews of the evidence for the tests and treatments used in patient care. They also provide recommendations and it is expected that in most circumstances clinicians will follow these recommendations. Sometimes, health care professionals cannot or do not follow these recommendations and it is not always clear why. In this review article we look at some examples of research approaches to addressing this problem of nonadherence and we provide some examples specific to urology.

Evolving a national clinical trials learning health system

Clinical trials generate key evidence to inform decision making, and also benefit participants directly. However, clinical trials frequently fail, often struggle to enroll participants, and are expensive. Part of the problem with trial conduct may be the disconnected nature of clinical trials, preventing rapid data sharing, generation of insights and targeted improvement interventions, and identification of knowledge gaps. In other areas of healthcare, a learning health system (LHS) has been proposed as a model to facilitate continuous learning and improvement. We propose that an LHS approach could greatly benefit clinical trials, allowing for continuous improvements to trial conduct and efficiency. A robust trial data sharing system, continuous analysis of trial enrollment and other success metrics, and development of targeted trial improvement interventions are potentially key components of a Trials LHS reflecting the learning cycle and allowing for continuous trial improvement. Through the development and use of a Trials LHS, clinical trials could be treated as a system, producing benefits to patients, advancing care, and decreasing costs for stakeholders.

Recurrence, metastasis, and survival after radical prostatectomy in the era of advanced treatments

5090

Background: Accurate survival estimates after prostatectomy are critical for patient counseling, treatment decisions, and trial design. Prior prostate cancer natural history studies may not reflect contemporary outcomes and often lack key endpoints (e.g. incident metastases). For these reasons, we explored population-based recurrence and survival following radical prostatectomy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy from 2005-2015 with follow up through 2019 in the Veterans Health Administration. We excluded men with adjuvant radiation or hormonal therapy and defined biochemical recurrence (BCR) as a PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL. We used a validated natural language processing encoded dataset to identify incident metastatic disease. We then estimated actuarial time from surgery to BCR, BCR to metastatic disease, and metastatic disease to death using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Of 22,033 men post-prostatectomy, 5,963 (27%) developed BCR, with 5- and 10-year BCR estimates of 21% and 29% (Table). Of 5,963 men with BCR, 678 (11%) developed metastasis, with 5- and 10-year metastasis-free survival from time of BCR of 91% and 77%. Of these 678 men with metastases, 235 died (35%), with 5- and 10-year overall survival of 61% and 47%. Median actuarial overall survival from incident metastatic disease was 8.8 years. Conclusions: On average, we found a man undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer can expect about a 1 in 4 chance of biochemical recurrence. Of men with BCR, we identified a 1 in 10 chance of developing metastases, surviving nearly 9 years after incident metastasis. Both metastasis-free survival after biochemical recurrence and overall survival after developing metastasis appear to have lengthened consistent with a long natural history after prostate cancer surgery. Novel advanced prostate cancer treatments may help explain these findings, though their optimal use warrants further study especially as advanced imaging techniques to characterize recurrence increase. [Table: see text]

Unpacking low-value castration practices using behavior specification to guide de-implementation in prostate cancer care

e17055

Background: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to ADT at some point during cancer survivorship. Unfortunately, ADT overuse in low-value scenarios is not uncommon (e.g., monotherapy in localized prostate cancer, biochemically-recurrent non-metastatic disease) resulting in more harms than benefits. We conducted an innovative survey study to unpack ADT overuse to inform behavior change and de-implementation strategies. Methods: Our survey used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behavior (COM-B) Model. The survey was fielded to the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on their likelihood of stopping ADT monotherapy in the case of a localized prostate cancer patient presenting to their office (yes/probably yes, probably no/no), and characterized Likert scale responses to 7 COM-B statements. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify associations between stopping ADT and COM-B responses across a dichotomized Likert scale of “strongly disagree/disagree/neutral” and “agree/strongly agree.”. Results: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating ‘probably no’/‘no’ to stopping low-value ADT monotherapy in the case of a localized prostate cancer patient presenting to their office. Our multivariable model identified 2 COM-B statements significantly associated with lower likelihood of stopping low-value ADT. Conclusions: Using an innovative, behavioral theory-informed survey, we identified that providers less likely to stop low-value ADT had greater concern about patient worry and were more interested in providing ADT recommendations consistent with peers, informing de-implementation strategy selection. Clinical trial information: MCT03579680. [Table: see text]

