Physicians' Perceptions of Factors Influencing the Treatment Decision-making Process for Men With Low-risk Prostate Cancer

Malpractice Trends Involving Active Surveillance Across Cancers

OBJECTIVE

To characterize malpractice trends related to active surveillance (AS) as a treatment strategy across cancers.

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance is increasingly considered a viable management strategy for low-risk cancers. Since a subset of AS cases will progress, metastasize, or exhibit cancer-related mortality, a significant barrier to implementation is the perceived risk of litigation from missing the window for cure. Data on malpractice trends across cancers are lacking.

METHODS

Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases were searched from 1990 to 2022 for malpractice cases involving active surveillance in conjunction with thyroid cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, breast cancer, or lymphoma. Queries included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions. Data were compiled on legal allegations, procedures performed, and verdicts or settlements rendered.

RESULTS

Five prostate cancer cases were identified that pertained to active surveillance. Two cases involved alleged deliberate indifference from AS as a management strategy but were ruled as following the appropriate standard of care. In contrast, 3 cases involved alleged physician negligence for not explicitly recommending AS as a treatment option after complications from surgery occurred. All cases showed documented informed consent for AS, leading to defense verdicts in favor of the physicians. No cases of AS-related malpractice were identified for other cancer types.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, no evidence of successful malpractice litigation for active surveillance in cancer has been identified. Given the legal precedent detailed in the identified cases and increasing support across national guidelines, active surveillance represents a sound management option in appropriate low-risk cancers, with no increased risk of medicolegal exposure.

Integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

OBJECTIVES

To identify and thematically analyse how healthcare professionals (HCPs) integrate patient values and preferences ('values integration') in primary care for adults with non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-aggregation methods were used for extraction, synthesis and analysis of qualitative evidence.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant records were sourced using keywords to search 12 databases (ASSIA, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, ERIC, Google Scholar, GreyLit, Ovid-MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Records needed to be published between 2000 and 2020 and report qualitative methods and findings in English involving HCP participants regarding primary care for adult patients.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Relevant data including participant quotations, authors' observations, interpretations and conclusions were extracted, synthesised and analysed in a phased approach using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Data Extraction Tool, as well as EPPI Reviewer and NVivo software. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research was used to assess methodological quality of included records.

RESULTS

Thirty-one records involving >1032 HCP participants and 1823 HCP-patient encounters were reviewed. Findings included 143 approaches to values integration in clinical care, thematically analysed and synthesised into four themes: (1) approaches of concern; (2) approaches of competence; (3) approaches of communication and (4) approaches of congruence. Confidence in the quality of included records was deemed high.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs incorporate patient values and preferences in healthcare through a variety of approaches including showing concern for the patient as a person, demonstrating competence at managing diseases, communicating with patients as partners and tailoring, adjusting and balancing overall care. Themes in this review provide a novel framework for understanding and addressing values integration in clinical care and provide useful insights for policymakers, educators and practitioners.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020166002.

Multi-disciplinary and shared decision-making approach in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer

Decision-making in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer is complex as it is based on multi-factorial considerations. It is complicated by a multitude of issues, which are related to the patient, treatment, disease, availability of equipment(s), expertise, and physicians. Combination of all these factors play a major role in the decision-making process and provide for an interactive decision-making preferably in the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting. MDT decisions are comprehensive and are often based on all factors including patients' biological status, disease and its aggressiveness, and physician and centres' expertise. However, one important and often under rated factor is patient-related factors. There is considerable evidence that patients and physicians have different goals for treatment and physicians' understanding of their own patients' preferences is not accurate. Several patient-related key factors have been identified such as age, religious beliefs, sexual health, educational background, and cognitive impairment. We have focused on these areas and highlight some key factors that need to be taken considered whilst counselling a patient and understanding his choice of treatment, which might not always be match with the clinicians' recommendation.

Patient Factors That Influence How Physicians Discuss Active Surveillance With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: A Qualitative Study

For men diagnosed with prostate cancer, making treatment decisions can be overwhelming. Navigating treatment options, along with potential treatment side effects, can be difficult, and patients often rely heavily on the advice of their physicians. This study was aimed at understanding more about the way urologists talk with their patients about one treatment option: active surveillance (AS), a recognized management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer that includes close observation and monitoring of the cancer. This study reports, through 22 interviews with urologists, that urologists believe patients are hesitant about AS for a number of reasons, including misperceptions about cancer severity, anxiety, aversion to repeated biopsies that accompany AS, or family member preferences. Because urologists play an influential role in educating patients about treatment options, the discussion around AS can be impacted by barriers that physicians believe matter for their patients. Improving awareness among urologists about what factors impact their patient education about low-risk prostate cancer is important. Identifying tools to improve shared decision making in this area could result in treatment decisions that are increasingly concordant with patients' values, concerns, and goals.

