Factors Influencing Men's Choice of and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-method Systematic Review

Risk Factors and Contemporary Management Options for Pain and Discomfort Experienced During a Prostate Biopsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate fusion biopsy, an innovative imaging modality for diagnosing prostate cancer, presents certain challenges for patients including discomfort and emotional distress, leading to nonadherence to treatment and follow-ups. To inform clinicians and offer pain relief alternatives to patients, this review delves into the risk factors for increased pain and modern management options to alleviate pain during prostate biopsy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Individual responses to pain vary, and the overall experience of pain during a prostate biopsy has been contributed to numerous factors such as patient age, prostate volume, previous biopsy experience, and more. As a result, several strategies aim to mitigate pain during in-office procedures. Notably, techniques including pharmacological analgesics, hand holding, heating pads, entertainment/virtual reality, and distraction have shown significant efficacy. Existing studies explore risk factors influencing pain intensity during prostate biopsy and effective pain management strategies. This review consolidates available information to guide clinicians in enhancing patient comfort and thus, encourage surveillance adherence.

'It Just Makes Sense to Me': A qualitative study exploring patient decision-making and experiences with prostate MRI during active surveillance for prostate cancer

Introduction

Although prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the diagnosis, staging and active surveillance of prostate cancer, little is known about patient perspectives on MRI.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Interviews focused on experiences with and knowledge of prostate MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy during active surveillance. We purposively sampled patients who received prostate MRI as part of their clinical care, conducted interviews until reaching thematic saturation and performed conventional content analysis to analyse data.

Results

Twenty patients aged 51-79 years (mean = 68 years) participated in the study. At diagnosis, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and three (15%) had a grade group 2 tumour. Overall, participants viewed prostate MRI as a valuable tool that accurately localizes and monitors prostate cancer over time, and they considered prostate MRI central to active surveillance monitoring. We identified five thematic categories related to MRI use: (1) the experiential aspects of undergoing an MRI scan; (2) the experience of visualizing one's own prostate and prostate cancer; (3) adequacy of provider explanations of MRI results; (4) confidence in prostate MRI in decision-making; and (5) the role of prostate MRI in longitudinal follow-up, including an interest in using MRI to modify the timing of, or replace, prostate biopsy.

Conclusion

Patients value prostate MRI as a tool that enhances their confidence in the initial diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. This work can inform future studies to optimize patient experience, education and counselling during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Determinants of active surveillance uptake in a diverse population-based cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: The Treatment Options in Prostate Cancer Study (TOPCS)

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC); however, limited data on determinants of AS adoption exist, particularly among Black men.

METHODS

Black and White newly diagnosed (from January 2014 through June 2017) patients with LRPC ≤75 years of age were identified through metro-Detroit and Georgia population-based cancer registries and completed a survey evaluating factors influencing AS uptake.

RESULTS

Among 1688 study participants, 57% chose AS (51% of Black participants, 61% of White) over definitive treatment. In the unadjusted analysis, patient factors associated with initial AS uptake included older age, White race, and higher education. However, after adjusting for covariates, none of these factors was significant predictors of AS uptake. The strongest determinant of AS uptake was the AS recommendation by a urologist (adjusted prevalence ratio, 6.59, 95% CI, 4.84-8.97). Other factors associated with the decision to undergo AS included a shared patient-physician treatment decision, greater prostate cancer knowledge, and residence in metro-Detroit compared with Georgia. Conversely, men whose decision was strongly influenced by the desire to achieve "cure" or "live longer" with treatment and those who perceived their LRPC diagnosis as more serious were less likely to choose AS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary sample, the majority of patients with newly diagnosed LRPC chose AS. Although the input from their urologists was highly influential, several patient decisional and psychological factors were independently associated with AS uptake. These data shed new light on potentially modifiable factors that can help further increase AS uptake among patients with LRPC.

Biparametric MRI in prostate cancer during active surveillance: is it safe?

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for patients presenting with low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer. MRI now plays a crucial role for baseline assessment and ongoing monitoring of AS. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations aid radiological assessment of progression; however, current guidelines do not advise on MRI protocols nor on frequency. Biparametric (bp) imaging without contrast administration offers advantages such as reduced costs and increased throughput, with similar outcomes to multiparametric (mp) MRI shown in the biopsy naïve setting. In AS follow-up, the paradigm shifts from MRI lesion detection to assessment of progression, and patients have the further safety net of continuing clinical surveillance. As such, bpMRI may be appropriate in clinically stable patients on routine AS follow-up pathways; however, there is currently limited published evidence for this approach. It should be noted that mpMRI may be mandated in certain patients and potentially offers additional advantages, including improving image quality, new lesion detection, and staging accuracy. Recently developed AI solutions have enabled higher quality and faster scanning protocols, which may help mitigate against disadvantages of bpMRI. In this article, we explore the current role of MRI in AS and address the need for contrast-enhanced sequences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Active surveillance is the preferred plan for patients with lower-risk prostate cancer, and MRI plays a crucial role in patient selection and monitoring; however, current guidelines do not currently recommend how or when to perform MRI in follow-up. KEY POINTS: Noncontrast biparametric MRI has reduced costs and increased throughput and may be appropriate for monitoring stable patients. Multiparametric MRI may be mandated in certain patients, and contrast potentially offers additional advantages. AI solutions enable higher quality, faster scanning protocols, and could mitigate the disadvantages of biparametric imaging.

Using active surveillance for Gleason 7 (3+4) prostate cancer: A narrative review

The interest in broadening the application of active surveillance (AS) has been increasing, encompassing patients who may not strictly adhere to the conventional criteria for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), particularly those diagnosed with small-volume Gleason grade group 2 disease. Nonetheless, accurately identifying individuals with low intermediate-risk PCa who can safely undergo AS without facing disease progression remains a challenge.This review aims to delve into the progression of this evolving trend specifically within this cohort of men, while also examining strategies aimed at minimizing irreversible disease advancement. Additionally, we address the criteria for patient selection, recommended followup schedules, and the indicators prompting intervention.

A socially interdependent choice framework for social influences in healthcare decision-making: a study protocol

OBJECTIVES

Current choice models in healthcare (and beyond) can provide suboptimal predictions of healthcare users' decisions. One reason for such inaccuracy is that standard microeconomic theory assumes that decisions of healthcare users are made in a social vacuum. Healthcare choices, however, can in fact be (entirely) socially determined. To achieve more accurate choice predictions within healthcare and therefore better policy decisions, the social influences that affect healthcare user decision-making need to be identified and explicitly integrated into choice models. The purpose of this study is to develop a socially interdependent choice framework of healthcare user decision-making.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods approach will be used. A systematic literature review will be conducted that identifies the social influences on healthcare user decision-making. Based on the outcomes of a systematic literature review, an interview guide will be developed that assesses which, and how, social influences affect healthcare user decision-making in four different medical fields. This guide will be used during two exploratory focus groups to assess the engagement of participants and clarity of questions and probes. The refined interview guide will be used to conduct the semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals and users. These interviews will explore in detail which, and how, social influences affect healthcare user decision-making. Focus group and interview transcripts will be analysed iteratively using a constant comparative approach based on a mix of inductive and deductive coding. Based on the outcomes, a social influence independent choice framework for healthcare user decision-making will be drafted. Finally, the Delphi technique will be employed to achieve consensus about the final version of this choice framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management Research Ethics Review Committee (ESHPM, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; reference ETH2122-0666).