TrueNTH Sexual Recovery Intervention for couples coping with prostate cancer: Randomized controlled trial results

BACKGROUND

Despite significant sexual dysfunction and distress after localized prostate cancer treatment, patients typically receive only physiologic erectile dysfunction management. The authors performed a randomized controlled trial of an online intervention supporting couples' posttreatment recovery of sexual intimacy.

METHODS

Patients treated with surgery, radiation, or combined radiation and androgen deprivation therapy who had partners were recruited and randomized to an online intervention or a control group. The intervention, tailored to treatment type and sexual orientation, comprised 6 modules addressing expectations for sexual and emotional sequelae of treatment, rehabilitation, and guidance toward sexual intimacy recovery. Couples, recruited from 6 sites nationally, completed validated measures at the baseline and 3 and 6 months after treatment. Primary outcome group differences were assessed with t tests for individual outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 142 randomized couples, 105 patients (mostly surgery) and 87 partners completed the 6-month survey; this reflected challenges with recruitment and attrition. There were no differences between the intervention and control arms in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Satisfaction With Sex Life scores 6 months after treatment (the primary outcome). Three months after treatment, intervention patients and partners reported more engagement in penetrative and nonpenetrative sexual activities than controls. More than 73% of the intervention participants reported high or moderate satisfaction with module content; more than 85% would recommend the intervention to other couples.

CONCLUSIONS

Online psychosexual support for couples can help couples to connect and experience sexual pleasure early after treatment despite patients' sexual dysfunction. Participants' high endorsement of the intervention reflects the importance of sexual health support to couples after prostate cancer treatment.

LAY SUMMARY

This study tested a web-based program supporting couples' sexual recovery of sexual intimacy after prostate cancer treatment. One hundred forty-two couples were recruited and randomly assigned to the program (n = 60) or to a control group (n = 82). The program did not result in improvements in participants' satisfaction with their sex life 6 months after treatment, but couples in the intervention group engaged in sexual activity sooner after treatment than couples in the control group. Couples evaluated the program positively and would recommend it to others facing prostate cancer treatment.

Better Understanding the Timing of Androgen Deprivation (TOAD) Trial Outcomes: Impacts of Prior ADT

Background

The Timing Of Androgen Deprivation (TOAD) trial found an overall survival benefit for immediate vs delayed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–relapsed or noncurable prostate cancer. However, broad eligibility criteria allowed entry of a heterogeneous participant group, including those with prior ADT exposure, raising concerns about subsequent androgen sensitivity. For these reasons, we completed previously specified subgroup analyses to assess if prior ADT was associated with ADT timing efficacy after PSA relapse.

Methods

We examined TOAD trial patient-level data for participants with PSA relapse after local therapy. We performed Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival stratified by prior ADT and randomized treatment arm (immediate or delayed ADT). We compared group characteristics using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher exact tests. All hypothesis tests were 2-sided.

Results

We identified 261 patients with PSA relapse, 125 of whom received prior ADT. Patients with prior ADT had higher PSA at presentation (12.1 vs 9.0 ng/mL; P < .001), more cT3 disease (38.4% vs 25.0%; P = .007), and more likely received radiotherapy as local treatment (80.0% vs 47.8%; P < .001) but were otherwise similar to patients without prior ADT exposure. Within this prior ADT group, those who received immediate ADT (n = 56) had improved overall survival compared with those who received delayed ADT (n = 69; P = .02). This benefit was not observed in the group with no prior ADT (P = .98).

Conclusions

The survival benefit demonstrated in the TOAD trial may be driven by patients who received ADT prior to trial entry. We provide possible explanations for this finding with implications for treatment of PSA-relapsed prostate cancer and future study planning.