Adolescent testicular microlithiasis: A case-based, multinational survey of clinical management practices

INTRODUCTION

Testicular microlithiasis (TM) is a condition characterized by calcium deposits within the testis, usually detected incidentally during ultrasonography of the scrotum. TM has been associated with the presence of, and possibly the development of, testicular malignancy. Our aim was to document international clinical management practices for TM and to analyze what factors and perception of risk influence conservative versus active management and follow-up.

METHODS

European Society for Paediatric Urology (ESPU) and Society for Pediatric Urology (SPU) members were invited to complete an online case-based survey of clinical management practices of TM. Eight cases had a single variable changed each time (classic versus limited TM, unilateral versus bilateral, prior cryptorchidism versus no cryptorchidism) to ascertain the provider's perception of risk. The respondents completed multiple choice questions on initial management, follow-up plan, length and interval of follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with decisions on management and follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 265 respondents to the survey from 35 countries (Table). Median time in practice was 13 years. Factors that were significantly associated with more aggressive initial management (more than counseling on self-examination) included: not yet in independent practice, low volume TM cases per year, those practicing pediatric and adult urology, classic appearance of TM and cryptorchidism. Factors that were significantly associated with urologist follow-up and active investigation included: European practitioners, low TM case volume per year, those practicing both pediatric urology and pediatric surgery, classic TM appearance and a case history of cryptorchidism. Interval and length of follow-up was wide-ranging, with most respondents favoring annual follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Management of TM varies and a mix of surgeon and case factors significantly influences management strategies. This baseline understanding of the lack of systematic management suggests the need for the development of consensus guidelines and prospective study.

Quality of life in active surveillance and the associations with decision-making-a literature review

Several studies have been conducted on the quality of life (QoL) in men with low risk prostate cancer (PCa) who choose active surveillance (AS). While recent reviews have shown a lack of consistency among the available QoL-studies, a few key points have been identified, including decision-making (DM)-related issues and their potential effect on QoL. The importance of this theme has also been recently highlighted by the international task force of the European School of Oncology. However, to our knowledge, there are no studies that have specifically marshalled scientific knowledge on the association between DM and QoL among men with low-risk PCa undergoing AS. We performed a literature review to fill this gap, taking a systematic approach to retrieving and selecting articles that included both DM and QoL measures. Among the 272 articles retrieved, we selected nine observational, quantitative articles with both DM and QoL measures. The most considered DM aspects within these studies were decisional conflict and preference for the patient’s role in the DM process, as well as health-related QoL aspects. The studies included 42 assessments of the relationship between an empirical measure of DM and an empirical measure of QoL. Among these assessments, 23 (55%) were both positive and significant. They mostly concerned the relationship between patient-related (decisional self-efficacy, decisional control and knowledge) and external (presence of social support, collaborative role within the DM process, and influence of different physicians) DM aspects, as well as the QoL after choice. The findings of these studies revealed key challenges to research and clinical practice related to DM and QoL in AS. These include adopting a person-centred perspective where clinicians, caregivers and their interactions are also included in evaluations and where the psychosocial existential experience of individuals within the DM and AS journey is considered. Much more attention needs to be paid to the DM process after diagnosis, as well as to all the other moments where patients may have to or want to review their decision. Healthcare professionals play a key role in enabling men to make informed decisions and to take care of their health and well-being during AS. There is still work that needs to be done in training healthcare professionals from different disciplines to work together in a model of shared DM and AS tailored to the needs of low-risk PCa patients and their family members.

Influence of Men's Personality and Social Support on Treatment Decision-Making for Localized Prostate Cancer

Background

Optimal treatment for localized prostate cancer (LPC) is controversial. We assessed the effects of personality, specialists seen, and involvement of spouse, family, or friends on treatment decision/decision-making qualities.

Methods

We surveyed a population-based sample of men ≤ 75 years with newly diagnosed LPC about treatment choice, reasons for the choice, decision-making difficulty, satisfaction, and regret.

Results

Of 160 men (71 black, 89 white), with a mean age of 61 (±7.3) years, 59% chose surgery, 31% chose radiation, and 10% chose active surveillance (AS)/watchful waiting (WW). Adjusting for age, race, comorbidity, tumor risk level, and treatment status, men who consulted friends during decision-making were more likely to choose curative treatment (radiation or surgery) than WW/AS (OR = 11.1, p < 0.01; 8.7, p < 0.01). Men who saw a radiation oncologist in addition to a urologist were more likely to choose radiation than surgery (OR = 6.0, p = 0.04). Men who consulted family or friends (OR = 2.6, p < 0.01; 3.7, p < 0.01) experienced greater decision-making difficulty. No personality traits (pessimism, optimism, or faith) were associated with treatment choice/decision-making quality measures.

Conclusions

In addition to specialist seen, consulting friends increased men's likelihood of choosing curative treatment. Consulting family or friends increased decision-making difficulty.