Treatment Preferences for Active Surveillance versus Active Treatment among Men with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Active surveillance versus treatment in low-risk DCIS: Women's preferences in the LORD-trial

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer (IBC), but most DCIS lesions remain indolent. However, guidelines recommend surgery, often supplemented by radiotherapy. This implies overtreatment of indolent DCIS. The non-randomised patient preference LORD-trial tests whether active surveillance (AS) for low-risk DCIS is safe, by giving women with low-risk DCIS a choice between AS and conventional treatment (CT). Here, we aim to describe how participants are distributed among both trial arms, identify their motives for their preference, and assess factors associated with their choice.

METHODS

Data were extracted from baseline questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the distribution and characteristics of participants; thematic analyses to extract self-reported reasons for the choice of trial arm, and multivariable logistic regression analyses to investigate associations between patient characteristics and chosen trial arm.

RESULTS

Of 377 women included, 76% chose AS and 24% CT. Most frequently cited reasons for AS were "treatment is not (yet) necessary" (59%) and trust in the AS-plan (39%). Reasons for CT were cancer worry (51%) and perceived certainty (29%). Women opting for AS more often had lower educational levels (OR 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.93) and more often reported experiencing shared decision making (OR 2.71; 95% CI, 1.37-5.37) than women choosing CT.

CONCLUSION

The LORD-trial is the first to offer women with low-risk DCIS a choice between CT and AS. Most women opted for AS and reported high levels of trust in the safety of AS. Their preferences highlight the necessity to establish the safety of AS for low-risk DCIS.

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.

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.

Planning and developing a web-based intervention for active surveillance in prostate cancer: an integrated self-care programme for managing psychological distress

Objectives

To outline the planning, development and optimisation of a psycho-educational behavioural intervention for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. The intervention aimed to support men manage active surveillance-related psychological distress.

Methods

The person-based approach (PBA) was used as the overarching guiding methodological framework for intervention development. Evidence-based methods were incorporated to improve robustness. The process commenced with data gathering activities comprising the following four components:

• A systematic review and meta-analysis of depression and anxiety in prostate cancer

• A cross-sectional survey on depression and anxiety in active surveillance

• A review of existing interventions in the field

• A qualitative study with the target audience

The purpose of this paper is to bring these components together and describe how they facilitated the establishment of key guiding principles and a logic model, which underpinned the first draft of the intervention.

Results

The prototype intervention, named PROACTIVE, consists of six Internet-based sessions run concurrently with three group support sessions. The sessions cover the following topics: lifestyle (diet and exercise), relaxation and resilience techniques, talking to friends and family, thoughts and feelings, daily life (money and work) and information about prostate cancer and active surveillance. The resulting intervention has been trialled in a feasibility study, the results of which are published elsewhere.

Conclusions

The planning and development process is key to successful delivery of an appropriate, accessible and acceptable intervention. The PBA strengthened the intervention by drawing on target-user experiences to maximise acceptability and user engagement. This meticulous description in a clinical setting using this rigorous but flexible method is a useful demonstration for others developing similar interventions.

Trial registration and Ethical Approval

ISRCTN registered: ISRCTN38893965. NRES Committee South Central – Oxford A. REC reference: 11/SC/0355

Active Surveillance for Men Younger than 60 Years or with Intermediate-risk Localized Prostate Cancer. Descriptive Analyses of Clinical Practice in the Movember GAP3 Initiative

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Opinions differ on whether it is safe to include young men (≤60 yr) or men with intermediate-risk disease.

Objective

To assess whether reasons for discontinuation, treatment choice after AS, and adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy (RP; N1, or ≥GG3, or ≥pT3) differ for men ≤60 yr or those with European Association of Urology (EAU) intermediate-risk disease from those for men >60 yr or those with EAU low-risk disease.

Design setting and participants

We analyzed data from 5411 men ≤60 yr and 14 959 men >60 yr, 14 064 men with low-risk cancer, and 2441 men with intermediate-risk cancer, originating from the GAP3 database (21 169 patients/27 cohorts worldwide).

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Cumulative incidence curves were used to estimate the rates of AS discontinuation and treatment choice.

Results and limitations

The probability of discontinuation of AS due to disease progression at 5 yr was similar for men aged ≤60 yr (22%) and those >60 yr (25%), as well as those of any age with low-risk disease (24%) versus those with intermediate-risk disease (24%). Men with intermediate-risk disease are more prone to discontinue AS without evidence of progression than men with low-risk disease (at 1/5 yr: 5.9%/14.2% vs 2.0%/8.8%). Adverse pathology at RP was observed in 32% of men ≤60 yr compared with 36% of men >60 yr (p = 0.029), and in 34% with low-risk disease compared with 40% with intermediate-risk disease (p = 0.048).

Conclusions

Our descriptive analysis of AS practices worldwide showed that the risk of progression during AS is similar across the age and risk groups studied. The proportion of adverse pathology was higher among men >60 yr than among men ≤60 yr. These results suggest that men ≤60 yr and those with EAU intermediate-risk disease should not be excluded from opting for AS as initial management.

Patient summary

Data from 27 international centers reflecting daily clinical practice suggest that younger men or men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer do not hold greater risk for disease progression during active surveillance.

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.

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.

Radiotherapy for elder patients aged ≥80 with clinically localized prostate cancer - Brachytherapy enhanced late GU toxicity especially in elderly

Background and purpose

Elongation of life expectancy had led to marked increase in number of elderly patients with localized prostate cancer. However, the standard treatment for such patients is not well determined because of a high prevalence of comorbidities and slow growth of prostate cancer. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility of radiotherapy for elderly patients aged ≥80 years.