Promotional Payments to Medical Oncologists and Urologists and Prescriptions for Abiraterone and Enzalutamide

OBJECTIVE

To understand the influence of drug manufacturers on the prescribing patterns of medical oncologists and urologists, we examined the relationship between promotional payments from the manufacturers of abiraterone and enzalutamide and prescriptions for either drug by medical oncologists and urologists.

METHODS

Promotional payments for abiraterone or enzalutamide made to medical oncologists and urologists between January 2014 and December 2017 reported through the Open Payments Program were categorized as $0, $1$999, and $1000 or more. Prescriptions filled between January 2013 and December 2017 were identified in the Medicare Part D File. Associations between promotional payments and prescribing were assessed using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

From 2013 through 2017, the number of medical oncologists and urologists prescribing abiraterone or enzalutamide increased by 38% - 298%, respectively. The odds of prescribing among medical oncologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more were 1.69 (95%CI:1.59--1.79) and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.14--3.18) times that of medical oncologists receiving no payments. Among urologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more, the odds of prescribing were 4.04 (95%CI: 3.59--4.54) and 13.57 (95%CI: 9.69--19.0) times that of urologists receiving no payments.

CONCLUSION

Increasing promotional payments were associated with prescribing among medical oncologists and urologists, with a stronger relationship evident for urologists. Prescribing patterns for abiraterone and enzalutamide, particularly among urologists, may be influenced by payments from drug manufacturers.

The changing landscape of treatment and survival for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer in the era of novel treatments

67

Background: Several therapies for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) have become available since 2010 with the hope of prolonging survival for those at the end stages of their disease. Little is known about the survival of men who receive novel therapies in the real world and the disease burden of patients initiating treatment for CRPC between 2010 and 2017. Methods: Using the Veterans Health Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified Veterans with CRPC who received first-line therapy for castration-resistant disease between 2010-2017. Therapies included ketoconazole, docetaxel, abiraterone, and enzalutamide since > 99% of patients treated for CRPC received one of these therapies first-line for CRPC. We used a Cox model to calculate the overall survival of patients from time of first CRPC treatment for each year. We then adjusted for patient and disease characteristics, such as starting PSA level, and prognostic group at the start of treatment based on hemoglobin, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin levels. Results: In a cohort of 4,998 men started on treatment for CRPC between 2010-2017, survival from start of first-line treatment gradually increased between 2010-2017. In 2010, when 38% of men received docetaxel first-line and 62% ketoconazole, the probability of surviving at least one year from start of first-line therapy was 64%. In 2017, when the landscape of first-line treatment had changed (49% abiraterone, 9% docetaxel, 41% enzalutamide, 1% ketoconazole) one-year survival from start of first therapy improved to 72%. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for an additional calendar year was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.95). Men started on first-line CRPC therapy in 2010 had worse prognostic labs at the start of therapy, suggesting worse disease, and had a higher PSA value at the start of therapy compared to those started on CRPC therapy in 2017 (median PSA 55.1 in 2010 vs 27.8 in 2017, p-value < 0.01). When adjusting for disease characteristics, the improvement in survival we saw between 2010 and 2017 was diminished with adjusted HR for an additional calendar year of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-1.00). Conclusions: With the development of novel therapies, the survival of patients with similar disease burden should gradually improve over time. Although we did see a modest improvement in survival between 2010-2017, this improvement was mitigated when adjusting for disease severity, suggesting that some of the improvement in survival may be affected by a lead-time bias—treating patients earlier in their CRPC.

Comparison of the treatment of men with prostate cancer between the US and England: an international population-based study

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of prostate cancer varies between the United States (US) and England, however this has not been well characterised using recent data. We therefore investigated the extent of the differences between US and English patients with respect to initial treatment.

METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the US and the treatments they received. We also used the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database for the same purposes among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England. Next, we used multivariable regression to estimate the adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of receiving radical local treatment for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer according to the country of diagnosis (US vs. England). The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification was included as an interaction term.