The impact of marital status on tumor aggressiveness, treatment, and screening among black and white men diagnosed with prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To examine the association of marital status with prostate cancer outcomes in a racially-diverse cohort.

METHODS

The study population consisted of men (1010 Black; 1070 White) with incident prostate cancer from the baseline North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer (PCaP) cohort. Marital status at time of diagnosis and screening history were determined by self-report. The binary measure of marital status was defined as married (including living as married) vs. not married (never married, divorced/separated, or widowed). High-aggressive tumors were defined using a composite measure of PSA, Gleason Score, and stage. Definitive treatment was defined as receipt of radical prostatectomy or radiation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of marital status with (1) high-aggressive tumors, (2) receipt of definitive treatment, and (3) screening history among Black and White men with prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Black men were less likely to be married than White men (68.1% vs. 83.6%). Not being married (vs. married) was associated with increased odds of high-aggressive tumors in the overall study population (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 1.56; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.20-2.02) and both Black and White men in race-stratified analyses. Unmarried men were less likely to receive definitive treatment in the overall study population (aOR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.54-0.85). In race-stratified analyses, unmarried Black men were less likely to receive definitive treatment. Both unmarried Black and White men were less likely to have a history of prostate cancer screening than married men.

CONCLUSION

Lower rates of marriage among Black men might signal decreased support for treatment decision-making, symptom management, and caregiver support which could potentially contribute to prostate cancer disparities.

Prospective comparison of restriction spectrum imaging and non-invasive biomarkers to predict upgrading on active surveillance prostate biopsy

BACKGROUND

Protocol-based active surveillance (AS) biopsies have led to poor compliance. To move to risk-based protocols, more accurate imaging biomarkers are needed to predict upgrading on AS prostate biopsy. We compared restriction spectrum imaging (RSI-MRI) generated signal maps as a biomarker to other available non-invasive biomarkers to predict upgrading or reclassification on an AS biopsy.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled men on prostate cancer AS undergoing repeat biopsy from January 2016 to June 2019 to obtain an MRI and biomarkers to predict upgrading. Subjects underwent a prostate multiparametric MRI and a short duration, diffusion-weighted enhanced MRI called RSI to generate a restricted signal map along with evaluation of 30 biomarkers (14 clinico-epidemiologic features, 9 molecular biomarkers, and 7 radiologic-associated features). Our primary outcome was upgrading or reclassification on subsequent AS prostate biopsy. Statistical analysis included operating characteristic improvement using AUROC and AUPRC.

RESULTS

The individual biomarker with the highest area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) was RSI-MRI (AUC = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-0.96). The best non-imaging biomarker was prostate volume-corrected Prostate Health Index density (PHI, AUC = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.53-0.82). Non-imaging biomarkers had a negligible effect on predicting upgrading at the next biopsy but did improve predictions of overall time to progression in AS.

CONCLUSIONS

RSI-MRI, PIRADS, and PHI could improve the predictive ability to detect upgrading in AS. The strongest predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer on AS biopsy was RSI-MRI signal output.

Barriers and enablers of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a qualitive study of clinicians

OBJECTIVES

To identify and explore barriers to, and enablers of, active surveillance (AS) in men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPCa), as perceived by PCa clinicians.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Urologists and radiation oncologists in Australia and New Zealand were purposively sampled for a cross-section on gender and practice setting (metropolitan/regional; public/private). Using a grounded theory approach, semi-structed interviews were conducted with participants. Interviews were coded independently by two researchers using open, axial, and selective coding. A constant comparative approach was used to analyse data as it was collected. Thematic saturation was reached after 18 interviews, and a detailed model of barriers to, and enablers of, AS for LRPCa, as perceived by clinicians was developed.

RESULTS

A model explaining what affects clinician decision making regarding AS in LRPCa emerged. It was underpinned by three broad themes: (i) clinician perception of patients' barriers and enablers; (ii) clinician perception of their own barriers and enablers; and (iii) engagement with healthcare team and resource availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians unanimously agree that AS is an evidence-based approach for managing LRPCa. Despite this many men do not undergo AS for LRPCa, which is due to the interplay of patient and clinician factors, and their interaction with the wider healthcare system. This study identifies strategies to mitigate barriers and enhance enablers, which could increase access to AS by patients with LRPCa.

Primary Care Physician and Urologist Perspectives on Optimizing Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

We conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group.

RESULTS

Our study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator.

CONCLUSIONS

With patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer.

Patient experiences with tissue-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer

Background

Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data.

Results

Participants' (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail.

Conclusion

Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Patient perspectives on factors influencing active surveillance adherence for low-risk prostate cancer: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. Treatment guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, which involves monitoring for progression, to avoid or delay definitive treatments and their side effects. Despite increased uptake, adherence to surveillance remains a challenge.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured, qualitative, virtual interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), with men (15) who were or had been on active surveillance for their low-risk prostate cancer in 2020. Interviews were transcribed and coded under TDF's behavioral theory-based domains. We analyzed domains related to adherence to surveillance using constructivist grounded theory to identify themes influencing decision processes in adherence.

RESULTS

The TDF domains of emotion, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, and social influences were most relevant to surveillance adherence-. From these four TDF domains, three themes emerged as underlying decision processes: trust in surveillance as treatment, quality of life, and experiences of self and others. Positive perceptions of these three themes supported adherence while negative perceptions contributed to non-adherence (i.e., not receiving follow-up or stopping surveillance). The relationship between the TDF domains and themes provided a theoretical process describing factors impacting active surveillance adherence for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Men identified key factors impacting active surveillance adherence that provide opportunities for clinical implementation and practice improvement. Future efforts should focus on multi-level interventions that foster trust in surveillance as treatment, emphasize quality of life benefits and enhance patients' interpersonal experiences while on surveillance to optimize adherence.

The influence of the "cancer" label on perceptions and management decisions for low-grade prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer should be managed with active surveillance (AS). Global uptake of AS remains disappointingly slow and heterogeneous. Removal of cancer labels has been proposed to reduce GG1 overtreatment. We sought to determine the impact of GG1 disease terminology on individual's perceptions and decision making.

METHODS

Discrete choice experiments were conducted on 3 cohorts: healthy men, canonical partners (partners), and patients with GG1 (patients). Participants reported preferences in a series of vignettes with 2 scenarios each, permuting key opinion leader-endorsed descriptors: biopsy (adenocarcinoma, acinar neoplasm, prostatic acinar neoplasm of low malignant potential [PAN-LMP], prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential), disease (cancer, neoplasm, tumor, growth), management decision (treatment, AS), and recurrence risk (6%, 3%, 1%, <1%). Influence on scenario selection were estimated by conditional logit models and marginal rates of substitution. Two additional validation vignettes with scenarios portraying identical descriptors except the management options were embedded into the discrete choice experiments.

RESULTS

Across cohorts (194 healthy men, 159 partners, and 159 patients), noncancer labels PAN-LMP or prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential and neoplasm, tumor, or growth were favored over adenocarcinoma and cancer (P < .01), respectively. Switching adenocarcinoma and cancer labels to PAN-LMP and growth, respectively, increased AS choice by up to 17%: healthy men (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10% to 20%, from 76% to 91%, P < .001), partners (17%, 95% CI = 12% to 24%, from 65% to 82%, P < .001), and patients (7%, 95% CI = 4% to 12%, from 75% to 82%, P = .063). The main limitation is the theoretical nature of questions perhaps leading to less realistic choices.

