Urologists' Perceptions of Active Surveillance and Their Recommendations for Low-risk Prostate Cancer Patients

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.

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.

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.

Concordance between influential adverse treatment outcomes and localized prostate cancer treatment decisions

Background

Although treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer (LPC) are preference-sensitive, the extent to which individuals with LPC receive preference-concordant treatment is unclear. In a sample of individuals with LPC, the purpose of this study was to (a) assess concordance between the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and treatment choice; (b) determine whether receipt of a decision aid predicts higher odds of concordance; and (c) identify predictors of concordance from a set of participant characteristics and influential personal factors.

Methods

Participants reported the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and personal factors on treatment decisions at baseline. Preference-concordant treatment was defined as (a) any treatment if risk of adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence, (b) active surveillance if risk of adverse outcomes had a lot of influence, or (c) radical prostatectomy or active surveillance if risk of adverse bowel outcomes had a lot of influence and risk of other adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

Results

Of 224 participants, 137 (61%) pursued treatment concordant with preferences related to adverse treatment outcomes. Receipt of a decision aid did not predict higher odds of concordance. Low tumor risk and age ≥ 60 years predicted higher odds of concordance, while attributing a lot of influence to the impact of treatment on recreation predicted lower odds of concordance.

Conclusions

Risk of potential adverse treatment outcomes may not be the foremost consideration of some patients with LPC. Assessment of the relative importance of patients’ stated values and preferences is warranted in the setting of LPC treatment decision making.

Clinical trial registration: NCT01844999 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01972-w.

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.

Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Algorithm as a "Road Map" from the First Stratification of the Patient to the Final Treatment Decision

The diagnostics of prostate cancer are currently based on three pillars: prostate biomarker panel, imaging techniques, and histological verification. This paper presents a diagnostic algorithm that can serve as a "road map": from initial patient stratification to the final decision regarding treatment. The algorithm is based on a review of the current literature combined with our own experience. Diagnostic algorithms are a feature of an advanced healthcare system in which all steps are consciously coordinated and optimized to ensure the proper individualization of the treatment process. The prostate cancer diagnostic algorithm was created using the prostate specific antigen and in particular the Prostate Health Index in the first line of patient stratification. It then continued on the diagnostic pathway via imaging techniques, biopsy, or active surveillance, and then on to the treatment decision itself. In conclusion, the prostate cancer diagnostic algorithm presented here is a functional tool for initial patient stratification, comprehensive staging, and aggressiveness assessment. Above all, emphasis is placed on the use of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in the first stratification of the patients as a predictor of aggressiveness and clinical stage of prostrate cancer (PCa). The inclusion of PHI in the algorithm significantly increases the accuracy and speed of the diagnostic procedure and allows to choose the optimal pathway just from the beginning. The use of advanced diagnostic techniques allows us to move towards to a more advanced level of cancer care. This diagnostics algorithm has become a standard of care in our hospital. The algorithm is continuously validated and modified based on our results.