RESULTS

We identified 109,697 patients from the SEER database, and 74,393 patients from the NPCA database, who were newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between April 1st 2014 and December 31st 2016 with sufficient information for risk stratification according to the CPG classification. Men in the US were more likely to receive radical local treatment across all prognostic groups compared to men in England (% radical treatment US vs. England, CPG1: 38.1% vs. 14.3% - aRR 2.57, 95% CI 2.47-2.68; CPG2: 68.6% vs. 52.6% - aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29; CPG3: 76.7% vs. 67.1% - aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.13; CPG4: 82.6% vs. 72.4% - aRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.10; CPG5: 78.2% vs. 71.7% - aRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.07) CONCLUSIONS: Treatment rates were higher in the US compared to England raising potential over-treatment concerns for low-risk disease (CPG1) in the US and under-treatment of clinically significant disease (CPG3-5) in England.

Developing a Patient-Centered Model of Prostate Cancer Care: Patient Satisfaction With a Survivorship Program Embedded in Urologic-Oncologic Care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patients' and partners' satisfaction with a prostate cancer survivorship program embedded in urologic-oncologic care. As a part of quality improvement activity, we developed a patient and partner-centered, biopsychosocial support program for men and partners coping with the urinary and sexual side-effects of surgical treatment for prostate cancer. The program became a part of usual care for all prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients who saw both an advanced practice provider and a sex therapist between August 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019 were eligible. Surveys packets were sent to 146 patients with surveys included for partners (N = 292). We used descriptive statistics to characterize participant responses.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 88 patients and 70 partners (56% response rate for the group). Patients and partners reported very high or fairly high satisfaction with the rehabilitation activities of the program (86-97% and 90%-100%, respectively); 91% of patients and 84% of partners thought having pre-operative education and post-operative rehabilitation was a good or fairly good idea; 83% of patients and 79% of partners would very much or somewhat recommend the program to a friend who was considering surgical treatment for prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

Embedding a patient and partner-centered prostate cancer survivorship support program in oncologic care can positively impact patients' and partners' engagement in and satisfaction with post-operative rehabilitation.

Urinary incontinence and use of incontinence surgery after radical prostatectomy: a national study using patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether patient-reported urinary incontinence and bother scores after radical prostatectomy result in subsequent intervention with incontinence surgery.

METHODS

Men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and January 2016 were identified. Administrative data were used to identify men who had undergone a radical prostatectomy and those who subsequently underwent a urinary incontinence procedure. The National Prostate Cancer Audit database was used to identify men who had also completed a post-treatment survey. These surveys included the Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite Index (EPIC-26). The frequency of subsequent incontinence procedures, within 6 months of the survey, was explored according to EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores. The relationship between "good" (≥75) or "bad" (≤25) EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores and perceptions of urinary bother was also explored (responses ranging from 'no problem' to 'big problem' with respect to their urinary function).

RESULTS

We identified 11,290 men who had undergone a radical prostatectomy. The 3-year cumulative incidence of incontinence surgery was 2.5%. After exclusions, we identified 5,165 men who had also completed a post-treatment survey after a median time of 19 months (response rate 74%). 481 men (9.3%) reported a "bad" urinary incontinence score and 207 men (4.0%) also reported that they had a big problem with their urinary function. 47 men went on to have incontinence surgery within 6 months of survey completion (0.9%), of whom 93.6% had a "bad" urinary incontinence score. Of the 71 men with the worst urinary incontinence score (zero), only 11 men (15.5%) subsequently had incontinence surgery.

CONCLUSION

In England, there is a significant number of men living with severe, bothersome urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy, and an unmet clinical need for incontinence surgery. The systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could be used to identify men who may benefit from incontinence surgery.

Understanding Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To assess how active surveillance for prostate cancer is apportioned across specialties and how testing patterns and transition to treatment vary by specialty.

METHODS

We used a 20% national sample of Medicare claims to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2010 through 2016 initiating surveillance (N = 13,048). Patients were assigned to the physician responsible for the bulk of surveillance care based on billing patterns. Freedom from treatment was assessed by specialty of the responsible physician (urology, radiation oncology, medical oncology, and primary care). Multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine associations between specialty and treatment patterns.