CONCLUSIONS

"Cancer" labels negatively affect perceptions and decision making regarding GG1. Relabeling (ie, avoiding word "cancer") increases proclivity for AS and would likely improve public health.

Patient and Context Factors in the Adoption of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Importance

Although active surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) has been recommended for years, its adoption at the population level is often limited.

Objective

To make active surveillance available for patients with LRPC using a research framework and to compare patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between those who receive active surveillance vs radical treatments at diagnosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based, prospective cohort study was designed by a large multidisciplinary group of specialists and patients' representatives. The study was conducted within all 18 urology centers and 7 radiation oncology centers in the Piemonte and Valle d'Aosta Regional Oncology Network in Northwest Italy (approximate population, 4.5 million). Participants included patients with a new diagnosis of LRPC from June 2015 to December 2021. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023.

Exposure

At diagnosis, all patients were informed of the available treatment options by the urologist and received an information leaflet describing the benefits and risks of active surveillance compared with active treatments, either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation treatment (RT). Patients choosing active surveillance were actively monitored with regular prostate-specific antigen testing, clinical examinations, and a rebiopsy at 12 months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest were proportion of patients choosing active surveillance or radical treatments, overall survival, and, for patients in active surveillance, treatment-free survival. Comparisons were analyzed with multivariable logistic or Cox models, considering centers as clusters.

Results

A total of 852 male patients (median [IQR] age, 70 [64-74] years) were included, and 706 patients (82.9%) chose active surveillance, with an increasing trend over time; 109 patients (12.8%) chose RP, and 37 patients (4.3%) chose RT. Median (IQR) follow-up was 57 (41-76) months. Worse prostate cancer prognostic factors were negatively associated with choosing active surveillance (eg, stage T2a vs T1c: odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93), while patients who were older (eg, age ≥75 vs <65 years: OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 1.98-9.22), had higher comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 vs 0: OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.02-3.85), underwent an independent revision of the first prostate biopsy (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.26-4.38) or underwent a multidisciplinary assessment (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.38-5.11) were more likely to choose active surveillance vs active treatment. After adjustment, center at which a patient was treated continued to be an important factor in the choice of treatment (intraclass correlation coefficient, 18.6%). No differences were detected in overall survival between active treatment and active surveillance. Treatment-free survival in the active surveillance cohort was 59.0% (95% CI, 54.8%-62.9%) at 24 months, 54.5% (95% CI, 50.2%-58.6%) at 36 months, and 47.0% (95% CI, 42.2%-51.7%) at 48 months.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this population-based cohort study of patients with LRPC, a research framework at system level as well as favorable prognostic factors, a multidisciplinary approach, and an independent review of the first prostate biopsy at patient-level were positively associated with high uptake of active surveillance, a practice largely underused before this study.

Decision Regret in Patients with Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Treatment choice for localised prostate cancer remains a significant challenge for patients and clinicians, with uncertainty over decisions potentially leading to conflict and regret. There is a need to further understand the prevalence and prognostic factors of decision regret to improve patient quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To generate the best estimates for the prevalence of significant decision regret localised prostate cancer patients, and to investigate prognostic patient, oncological, and treatment factors associated with regret.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO databases including studies evaluating the prevalence or patient, treatment, or oncological prognostic factors in localised prostate cancer patients. A pooled prevalence of significant regret was calculated with the formal prognostic factor evaluation conducted per factor identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Significant decision regret was present in a pooled 20% (95% confidence interval 16-23) of patients across 14 studies and 17883 patients. This was lower in active surveillance (13%), with little difference between those who underwent radiotherapy (19%) and those who underwent prostatectomy (18%). Evaluation of individual prognostic factors demonstrated higher regret in those with poorer post-treatment bowel, sexual, and urinary function; decreased involvement in the decision-making process; and Black ethnicity. However, evidence remains conflicting, with low or moderate certainty of findings.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of men experience decision regret after a localised prostate cancer diagnosis. Monitoring those with increased functional symptoms and improving patient involvement in the decision-making process through education and decision aids may reduce regret.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at how common regret in treatment decisions is after treatment for early-stage prostate cancer and factors linked with this. We found that one in five regret their decision, with those who had experienced side effects or were less involved in the decision-making process more likely to have regret. By addressing these, clinicians could reduce regret and improve quality of life.

Impact of genomic testing on urologists' treatment preference in favorable risk prostate cancer: A randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

The Oncotype Dx Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) is a 17-gene relative expression assay that predicts adverse pathology at prostatectomy. We conducted a novel randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of GPS on urologist's treatment preference for favorable risk prostate cancer (PCa): active surveillance versus active treatment (i.e., prostatectomy/radiation). This is a secondary endpoint from the ENACT trial which recruited from three Chicago hospitals from 2016 to 2019.

METHODS

Ten urologists along with men with very low to favorable-intermediate risk PCa were included in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to standardized counseling with or without GPS assay. The main outcome was urologists' preference for active treatment at Visit 2 by study arm (GPS versus Control). Multivariable best-fit binary logistic regressions were constructed to identify factors independently associated with urologists' treatment preference.

RESULTS

Two hundred men (70% Black) were randomly assigned to either the Control (96) or GPS arm (104). At Visit 2, urologists' preference for prostatectomy/radiation almost doubled in the GPS arm to 29.3% (29) compared to 14.1% (13) in the Control arm (p = 0.01). Randomization to the GPS arm, intermediate NCCN risk level, and lower patient health literacy were predictors for urologists' preference for active treatment.

DISCUSSION

Limitations included sample size and number of urologists. In this study, we found that GPS testing reduced urologists' likelihood to prefer active surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate how obtaining prognostic biomarkers that predict negative outcomes before treatment decision-making might influence urologists' preference for recommending aggressive therapy in men eligible for active surveillance.

Patterns of multispecialty care for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the use of active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary models of care have been advocated for prostate cancer (PC) to promote shared decision-making and facilitate quality care. Yet, how this model applies to low-risk disease where the preferred management is expectant remains unclear. Accordingly, we examined recent practice patterns in specialty visits for low/intermediate-risk PC and resultant use of active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

Using SEER-Medicare, we ascertained whether patients saw urology and radiation oncology (i.e., multispecialty care) versus urology alone, based on self-designated specialty codes, for newly diagnosed PC from 2010 to 2017. We also examined the association with AS, defined as the absence of treatment within 12 months of diagnosis. Time trends were analyzed using Cochran-Armitage test. Chi-squared and logistic regression analyses were applied to compare sociodemographic and clinicopathologic characteristics between these models of care.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients seeing both specialists was 35.5% and 46.5% for low- and intermediate-risk patients respectively. Trend analysis showed a decline in multispecialty care in low-risk patients (44.1% to 25.3% years 2010-2017; P < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2017, the use of AS increased 40.9% to 68.6% (P < 0.001) and 13.1% to 24.6% (P < 0.001) for patients seeing urology and those seeing both specialists respectively. Age, urban residence, higher education, SEER region, co-morbidities, frailty, Gleason score, predicted receipt of multispecialty care (all P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of AS among men with low-risk PC has occurred primarily under the purview of urologists. While selection is certainly at play, these data suggest that multispecialty care may not be required to promote the utilization of AS for men with low-risk PC.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Past, Current, and Future Trends

In response to the rising incidence of indolent, low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the 1990s, active surveillance (AS) emerged as a treatment modality to combat overtreatment by delaying or avoiding unnecessary definitive treatment and its associated morbidity. AS consists of regular monitoring of PSA levels, digital rectal exams, medical imaging, and prostate biopsies, so that definitive treatment is only offered when deemed necessary. This paper provides a narrative review of the evolution of AS since its inception and an overview of its current landscape and challenges. Although AS was initially only performed in a study setting, numerous studies have provided evidence for the safety and efficacy of AS which has led guidelines to recommend it as a treatment option for patients with low-risk PCa. For intermediate-risk disease, AS appears to be a viable option for those with favourable clinical characteristics. Over the years, the inclusion criteria, follow-up schedule and triggers for definitive treatment have evolved based on the results of various large AS cohorts. Given the burdensome nature of repeat biopsies, risk-based dynamic monitoring may further reduce overtreatment by avoiding repeat biopsies in selected patients.

