A national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists on prediction tools and nomograms for localized prostate cancer

Clinical Decision Support for Surgery: A Mixed Methods Study on Design and Implementation Perspectives From Urologists

OBJECTIVE

To assess urologist attitudes toward clinical decision support (CDS) embedded into the electronic health record (EHR) and define design needs to facilitate implementation and impact. With recent advances in big data and artificial intelligence (AI), enthusiasm for personalized, data-driven tools to improve surgical decision-making has grown, but the impact of current tools remains limited.

METHODS

A sequential explanatory mixed methods study from 2019 to 2020 was performed. First, survey responses from the 2019 American Urological Association Annual Census evaluated attitudes toward an automatic CDS tool that would display risk/benefit data. This was followed by the purposeful sampling of 25 urologists and qualitative interviews assessing perspectives on CDS impact and design needs. Bivariable, multivariable, and coding-based thematic analysis were applied and integrated.

RESULTS

Among a weighted sample of 12,366 practicing urologists, the majority agreed CDS would help decision-making (70.9%, 95% CI 68.7%-73.2%), aid patient counseling (78.5%, 95% CI 76.5%-80.5%), save time (58.1%, 95% CI 55.7%-60.5%), and improve patient outcomes (42.9%, 95% CI 40.5%-45.4%). More years in practice was negatively associated with agreement (P <.001). Urologists described how CDS could bolster evidence-based care, personalized medicine, resource utilization, and patient experience. They also identified multiple implementation barriers and provided suggestions on form, functionality, and visual design to improve usefulness and ease of use.

CONCLUSION

Urologists have favorable attitudes toward the potential for clinical decision support in the EHR. Smart design will be critical to ensure effective implementation and impact.

Model risk scores may underestimate rate of biochemical recurrence in African American men with localized prostate cancer: a cohort analysis of over 3000 men

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to determine if there is a difference in prostate cancer nomogram-adjusted risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and/or adverse pathology (AP) between African American (AAM) and Caucasian men (CM) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of men undergoing RP in the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative between 2015 and 2021. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to compare the rate of BCR after RP, and logistic regression models were used to compare rates of AP after RP between CM and AAM, adjusting for the CAPRA, CAPRA-S, and MSKCC pre- and post-operative nomogram scores.

RESULTS

Rates of BCR and AP after RP were analyzed from 3190 and 5029 men meeting inclusion criteria, respectively. The 2-year BCR-free survival was lower in AAM (72.5%) compared to CM (79.0%), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.38 (95% CI 1.16-1.63, p < 0.001). The rate of BCR was significantly greater in AAM compared to CM after adjustment for MSKCC pre-op (HR 1.29; 95% CI 1.08-1.53; p = 0.004), and post-op nomograms (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.05-1.49; p < 0.001). There was a trend toward higher BCR rates among AAM after adjustment for CAPRA (HR 1.13; 95% CI 0.95-1.35; p = 0.17) and CAPRA-S nomograms (HR 1.11; 95% 0.93-1.32; p = 0.25), which did not reach statistical significance. The rate of AP was significantly greater in AAM compared to CM after adjusting for CAPRA (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.10-1.50; p = 0.001) and MSKCC nomograms (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.06-1.43; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

This analysis of a large multicenter cohort provides further evidence that AAM may have higher rates of BCR and AP after RP than is predicted by CAPRA and MSKCC nomograms. Accordingly, AAM may benefit with closer post-operative surveillance and may be more likely to require salvage therapies.

A first step towards a global nomogram to predict disease progression for men on active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Signs of disease progression (28%) and conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression (13%) are the main reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) in men with localised prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to develop a nomogram to predict disease progression in these patients.

METHODS

As a first step in the development of a nomogram, using data from Movembers' GAP3 Consortium (n=14,380), we assessed heterogeneity between centres in terms of risk of disease progression. We started with assessment of baseline hazards for disease progression based on grouping of centres according to follow-up protocols [high: yearly; intermediate: ~2 yearly; and low: at year 1, 4 & 7 (i.e., PRIAS)]. We conducted cause-specific random effect Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate risk of disease progression by centre in each group.

RESULTS

Disease progression rates varied substantially between centres [median hazard ratio (MHR): 2.5]. After adjustment for various clinical factors (age, year of diagnosis, Gleason grade group, number of positive cores and PSA), substantial heterogeneity in disease progression remained between centres.

CONCLUSIONS

When combining worldwide data on AS, we noted unexplained differences of disease progression rate even after adjustment for various clinical factors. This suggests that when developing a global nomogram, local adjustments for differences in risk of disease progression and competing outcomes such as conversion to active treatment need to be considered.

Survey of Radiation Oncologists to Assess Interest and Potential Use of a Genetic Test Predicting Susceptibility for the Development of Toxicities After Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

A genetic test predicting susceptibility for the development of toxicities after prostate cancer radiation therapy is in development. This test intends to help physicians with treatment decision making.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Radiation oncologists were surveyed using a web-based questionnaire to gauge their interest in using a genetic test predictive of increased risk of radiation therapy toxicities as an aid in determining therapy for men with prostate cancer. Responses were summarized using frequencies, and a χ2 test compared responses among participants. Multivariable ordinal regression identified factors associated with anticipated adoption or nonadoption of such a genetic test by radiation oncologists.

RESULTS

Among 204 radiation oncologists (64% from the United States, 36% from other countries), 86.3% would order a genetic test and 80.2% said the test would be useful for treatment discussions. There was wide acceptance (76.7%) to offer a genetic test to all patients considering radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Additionally, 98.1% indicated that patients would be receptive to the test information. There were no significant differences in the likelihood of ordering a genetic test based on practice setting, familiarity with scientific literature, time spent on research, or geographic location (all P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation oncologists who treat prostate cancer are interested in and willing to order a genetic test predictive of susceptibility to radiation therapy toxicity to aid their treatment decision making.