RESULTS

Urologists were responsible for surveillance in 93.7% of patients in 2010 and 96.2% of patients in 2016 (P for trend = .01). Testing patterns varied by specialty. For example, patients of medical oncologists had more frequent prostate-specific antigen testing compared with patients of urologists (1.85 v 2.39 tests per year, respectively; P < .01). Three years after diagnosis, a significantly smaller proportion of patients managed by radiation oncologists (64.3%) remained on surveillance compared with patients managed by other physicians (75.8%-79.5%; P < .01). Although radiation was the most common treatment among all men who transitioned to treatment, a disproportionate percentage of patients followed by radiation oncologists (28.9%) ultimately underwent radiation compared with patients followed by other physicians (15.1%-15.4%; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Nontrivial percentages of patients on active surveillance are managed by physicians outside of urology. Given the interspecialty variations observed, efforts to strengthen the evidence underlying surveillance pathways and to engage other specialties in guideline development are needed.

Learning from the "tail end" of de-implementation: the case of chemical castration for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Men with prostate cancer are often treated with the suppression of testosterone through long-acting injectable drugs termed chemical castration or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In most cases, ADT is not an appropriate treatment for localized prostate cancer, indicating low-value care. Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Behavior Change Wheel's Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model (COM-B), we conducted a qualitative study to identify behavioral determinants of low-value ADT use to manage localized prostate cancer, and theory-based opportunities for de-implementation strategy development.

METHODS

We used national cancer registry and administrative data from 2016 to 2017 to examine the variation in low-value ADT use across Veterans Health Administration facilities. Using purposive sampling, we selected high- and low-performing sites to conduct 20 urology provider interviews regarding low-value ADT. We coded transcripts into TDF domains and mapped content to the COM-B model to generate a conceptual framework for addressing low-value ADT practices.

RESULTS

Our interview findings reflected provider perspectives on prescribing ADT as low-value localized prostate cancer treatment, including barriers and facilitators to de-implementing low-value ADT. We characterized providers as belonging in 1 of 3 categories with respect to low-value ADT use: 1) never prescribe 2); willing, under some circumstances, to prescribe: and 3) prescribe as an acceptable treatment option. Provider capability to prescribe low-value ADT depended on their knowledge of localized prostate cancer treatment options (knowledge) coupled with interpersonal skills to engage patients in educational discussion (skills). Provider opportunity to prescribe low-value ADT centered on the environmental resources to inform ADT decisions (e.g., multi-disciplinary review), perceived guideline availability, and social roles and influences regarding ADT practices, such as prior training. Provider motivation involved goals of ADT use, including patient preferences, beliefs in capabilities/professional confidence, and beliefs about the consequences of prescribing or not prescribing ADT.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the TDF domains and the COM-B model enabled us to conceptualize provider behavior with respect to low-value ADT use and clarify possible areas for intervention to effect de-implementation of low-value ADT prescribing in localized prostate cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03579680.

Prostate cancer clinical trial completion: The role of geography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

One in five cancer clinical trials fails with another third failing to meet enrollment goals. Prior efforts to improve enrollment focus on patient facing interventions, but geographic factors such as regional cancer incidence may doom trials before they even begin. For these reasons, we examined associations of regional prostate cancer incidence with trial termination, and identified scientifically-underserved areas where future trials might thrive.

METHODS

We merged US phase 2-3 prostate cancer clinical trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov with prostate cancer incidence data from statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov. We matched trial information from 293 closed and 560 active trials with incidence data for 2947 counties. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified associations with trial termination. We identified 'scientifically-underserved' counties with the highest cancer incidence quintile (>61 annual cases) but lowest active trials quintile (0 or 1 trial).

RESULTS

Of 293 closed trials, one in three was terminated (n = 96, 32.8%). On multivariable analysis, only lower regional prostate cancer incidence was associated with higher likelihood of premature trial termination (OR 0.98, 95% CI [0.96-0.99] for every 100 cases, p = 0.03). We identified 188 counties with >61 annual prostate cancer cases but 0 or 1 active trials, indicating potential scientifically-underserved areas.