Best Current Practice and Research Priorities in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-A Report of a Movember International Consensus Meeting

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer.

PATIENT SUMMARY

A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach.

Selecting interventions for a psychosocial support program for prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance: A modified Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

Curative treatment of low-risk prostate cancer (LR-PCa) does not improve cancer specific survival and active surveillance (AS) is recommended. Although AS is cost-effective and reduces treatment-related complications, it requires psychosocial support. Research on psychosocial interventions specifically focused on men undergoing AS is limited. Aim of this study is to reach consensus amongst relevant stakeholders on selecting interventions offering psychosocial support to PCa patients during AS.

METHODS

In accordance with the RAND/UCLA method, a modified Delphi approach was used to establish consensus on selecting interventions. During phase one, interventions were identified through a literature review and open survey among all participants. During phase two, three consensus rounds were conducted to rate potential interventions and obtain statistical consensus. The IQ healthcare consensus tool was used to calculate statistical consensus.

RESULTS

After the first consensus round, 31 participants scored individual interventions on relevance using a 9-point Likert scale resulting in the selection of six interventions. During the second consensus round 13 discussion items were reviewed during a focus group. After the third consensus round, seven additional interventions were selected by 23 participants.

CONCLUSIONS

In total, 13 interventions were selected for inclusion in a support program. This included four interventions within the domain information and education, three within coping and support, one intervention within physical wellbeing and four within the domain lifestyle.

Social ecological influences on treatment decision-making in men diagnosed with low risk, localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

Individuals diagnosed with low risk, localised prostate cancer (PCa) face a difficult decision between active surveillance (AS) and definitive treatment. We aimed to explore perceived influences on treatment decision-making from the patient and partner's perspectives.

METHODS

Patients (and partners) who met AS criteria and had chosen their treatment were recruited. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted via telephone to explore experiences of diagnosis, impact on patient lifestyle, experiences with physicians, treatment preferences/choice, treatment information understanding and needs, and overall decision-making process. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-four male patients (18 chose AS) and 12 female partners participated. Five themes relating to social-ecological influences on treatment choice were identified: (1) partner support and direct influence on patient treatment choice, (2) patient and partner vicarious experiences may influence treatment decisions, (3) the influence of the patient's life circumstances, (4) disclosing to wider social networks: friends, family, and co-workers, and (5) the importance of a good relationship and experience with physicians. Additionally, two themes were identified relating to information patients and partners received about the treatment options during their decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of individual and social influences on treatment decision-making were reported. Physicians providing treatment recommendations should consider and discuss the patient and partner's existing beliefs and treatment preferences and encourage shared decision-making. Further research on treatment decision-making of partnered and non-partnered PCa patients is required. We recommend research considers social ecological factors across the personal, interpersonal, community, and policy levels.

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.

Best-Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Best-worst scaling is a theory-driven method that can be used to prioritize objects in health. We sought to characterize all studies of best-worst scaling to prioritize objects in health, to assess trends of using best-worst scaling in prioritization over time, and to assess the relationship between a legacy measure of quality (PREFS) and a novel assessment of subjective quality and policy relevance.

METHODS

A systematic review identified studies published through to the end of 2021 that applied best-worst scaling to study priorities in health (PROSPERO CRD42020209745), updating a prior review published in 2016. The PubMed, EBSCOhost, Embase, Scopus, APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were used and were supplemented by a hand search. Data describing the application, development, design, administration/analysis, quality, and policy relevance were summarized and we tested for trends by comparing articles before and after 1 January, 2017. Multivariate statistics were then used to assess the relationships between PREFS, subjective quality, policy relevance, and other possible indicators.

RESULTS

From a total of 2826 unique papers identified, 165 best-worst scaling studies were included in this review. Applications of best-worst scaling to study priorities in health have continued to grow (p < 0.01) and are now used in all regions of the world, most often to study the priorities of patients/consumers (67%). Several key trends can be observed over time: increased use of pretesting (p < 0.05); increased use of online administration (p < 0.01), and decreased use of paper self-administered surveys (p = 0.02); increased use of heterogeneity analysis (p = 0.02); an increase in having a clearly stated purpose (p < 0.01); and a decrease in comparing respondents to non-respondents (p = 0.01). The average sample size has more than doubled, from 228 to 472 respondents, but formal sample size justifications remain low (5.3%) and unchanged over time (p = 0.68). While the average PREFS score remained unchanged at 3.1/5, both subjective quality and policy relevance trended up, but changes were not statistically significant (p = 0.06 and p = 0.13). Most of the variation in subjective quality was driven by PREFS (R2 = 0.42), but it was also positively assosciated with policy relevance, heterogeneity analysis, and using a balanced incomplete block design, and was negatively associated with not using developmental methods and an increasing sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Using best-worst scaling to prioritize objects is now commonly used around the world to assess the priorities of patients and other stakeholders in health. Best practices are clearly emerging for best-worst scaling. Although legacy measures (PREFS) to measure study quality are reasonable, there may need to be new tools to assess both study quality and policy relevance.

Urinary marker panels for aggressive prostate cancer detection

Majority of patients with indolent prostate cancer (PCa) can be managed with active surveillance. Therefore, finding biomarkers for classifying patients between indolent and aggressive PCa is essential. In this study, we investigated urinary marker panels composed of urinary glycopeptides and/or urinary prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for their clinical utility in distinguishing non-aggressive (Grade Group 1) from aggressive (Grade Group ≥ 2) PCa. Urinary glycopeptides acquired via data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry (DIA-MS) were quantitatively analyzed, where prostatic acid phosphatase (ACPP), clusterin (CLU), alpha-1-acid glycoprotein 1 (ORM1), and CD antigen 97 (CD97) were selected to be evaluated in various combinations with and without urinary PSA. Targeted parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) assays of the glycopeptides from urinary ACPP and CLU were investigated along with urinary PSA for the ability of aggressive PCa detection. The multi-urinary marker panels, combined via logistic regression, were statistically evaluated using bootstrap resampling and validated by an independent cohort. Majority of the multi-urinary marker panels (e.g., a panel consisted of ACPP, CLU, and Urinary PSA) achieved area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.70 to 0.85. Thus, multi-marker panels investigated in this study showed clinically meaningful results on aggressive PCa detection to separate Grade Group 1 from Grade Group 2 and above warranting further evaluation in clinical setting in future.

An exploration of wellbeing in men diagnosed with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

There is a growing emphasis on improving quality of life of people with prostate cancer. However, those undergoing active surveillance remain underrepresented in the literature with less known about their unique challenges. Therefore, we aimed to explore their lived experiences post diagnosis and its effect on their mental, social, and physical wellbeing.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 men undergoing active surveillance for low-risk disease. Thematic analysis was used to inductively co-construct themes through the lens of the biopsychosocial model.

RESULTS

Mental wellbeing was strongly affected in our participants due to the overwhelming emotional impact of their diagnosis resulting in an 'Emotional Diagnostic Disequilibrium'. Informational awareness and education about prostate cancer helped patients with 'Recognition of the Impact'. Patients experienced an 'Unsettling Monitoring Cycle' due to the increased fear and anxiety around PSA monitoring appointments, with some men ignoring their mental wellbeing needs as their disease is 'A Future Problem'. 'Concealment of Diagnosis' left many feeling isolated and highlighted an important coping mechanisms in the 'Importance of a Social Support Network' theme. Finally, physical health mostly changed through alterations in health behaviour, leading to 'A Healthier Lifestyle' with increasing attribution of physical symptoms to age through 'Symptomatic Overshadowing'.

CONCLUSION

The greatest disease impact on men's wellbeing was at the time of diagnosis, with a subsequent cyclical anxiety and fear of disease progression prominent around monitoring appointments. Future research should explore ways to better support patients with these issues and at these times, improving their quality of life.

Why do men with prostate cancer discontinue active surveillance for definitive treatment? A mixed methods investigation

Objectives

To explore the personal and/or medical reasons patients on active surveillance (AS) have, or consider having, further definitive treatment for their prostate cancer. Research suggests up to 50% of patients on AS will discontinue within 5 years, though reasons for discontinuation from the patient's perspective is under‐explored.

Methods

Prostate cancer patients who were or had been on AS for at least 6 months were recruited. A questionnaire assessed reasons for receiving/considering definitive treatment and the extent to which reasons were personal or medical. Clinical information was extracted from a state‐level population registry. A subset of participants were interviewed to further explore questionnaire responses.

Results

One‐hundred and‐three individuals completed the survey; 33 were also interviewed. Fifty‐four survey participants (52%) had discontinued AS for definitive treatment. Common reasons for discontinuation were evidence of disease progression, doctor recommendation, desire to act, and fear of progression. Many participants who considered or had treatment reported weighing medical and personal factors equally in their decision. Interview participants described strongly considering any amount of disease progression and personal factors such as fear of progression, family concerns, and adverse vicarious experiences when deciding whether to pursue treatment.

Conclusion

Both medical and personal factors are considered when deciding whether to discontinue AS. Identifying predictors of discontinuation is essential for informing supportive care services to improve AS management.

Developing a consensus statement for psychosocial support in active surveillance for prostate cancer

Purpose

Our objective was to prioritise the psychosocial support needs of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer and to develop a consensus statement to provide guidance on best practice psychosocial support for men choosing active surveillance and their families.

Subjects and methods

We undertook a patient and public involvement Delphi process over two rounds, informed by qualitative data and a comprehensive literature review, to prioritise the information and support needs of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Two panels were surveyed, a patient/carer panel (n = 55) and a health care provider panel (n = 114). Based on the findings of the Delphi surveys, an expert active surveillance discussion group developed a consensus statement to guide best practice.

Results

Patients and health care professionals differed slightly in their ideas concerning priorities for active surveillance psychosocial support. Broadly, agreed priority areas included -patients being involved in decision-making, continuity of care, more streamlined access to health care teams, improved understanding of the risk of prostate cancer progression and information and support provided through both health care professionals and peers. Based on the identified priorities, the expert discussion group agreed on 22 consensus statements for best practice in psychosocial care for active surveillance in respect of (1) principles of an active surveillance programme; (2) structure of consultations; (3) content of information and support; and (4) delivery of information.

Conclusion

This consensus statement provides a framework for patient-focused psychosocial support, which, if adopted, should increase uptake and adherence to active surveillance among men with prostate cancer.

Independent validation of a pre-specified four-kallikrein marker model for prediction of adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence

BACKGROUND

Accurate markers for prostate cancer (PC) risk stratification could aid decision-making for initial management strategies. The 4Kscore has an undefined role in predicting outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

We included 1476 patients with 4Kscore measured prior to RP at two institutions. The 4Kscore was assessed for prediction of adverse pathology at RP and biochemical recurrence (BCR) relative to a clinical model. We pre-specified that all analyses would be assessed in biopsy Grade Group 1 (GG1) or 2 (GG2) PC patients, separately.

RESULTS

The 4Kscore increased discrimination for adverse pathology in all patients (delta area under the receiver operative curve (AUC) 0.009, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.002, 0.016; clinical model AUC 0.767), driven by GG1 (delta AUC 0.040, 95% CI 0.006, 0.073) rather than GG2 patients (delta AUC 0.005, 95% CI -0.012, 0.021). Adding 4Kscore improved prediction of BCR in all patients (delta C-index 0.014, 95% CI 0.007, 0.021; preop-BCR nomogram C-index 0.738), again with larger changes in GG1 than in GG2.

CONCLUSIONS

This study validates prior investigations on the use of 4Kscore in men with biopsy-confirmed PC. Men with GG1 PC and a high 4Kscore may benefit from additional testing to guide treatment selection. Further research is warranted regarding the value of the 4Kscore in men with biopsy GG2 PC.

A Quantitative Analysis Examining Patients' Choice of Active Surveillance or Surgery for Managing Low-Risk Papillary Thyroid Cancer

Background: It is important to understand patient preferences on managing low-risk papillary thyroid cancer (PTC). Methods: We prospectively followed patients with low-risk PTC <2 cm in maximal diameter, who were offered the choice of thyroidectomy or active surveillance (AS) at the University Health Network (UHN), in Toronto, Canada. The primary outcome was the frequency of AS choice (percentage with confidence interval [CI]). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of the choice of AS. Results: We enrolled 200 patients of median age 51 years (interquartile range 42-62). The primary tumor measured >1 cm in 55.5% (111/200) of participants. The AS was chosen by 77.5% [71.2-82.7%, 155/200] of participants. In a backwards conditional regression model, the clinical and demographic factors independently associated with choosing AS included: older age (compared with referent group <40 years)-age 40-64 years-odds ratio (OR) 2.78 [CI, 1.23-6.30, p = 0.014], age ≥65 years-OR 8.43 [2.13-33.37, p = 0.002], and education level of high school or lower-OR 4.41 [1.25-15.53, p = 0.021]; AS was inversely associated with the patient's surgeon of record being affiliated with the study hospital-OR 0.29 [0.11-0.76, p = 0.012]. In a separate backwards conditional logistic regression model examining associations with psychological characteristics, AS choice was independently associated with a fear of needing to take thyroid hormones after thyroidectomy-OR 1.24 [1.11-1.39, p < 0.001], but inversely associated with fear of PTC progression-OR 0.94 [0.90-0.98, p = 0.006] and an active coping mechanism ("doing something")-OR 0.43 [0.28-0.66, p < 0.001]. Conclusions: Approximately three-quarters of our participants chose AS over surgery. The factors associated with choosing AS included older age, lower education level, and having a surgeon outside the study institution. Patients' fears about either their PTC progressing or taking thyroid hormone replacement as well as the level of active coping style were associated with the decision. Our results inform the understanding of patients' decisions on managing low-risk PTC. Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03271892.