CONCLUSIONS

In this novel study, we found prostate cancer trials in areas with low prostate cancer incidence were more likely to fail. We also identified scientifically-underserved areas where trials might thrive. Our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of clinical trial feasibility and upstream opportunities for improvement.

Optimizing active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: Characterizing provider and patient perspectives

250

Background: The number of men on active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer is rapidly increasing. While AS requires routine clinical exams, labs, imaging, and prostate biopsies, many men do not receive all recommended components. Understanding the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding recommended surveillance is critical to ensuring the optimization of AS as a management strategy. Methods: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 15 men with low-risk prostate cancer who were on AS as their primary management strategy and their partners, and 15 urologists and 19 primary care providers (PCPs) with experience in AS management between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), an implementation science framework developed to understand determinants of behaviors and to inform the design of interventions, to guide our interview guide. Questions assessed knowledge, barriers and facilitators, and preferences for provider roles in AS management. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into TDF domains and constructs. Three independent coders iteratively developed and used a shared coding framework. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. Results: Our study included 15 men (on AS between 1-16 years), 5 partners, 15 urologists (3 female, 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers), and 19 PCPs (9 female, 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers). The TDF domain of “knowledge” and the construct, “barriers and facilitators” were most commonly reported as factors impacting receipt of recommended surveillance across all groups. While urologists were most knowledgeable about AS, PCPs noted limitations in understanding for whom AS is recommended, and what it entails. Patients who had made an effort to research or learn about AS found that this knowledge enabled them to be proactive about receiving all recommended components. Urologists and patients noted several common procedural barriers to receiving recommended surveillance, including pain with repeated biopsies, and becoming lost to follow-up. Patients and PCPs were uncertain about what tests were needed and when. Urologists were concerned about PCP knowledge while PCPs described insufficient communication from urologists as barriers to shared care. Procedural facilitators included electronic medical records (EMR) to remind providers and patients of frequency and timing of tests. Conclusions: Key opportunities for optimizing AS include improving patient and PCP knowledge about the components and delivery of AS, facilitating communication between providers, and leveraging EMR to ensure those on AS are followed. The development of an intervention that combines several of these components will be critical to ensuring men on AS receive the recommended surveillance.

Urology Workforce Changes and Implications for Prostate Cancer Care Among Medicare Enrollees

OBJECTIVE

To characterize national trends in urologist workforce, practice organization, and management of incident prostate cancer.

METHODS

Using Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2016, we identified all urologists billing Medicare and the practice with which they were affiliated. We characterized groups as solo, small single specialty, large single specialty, multispecialty, specialist, or hospital-owned practices. Using a 20% sample of national Medicare claims, we identified all patients with incident prostate cancer and identified their primary treatment.

RESULTS

The number of urologists increased from 9,305 in 2010 to 9,570 in 2016 (P = .03), while the number of practices decreased from 3,588 to 2,861 (P < .001). The proportion of urologists in multispecialty groups increased from 17.1% in 2010 to 28.2% in 2016, while those within solo practices declined from 26.2% to only 15.8% over the same time period. A higher proportion of patients at hospital-owned practices were treated with observation (P < .001) and surgery (P < .001), while a higher proportion of patients at large single specialty practices were treated with radiation therapy (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

We characterized shifts in urologist membership from smaller, independent groups to larger, multispecialty or hospital-owned practices. This trend coincides with higher utilization of observation and surgical treatment for prostate cancer.

Factors influencing treatment of veterans with advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) differ in toxicity, administration, and evidence. In this study, clinical and nonclinical factors associated with the first-line treatment for CRPC in a national delivery system were evaluated.

METHODS

National electronic laboratory and clinical data from the Veterans Health Administration were used to identify patients with CRPC (ie, rising prostate-specific antigen [PSA] on androgen deprivation) who received abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or ketoconazole from 2010 through 2017. It was determined whether clinical (eg, PSA) and nonclinical factors (eg, race, facility) were associated with the first-line treatment selection using multilevel, multinomial logistic regression. The average marginal effects (AMEs) were calculated of patient, disease, and facility characteristics on ketoconazole versus more appropriate CRPC therapy.