Five-year follow-up study of a population-based prospective cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: the treatment options in prostate cancer study (TOPCS): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) to reduce overtreatment and to maintain patients' quality of life (QOL). However, whether African American (AA) men can safely undergo AS is controversial due to concerns of more aggressive disease and lack of empirical data on the safety and effectiveness of AS in this population. Withholding of AS may lead to a lost opportunity for improving survivorship in AA men. In this study, peer-reviewed and funded by the US Department of Defense, we will assess whether AS is an equally effective and safe management option for AA as it is for White men with LRPC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project extends follow-up of a large contemporary population-based cohort of LRPC patients (n=1688) with a high proportion of AA men (~20%) and well-characterised baseline and 2-year follow-up data. The objectives are to (1) determine any racial differences in AS adherence, switch rate from AS to curative treatment and time to treatment over 5 years after diagnosis, (2) compare QOL among AS group and curative treatment group over time, overall and by race and (3) evaluate whether reasons for switching from AS to curative treatment differ by race. Validation of survey responses related to AS follow-up procedures is being conducted through medical record review. We expect to obtain 5-year survey from ~900 (~20% AA) men by the end of this study to have sufficient power. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques will be used to examine racial differences in AS adherence, effectiveness and QOL.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The parent and current studies were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Wayne State University and Emory University. Since it is an observational study, ethical or safety risks are low. We will disseminate our findings to relevant conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Maintaining men on active surveillance for prostate cancer can be challenging. Although most men who eventually undergo treatment have experienced clinical progression, a smaller subset elects treatment in the absence of disease reclassification. This study sought to understand factors associated with treatment in a large, contemporary, prospective cohort.

METHODS

This study identified 1789 men in the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study cohort enrolled as of 2020 with a median follow-up of 5.6 years. Clinical and demographic data as well as information on patient-reported quality of life and urinary symptoms were used in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to identify factors associated with the time to treatment RESULTS: Within 4 years of their diagnosis, 33% of men (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-35%) underwent treatment, and 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%) were treated in the absence of reclassification. The most significant factor associated with any treatment was an increasing Gleason grade group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 14.5; 95% CI, 11.7-17.9). Urinary quality-of-life scores were associated with treatment without reclassification (aHR comparing "mostly dissatisfied/terrible" with "pleased/mixed," 2.65; 95% CI, 1.54-4.59). In a subset analysis (n = 692), married men, compared with single men, were more likely to undergo treatment in the absence of reclassification (aHR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.04-6.66).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of men with prostate cancer undergo treatment in the absence of clinical changes in their cancers, and quality-of-life changes and marital status may be important factors in these decisions.

LAY SUMMARY

This analysis of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer shows that approximately 1 in 10 men will decide to be treated within 4 years of their diagnosis even if their cancer is stable. These choices may be related in part to quality-or-life or spousal concerns.

Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer with PSA 10-20 ng/mL: pathological outcome analysis of a population-level database

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is generally recognized as the preferred option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Current guidelines use prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 10-20 ng/mL or low-volume biopsy Gleason grade group (GG) 2 as features that, in part, define the favorable intermediate-risk disease and suggest that AS may be considered for some men in this risk category.

METHODS

We identified 26,548 men initially managed with AS aged <80 years, with clinically localized prostate cancer (cT1-2cN0M0), PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, biopsy GG ≤ 2 with percent positive cores ≤33% and who converted to treatment with radical prostatectomy from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results prostate with the watchful waiting database. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of adverse pathology at RP according to PSA level (<10 vs 10-20 ng/mL) and GG (1 vs 2).

RESULTS

Of 1731 men with GG 1 disease and PSA 10-20 ng/mL, 382 (22.1%) harbored adverse pathology compared to 2340 (28%) of 8,367 men with GG 2 and a PSA < 10 ng/mL who had adverse pathology at RP. On multivariable analysis, the odds of harboring adverse pathology with a PSA 10-20 ng/mL (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-2.05, p < 0.001) was less than that of GG 2 (OR 2.56, 95%CI 2.40-2.73, p < 0.001) after adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support extending AS criteria more permissively to carefully selected men with PSA 10-20 ng/mL and GG 1 disease.

What interventions affect the psychosocial burden experienced by prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance? A scoping review

PURPOSE

Living with untreated prostate cancer (PCa) may cause anxiety and uncertainty in men undergoing active surveillance (AS). Developing a psychosocial support program for such patients might promote psychosocial well-being and patient engagement. This review aims to identify interventions with the potential to influence the psychosocial burden of prostate cancer patients undergoing AS.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. A systematic search was conducted in six databases and included publications dating from 2009. All available and eligible evidence was included in this review.

RESULTS

After screening 2824 articles, 12 studies were included in the review: nine quantitative, one qualitative, and two mixed method papers. The relative strength of these studies was limited and the quality of most was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The described interventions can be categorized into three major themes: information and education, coping and (psycho)social support, and lifestyle. Psychosocial support for men undergoing AS should entail involvement of family and spouse during the decision-making process, tailored information about PCa treatments, risks, benefits, protocols, lifestyle adjustments, and complementary and alternative medicine. Assessment and promotion of effective coping and self-management strategies are recommended. Healthcare providers should actively promote physical activity and nutritional improvements. Physical activity programs may also be helpful in facilitating peer support, which is especially important for men with limited social support. Future research should investigate combining interventions to increase efficacy and optimize supportive care during AS.

Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study

Objectives

In a prospective, comparative effectiveness study, we assessed clinical and psychological factors associated with switching from active surveillance (AS) to active treatment (AT) among low‐risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

Methods

Using ultra‐rapid case identification, we conducted pretreatment telephone interviews (N = 1139) with low‐risk patients (PSA ≤ 10, Gleason≤6) and follow‐up interviews 6–10 months post‐diagnosis (N = 1057). Among men remaining on AS for at least 12 months (N = 601), we compared those who continued on AS (N = 515) versus men who underwent delayed AT (N = 86) between 13 and 24 months, using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Delayed AT was predicted by time dependent PSA levels (≥10 vs. <10; HR = 5.6, 95% CI 2.4–13.1) and Gleason scores (≥7 vs. ≤6; adjusted HR = 20.2, 95% CI 12.2–33.4). Further, delayed AT was more likely among men whose urologist initially recommended AT (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.07–4.22), for whom tumour removal was very important (HR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.35–3.52), and who reported greater worry about not detecting disease progression early (HR = 1.67, 1.05–2.65). In exploratory analyses, 31% (27/86) switched to AT without evidence of progression, while 4.7% (24/515) remained on AS with evidence of progression.

Conclusions

After adjusting for clinical evidence of disease progression over the first year post‐diagnosis, we found that urologists' initial treatment recommendation and patients' early treatment preferences and concerns about AS each independently predicted undergoing delayed AT during the second year post‐diagnosis. These findings, along with almost one‐half undergoing delayed AT without evidence of progression, suggest the need for greater decision support to remain on AS when it is clinically indicated.

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.

Lectins applied to diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer and benign hyperplasia: A review

Environmental factors, as well as genetic factors, contribute to the increase in prostate cancer cases (PCa), the second leading cause of cancer death in men. This fact calls for the development of more reliable, quick and low-cost early detection tests to distinguish between malignant and benign cases. Abnormal cell glycosylation pattern is a promising PCa marker for this purpose. Proteins, such as lectins can decode the information contained in the glycosylation patterns. Several studies have reported on applications of plant lectins as diagnostic tools for PCa considering the ability to differentiate it from benign cases. In addition, they can be used to detect, separate and differentiate the glycosylation patterns of cells or proteins present in serum, urine and semen. Herein, we present an overview of these studies, showing the lectins that map glycans differentially expressed in PCa, as well as benign hyperplasia (BPH). We further review their applications in biosensors, histochemical tests, immunoassays, chromatography, arrays and, finally, their therapeutic potential. This is the first study to review vegetable lectins applied specifically to PCa.

Patient reported factors influencing the decision-making process of men with localised prostate cancer when considering Active Surveillance-A systematic review and thematic synthesis

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes for men with localised prostate cancer managed with Active Surveillance (AS) are similar to outcomes for men who have received Active Treatment. This review explore men's perceptions of the factors that influence their decision-making process when considering AS.

METHOD

A systematic review of studies was conducted up to May 2021, including qualitative studies which explored the decision making of men with localised prostate cancer when considering AS. Evidence was analysed using thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

Thirteen papers, including 426 men, met inclusion criteria and were analysed in the review. Approximately half of the men had chosen AS and half had chosen Active Treatment. The choice of AS was not a one-off decision but rather an ongoing behaviour. Four themes were identified and considered within a temporal model: pre-diagnosis representations of cancer and treatment; experience of testing and diagnosis; patient decision making; and emotional adjustment to AS. Key barriers and facilitators to men choosing AS were identified. In deciding whether or not to choose AS, men balanced a desire for quality of life against fear of cancer progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Both cognitive representations and emotional arousal influence how men decided whether or not to opt for AS. Interventions tailored to elicit and address emotional appraisals of risk, and increase trust in AS protocols, may be of value in helping men to make decisions around treatment for localised prostate cancer.

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.

Barriers and facilitators to mobile health and active surveillance use among older adults with skin disease

Background

The COVID‐19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of telemedicine, including teledermatology. Monitoring skin lesions using teledermatology may become increasingly important for several skin diseases, including low‐risk skin cancers. The purpose of this study was to describe the key factors that could serve as barriers or facilitators to skin disease monitoring using mobile health technology (mHealth) in older adults.

Methods

Older adult dermatology patients 65 years or older and their caregivers who have seen a dermatologist in the last 18 months were interviewed and surveyed between December 2019 and July 2020. The purpose of these interviews was to better understand attitudes, beliefs and behaviours that could serve as barriers and facilitators to the use of mHealth and active surveillance to monitor low‐risk skin cancers.

Results

A total of 33 interviews leading to 6022 unique excerpts yielded 8 factors, or themes, that could serve as barriers, facilitators or both to mHealth and active surveillance. We propose an integrated conceptual framework that highlights the interaction of these themes at both the patient and provider level, including care environment, support systems and personal values.

Discussion and conclusions

These preliminary findings reveal factors influencing patient acceptance of active surveillance in dermatology, such as changes to the patient‐provider interaction and alignment with personal values. These factors were also found to influence adoption of mHealth interventions. Given such overlap, it is essential to address barriers and facilitators from both domains when designing a new dermatology active surveillance approach with novel mHealth technology.

Patient or public contribution

The patients included in this study were participants during the data collection process. Members of the Stanford Healthcare and Denver Tech Dermatology health‐care teams aided in the recruitment phase of the data collection process.

Prostate Cancer From a Sex and Gender Perspective: A Review

INTRODUCTION

Factors influencing patient behavior regarding risk of prostate cancer (PCa) and outcomes of PCa treatments are poorly understood. Similarly, how PCa treatments affect patient sexual function and sense of their masculinity has not been fully investigated. A better understanding of the relationship between sex and gender for patients with PCa could significantly improve their care and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To review how concerns about sex and gender influence men's attitudes toward PCa screening, diagnosis, and treatment. To explore how PCa influences sexual function and self-perceived masculine identity. To examine contexts for PSA screening for transgender individuals.

METHODS

We reviewed biomedical and sociological literature exploring the impact of PCa on patient sexual function and self-perceived masculinity using OVID, PubMed, and other databases. We similarly reviewed how masculine gender norms influence patient willingness to engage with PCa screening, diagnoses, and treatment.

RESULTS

Gender norms and sexual function concerns influence patient engagement in all aspects of PCa care. This includes PSA screening, digital rectal examinations, active surveillance, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) amongst others. ADT is particularly challenging to sexual function, self-esteem, and masculine identity. Our research suggests that sex and gender are not separate concepts, but rather tightly intertwined, particularly when dealing with the realities experienced by patients with PCa.

CONCLUSION

Interventions to help patients deal with the challenges of PCa and its treatment are likely to be most effective if they concurrently address patients' sexual needs and understanding of gender norms. PSA screening should be considered for transgender individuals who are at greater risk of cancer and on long-term hormone therapy. More research is needed on how concerns over sex and gender influence PCa screening, diagnosis, and treatment. There is also a need for long term data on the oncological outcomes of prolonged exposure to hormone therapy for patients who are transgender. Muermann MM, Wassersug RJ. Prostate Cancer From a Sex and Gender Perspective: A Review. Sex Med Rev 2021;XX:XXX-XXX.

It's all in the name: Does nomenclature for indolent prostate cancer impact management and anxiety?

BACKGROUND

Despite consensus guidelines, many men with low-grade prostate cancer are not managed with active surveillance. Patient perception of the nomenclature used to describe low-grade prostate cancers may partly explain this discrepancy.

METHODS

A randomized online survey was administered to men without a history of prostate cancer, presenting a hypothetical clinical scenario in which they are given a new diagnosis of low-grade prostate cancer. The authors determined whether diagnosis nomenclature was associated with management preference and diagnosis-related anxiety using ratings given on a scale from 1 to 100, adjusting for participant characteristics through multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 718 men. Compared with Gleason 6 out of 10 prostate cancer, the term grade group 1 out of 5 prostate cancer was associated with lower preference for immediate treatment versus active surveillance (β = -9.3; 95% CI, -14.4, -4.2; P < .001), lower diagnosis-related anxiety (β = -8.3; 95% CI, -12.8, -3.8; P < .001), and lower perceived disease severity (β = -12.3; 95% CI, -16.5, -8.1; P < .001) at the time of initial diagnosis. Differences decreased as participants received more disease-specific education. Indolent lesion of epithelial origin, a suggested alternative term for indolent tumors, was not associated with differences in anxiety or preference for active surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a hypothetical clinical scenario, nomenclature for low-grade prostate cancer affects initial perception of the disease and may alter subsequent decision making, including preference for active surveillance. Disease-specific education reduces the differential impact of nomenclature use, reaffirming the importance of comprehensive counseling and clear communication between the clinician and patient.

Depression, anxiety, and suicidality in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric implications of prostate cancer are increasingly recognised, having important effects on oncological and functional outcomes. However, findings for co-occurring depression, anxiety, and suicidality remain variable. Therefore, this review of observational studies aimed to establish best estimates of the prevalence and rates of these outcomes in prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases from inception up to 26 May 2020. Observational studies using validated methods for evaluating prevalences of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation, or suicide mortality rates post prostate cancer diagnosis were included. Random effect models were used to calculate pooled prevalences of depressive and anxiety symptoms or disorders, and suicidal ideation post diagnosis. Additionally, pooled crude suicide mortality rates per 100,000 person years were calculated. Heterogeneity was explored using a stratified analysis.