RESULTS

There were 4998 patients identified with CRPC who received first-line ketoconazole, docetaxel, abiraterone, or enzalutamide. After adjustment, increasing age was associated with receipt of abiraterone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.07; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.06-1.09) or enzalutamide (aOR, 1.10; 95% CrI, 1.08-1.11) versus docetaxel. Greater preexisting comorbidity was associated with enzalutamide versus abiraterone (aOR, 1.53; 95% CrI, 1.23-1.91). Patients with higher PSA values at the start of treatment were more likely to receive docetaxel than oral agents and less likely to receive ketoconazole than other oral agents. African American men were more likely to receive ketoconazole than abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel (AME, 2.8%; 95% CI, 0.7%-4.9%). This effect was attenuated when adjusting for facility characteristics (AME, 1.9%; 95% CI, -0.4% to 4.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical factors had an expected effect on the first-line treatment selection. Race may be associated with the receipt of a guideline-discordant first-line treatment.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Low Risk Prostate Cancer Management: Results of a National Survey

Introduction

Primary care providers can collaborate with urologists to ensure men with low risk prostate cancer on active surveillance receive followup testing and adhere to the management strategy, yet primary care provider attitudes about active surveillance and their roles remain unknown.

Methods

We surveyed 1,000 primary care providers (347/741 eligible primary care providers responded). We assessed primary care provider support for and beliefs about active surveillance, and attitudes about and preferences for their role in various aspects of low risk prostate cancer management. We then examined associations between 1) primary care provider support for and primary care provider beliefs about active surveillance; and 2) primary care provider attitudes and preferences for their role.

Results

Nearly 50% of primary care providers strongly supported active surveillance for all low risk men, and 81% strongly agreed that active surveillance allows men to avoid side effects, while 57% strongly agreed it caused worry. Primary care providers who strongly supported active surveillance were less likely to strongly agree that active surveillance contributes to worry (50.3% vs 63.7% respectively, p=0.01). Half of the primary care providers strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care (50.5%), and the majority preferred a shared care model to ordering prostate specific antigen tests (60.1%). Primary care providers who strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care were more likely to prefer a primary care provider-led (79.3% vs 20.7%) or shared care (53.9% vs 46.1%) model vs urologist-led for ordering prostate specific antigen tests (p <0.01).

Conclusions

While many primary care providers supported active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer, primary care providers still had concerns with it as the primary management strategy. Understanding primary care providers perspectives on low risk prostate cancer management can inform strategies to improve high quality active surveillance care.

Using an Automated Electronic Health Record Score To Estimate Life Expectancy In Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer In The Veterans Health Administration

OBJECTIVES

To determine if an automatically calculated electronic health record score can estimate intermediate-term life expectancy in men with prostate cancer to provide guideline concordant care.

METHODS

We identified all men (n = 36,591) diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2013-2015 in the VHA. Of the 36,591, 35,364 (96.6%) had an available Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score (range: 0-99) automatically calculated in the 30 days prior to the date of diagnosis. It was designed to estimate short-term risks of hospitalization and mortality. We fit unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to determine the association between the CAN score and overall survival among men with prostate cancer. We compared CAN score performance to two established comorbidity measures: The Charlson Comorbidity Index and Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index (PCCI).

RESULTS

Among 35,364 men, the CAN score correlated with overall stage, with mean scores of 46.5 ( ± 22.4), 58.0 ( ± 24.4), and 68.1 ( ± 24.3) in localized, locally advanced, and metastatic disease, respectively. In both unadjusted and adjusted models for prostate cancer risk, the CAN score was independently associated with survival (HR = 1.23 95%CI 1.22-1.24 & adjusted HR = 1.17 95%CI 1.16-1.18 per 5-unit change, respectively). The CAN score (overall C-Index 0.74) yielded better discrimination (AUC = 0.76) than PCCI (AUC = 0.65) or Charlson Comorbidity Index (AUC = 0.66) for 5-year survival.

CONCLUSION

The CAN score is strongly associated with intermediate-term survival following a prostate cancer diagnosis. The CAN score is an example of how learning health care systems can implement multi-dimensional tools to provide fully automated life expectancy estimates to facilitate patient-centered cancer care.

Bone modifying agents in veterans with castration-resistant prostate cancer

6582

Background: Skeletal related events (SREs) are a known complication for the 80% of men with metastatic prostate cancer who have bone metastases. Previous studies have demonstrated that bone modifying agents (BMAs) such as zoledronic acid and denosumab reduce SREs in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have bone metastases and are now recommended by national guidelines. We sought to investigate factors associated with use of BMAs in Veterans with CRPC across the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Methods: Using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, consisting of aggregated medical record data from 130 facilities, we used an algorithm previously published to identify men with a diagnosis of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) based on rising prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels while on androgen deprivation therapy and who received systemic treatment for CRPC with one of the commonly used therapies: abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, ketoconazole between 2010 and 2017. To account for clustering among facilities, we used a multilevel multivariable logistic regression to determine the association of patient and disease-specific variables on the odds of a patient receiving a BMA after they started treatment for CRPC. Results: Of 4,998 patients with CRPC in our cohort, 2223 (44%) received either zoledronic acid or denosumab at some point after they were initiated on treatment for CRPC. After adjusting for other variables and accounting for a facility, the odds of receiving a BMA decreased by 3% for every additional year of age (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-0.98), and decreased significantly with increasing comorbid conditions (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72-0.98 for Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] of 1; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81 for CCI 2+). Patients who were Black had 25% lower odds of receiving a BMA than patients who were White (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.87). PSA at time of CRPC treatment start had a small but not significant effect on receipt of a BMA (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.08) for every unit increase of PSA on the log scale. PSA doubling time was not associated with receipt of a BMA. The presence of a diagnosis code for bone metastases was far lower than expected in this cohort of patients with CRPC (40.7%), and thus was not included in the model. We did not expect the presence of bone metastases to vary significantly among the other independent variables. Conclusions: Despite most patients with CRPC historically having bone metastases, less than half of patients with CRPC received a BMA. Patients who are older, had more comorbidities, or were Black were less likely to receive a BMA after starting treatment for CRPC. Understanding factors that lead to different patterns of treatment can guide initiatives toward more guideline-concordant care.

Mental health care utilization among veterans with castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide

e18680

Background: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are oral therapies widely used to treat men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Recent data have suggested potentially worsened quality of life and depression with use of enzalutamide compared to abiraterone. Because Veterans are at a higher risk for mental health conditions, we sought to compare mental health service utilization in Veterans with CRPC receiving enzalutamide to those receiving abiraterone. Methods: The Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse was used to identify men with CRPC who received abiraterone or enzalutamide for ≥ 30 days as first-line treatment between 2010-2017. We compared the rate of mental health visits per 100 patient-months for men on abiraterone versus enzalutamide using an exact rate ratio test, assuming Poisson counts. Results: Among 2902 male Veterans, 68.6% (n=1992) received abiraterone and 31.4% (n=910) enzalutamide as first-line therapy. Men who received enzalutamide were older (76 vs 74, p<0.01) and had a higher comorbidity burden (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] ≥ 2 in 28.7% vs 21.6%, p<0.01); no differences were noted in race or prevalence of preexisting documented mental health diagnoses. Median time on drug was 8 months for both medications. There was no difference in the rate of mental health visits per 100 patients-months on enzalutamide versus abiraterone (6.6 v. 6.7, p=0.66). However, within patient sub-groups, men who were age 75 or older, not married, or without notable comorbidities had lower rates of mental health visits with enzalutamide compared to abiraterone; whereas those who were younger than 75, married, had higher comorbidities, or a preexisting mental health diagnosis had higher rates of mental health visits with enzalutamide (Table). Conclusions: Among Veterans with CRPC who received a novel antiandrogen therapy first-line, there was no difference in engagement in mental health care between those who received abiraterone versus enzalutamide. Sub-group analysis revealed significant differences between patients on the two medications in demographic and diagnostic characteristics associated with number of visits, suggesting that vulnerability for mental health symptoms may vary by medication type. Further work in understanding the long-term impact of novel antiandrogens on mental health is needed.[Table: see text]