RESULTS

Of 3537 articles screened, 117 were included. Pooled prevalence for depressive disorders was 5.81% (95% CI 4.36-7.46) in 11 studies, representing 655,149 patients. Significant depressive symptoms were identified in 17.07% (15.14-19.09) across 32,339 patients and 76 studies. In total, 16.86% (14.92-18.89) had significant anxiety symptoms in 56 studies combining 24,526 patients. In 6,173 patients and eight studies, recent suicidal ideation was present in 9.85% (7.31-12.70). Crude suicide mortality rate after diagnosis was 47.1 (39.85-54.96) per 100,000 person years in 12 studies. Significant heterogeneity was seen with potential sources identified through our sensitivity analysis including diagnostic method utilised, study size and location of study.

CONCLUSIONS

The mental health impact in patients with prostate cancer is significant. Depressive, anxiety, and suicidal symptoms were common. Additionally, a high suicide mortality rate was identified when compared to general population estimates. Screening of patients and integration of physical and mental health care should be evaluated further to improve quality of life and functional outcomes.

Understanding reasons for non-adherence to active surveillance for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is recommended by most national medical organizations as the preferred treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). However, studies report that up to one third of men on AS dropout within 5 years, without evidence of disease progression. Despite high dropout rates, few studies have purposively explored the opinions and experiences of men who discontinued AS. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the reasons why some men on AS for PCa discontinue active treatment without evidence of disease progression.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 14 men from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds who had been on AS for PCa but dropped out of surveillance to undergo active treatment without signs of disease progression. Purposive sampling to reach data saturation was used to select participants based on their experience of AS and willingness to share their experiences. Interviews were transcribed and analysis undertaken in an inductive thematic manner.

Results

The following themes arose from interviews as factors that potentially influence adherence to AS: men’s experience at diagnosis and follow-up consultations, involvement in shared decision-making, the extent of supportive care and information, administrative procedures and support from partner and peers. A poor experience during diagnosis could adversely influence long-term adherence to AS, given the same diagnostic tests are frequently repeated. The provision of consistent information and support while on AS, similar to that offered to men undergoing radical treatment, was also highlighted as being important to increase confidence in the process.

Conclusions

Effective communications skills among health professionals, aimed at building trust in patient-clinician relationships, providing opportunities for shared decision-making and developing self-efficacy, along with structured information and support, are key to enhancing long-term adherence to AS.

The clinical impact of strict criteria for active surveillance of prostate cancer in Korean population: Results from a prospective cohort

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical impact of strict selection criteria for active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer in a Korean population.

Materials and Methods

A single-center, prospectively collected AS cohort from December 2016 to February 2019 was used. Following pre-determined criteria, patients were categorized into “strict AS” and “non-strict AS” groups. Clinicopathological progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment-free survival (TFS) of the two groups were compared using the Kaplan–Meier curve and log-rank test. Age-adjusted hazard ratios for clinicopathological progression was calculated using Cox proportional regression analysis.

Results

Of 54 eligible patients, 25 and 29 were assigned to “strict AS” and “non-strict AS,” respectively. Clinicopathological progression and definitive treatment rates were 24.0% (6 of 25 patients) vs. 51.7% (15 of 29 patients) and 32.0% (8 of 25 patients) vs. 62.1% (18 of 29 patients) in “strict AS” and “non-strict AS” groups. Progress to high-risk cancer (pathologic T3 or surgical Gleason Grade 2 over) in radical prostatectomy was higher in “non-strict AS” than “strict AS”. PFS (mean 34.6±2.9 mo vs. 22.6±2.7 mo; p=0.025) and TFS (mean 31.8±3.2 mo vs. 19.6±2.4 mo; p=0.018) favor the “strict AS” group than “non-strict AS” group. Age-adjusted hazard ratio for clinicopathological progression of strict criteria was 0.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.14–0.94; p=0.04).

Conclusions

PFS and TFS were better in the “strict AS” group than in the “non-strict AS” group. This finding should be informed to relevant patients during decision making and considered in Korean guidelines.

Presentation, follow-up, and outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: experiences of a high-volume UK centre

BACKGROUND

Experiences of African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) in the United Kingdom (UK) are not well documented. We compared follow-up appointments, adherence, and clinical outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS at a high-volume UK hospital with other ethnicities.

METHODS

Men with confirmed low-intermediate risk Pca who attended the AS clinic (2005-2016) and had undergone ≥1 follow-up biopsy (n = 458) were included. Non-adherence (defined as >20% missed appointments), suspicion of disease progression (any upgrading, >30% positive cores, cT-stage > 3, PIRADS > 3), any upgrading from diagnostic biopsy and conversion to active treatment (prostatectomy, radiotherapy or hormone therapy) according to ethnicity (African/Afro-Caribbean versus other ethnicities) were assessed using multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three percent of eligible men were recorded as African/Afro-Caribbean, while the remainder were predominantly Caucasian. African/Afro-Caribbean men had slightly lower PSA at diagnosis (median 5.0 vs. 6.0 ng/mL) and more positive cores at diagnosis (median 2 vs. 1). They had a substantially higher rate of non-attendance at scheduled follow-up visits (24% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Adjusted analyses suggest African/Afro-Caribbean men may be at increased risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.91, P = 0.054) and upgrading (HR: 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.92, P = 0.305), though neither reached statistical significance. No difference in risk of conversion to treatment was observed between ethnic groups (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.47, P = 0.873).

CONCLUSIONS

African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS for PCa in the UK are less likely to adhere to scheduled appointments, suggesting a more tailored service addressing their specific needs may be required. While African/Afro-Caribbean men were no more likely to convert to treatment than Caucasian/other men, findings of a potentially higher risk of disease progression signal the need for careful selection and monitoring of African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS. Larger prospective, multicentre studies with longer follow-up are required to provide more definitive conclusions.

Active surveillance as a management option for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2: An online experimental study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate framing of active surveillance as a management option for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2 in women of childbearing age.

METHODS

We conducted a between-subjects factorial (2 × 2) randomised experiment. Women aged 25-40 living in Australia were presented with the same hypothetical pathway of testing human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, high-grade cytology and a diagnosis of CIN2, through an online survey. They were randomised to one of four groups to evaluate the effects of (i) framing (method of explaining resolution of abnormal cells) and (ii) inclusion of an overtreatment statement (included versus not). Primary outcome was management choice following the scenario: active surveillance or surgery.

RESULTS

1638 women were randomised. Overall, preference for active surveillance was high (78.9%; n = 1293/1638). There was no effect of framing or providing overtreatment information, or their interaction, on management choice. After adjusting for intervention received, age, education, and other model covariates, participants were more likely to choose active surveillance over surgery if they had not already had children, had plans for children in the future, had no family history of cancer, had no history of endometriosis, had adequate health literacy, and more trust in their GP. Participants were less likely to choose active surveillance over surgery if they were more predisposed to seek health care for minor problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we found no framing effect across the four conditions, we found a high level of preference for active surveillance with associations of increased preference that accord with the desire to minimise potential risks of CIN2 treatment on obstetric outcomes. These are valuable data for future clinical trials of active surveillance for management of CIN2 in younger women of childbearing age.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618002043213, 20/12/2018, prior to participant enrolment).