Materials and methods

We compared 96 patients aged ≥80 years and 2333 younger patients (aged 60-79 years) using multi-institutional data included cT1-T4N0M0 prostate cancer treated with 902 external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and 1527 brachytherapy (BT).

Results

The 5-year biochemical failure-free survival rate was similar between elderly ≥80 years and younger control (91.3% vs. 85.9%, p = 0.6171) (100%, 92.9%, 82.4% and 96.3%, 93.7%, 89% for low, intermediate and high risk group), and for the prostate cancer-specific survival rate (100% and 99.3%, p = 0.6171). The accumulated incidence of late gastrointestinal (GI) at 5 years was also similar between elderly and younger patients (3.5% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.6857). Brachytherapy improved biochemical control rate and reduced GI toxicity compared with EBRT, however, enhanced late genitourinary (GU) toxicity, especially in elderly patients. Elderly received brachytherapy showed highest rate of late GU toxicity grade ≥2 of 22.1% than the younger counterparts of 12.7% at 5 years, whereas younger patients treated with EBRT had 2.4% and elderly EBRT had 2.7% (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Elderly patients aged ≥80 years showed equivalent biochemical control, prostate cancer-related survival, and gastrointestinal toxicity profiles to younger patients. Meticulous care should be required for brachytherapy enhanced late GU toxicity, especially in elderly patients aged ≥80 years.

Treatment decision-making in men with localized prostate cancer living in a remote area: A cross-sectional, observational study

INTRODUCTION

For the management of localized prostate cancer, patient treatment choice is poorly documented among people living in remote areas, where access to certain treatments offered in large centers involves travelling several hundred kilometres. This study aimed to describe and identify the determinants of treatment decision-making in men with localized prostate cancer living in remote areas.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, patients with prostate cancer were recruited from Rouyn-Noranda's urology clinic (Quebec, Canada) between 2017 and 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 127 men (mean age 68.34±7.23 years) constituted the study sample. Radiotherapy, a treatment not available locally, was chosen most frequently (67.7%), followed by options available locally, such as surgery (22.8%) and active surveillance (9.4%). Most patients preferred to play an active role in this choice (53.5%) and agreed with the statement, "I chose that treatment because it gives the best chance for a cure" (86.6%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that cancer stage (odds ratio [OR] 10.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.18-32.40) was the only factor associated with radiotherapy choice (patients with lower stage cancer were more likely to choose radiotherapy). The socioeconomic status was not associated with treatment choice.

CONCLUSIONS

While radiotherapy was not available locally, it was the most frequently chosen treatment, even though the available literature suggests that no one treatment option is superior in terms of cancer control. The choice of radiotherapy is not associated with patient income, but rather the cancer stage. This result could be explained by the patients' desire to avoid surgery and its adverse effects.

Differences in Use of Aggressive Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer in New York City

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic factors may impact how a patient is treated for prostate cancer (CaP). Our objective was to determine if county of residence or neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics were associated with treatment for CaP in New York City (NYC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the NYSPACED database to identify men aged 40 to 80 years with localized CaP in NYC between 2004 and 2016. We categorized patients into receiving either aggressive local therapy (ALT) or non-aggressive treatment (NT). We identified borough of residence through NYSPACED and used Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) designation to define neighborhood characteristics using United States Census data. We hypothesized that differences exist in use of ALT according to county of residence and neighborhood characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to test the association between county of residence and ALT as well as between ALT and PUMA characteristics.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 40,668 patients. Overall, 80% had ALT, and 21% had NT. NT use increased over time from 16% in 2004 to 32% in 2016 (P < .001). On multivariable logistic regression, patients in Manhattan were less likely to receive ALT compared with those in other boroughs (P < .001). PUMAs with lower education attainment, larger foreign-born populations, lower crime rate, and higher median income were significantly associated with receipt of ALT (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed significant differences in use of treatment for men with newly diagnosed CaP in NYC. The ability to receive this treatment was associated with borough of residence as well as neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics. Additional research is required to identify barriers in access to NT within NYC.

Comparing Perspectives of Canadian Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer and Health Care Professionals About Active Surveillance

Active surveillance (AS) has gained acceptance as a primary management approach for patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PC). In this qualitative study, we compared perspectives between patients and health care professionals (HCP) to identify what may contribute to patient-provider discordance, influence patient decision-making, and interfere with the uptake of AS. We performed a systematic comparison of perspectives about AS reported from focus groups with men eligible for AS (7 groups, N = 52) and HCP (5 groups, N = 48) who engaged in conversations about AS with patient. We used conventional content analysis to scrutinize separately focus group transcripts and reached a consensus on similar or divergent viewpoints between them. Patients and clinicians agreed that AS was appropriate for low grade PC and understood the low-risk nature of the disease. They shared the perspective that disease status was a critical factor to pursue or discontinue AS. However, men expressed a greater emphasis on quality of life in their decisions related to AS. Patients and clinicians differed in their perspectives on the clarity, availability, and volume of information needed and offered; clinicians acknowledged variations between HCP when presenting AS, while patients were often compelled to seek additional information beyond what was provided by physicians and experienced difficulty in finding or interpreting information applicable to their situation. A greater understanding of discordant perspectives about AS between patients and HCP can help improve patient engagement and education, inform development of knowledge-based tools or aids for decision-making, and identify areas that require standardization across the clinical practice.

Why men with a low-risk prostate cancer select and stay on active surveillance: A qualitative study

Objective

Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly utilized strategy for monitoring men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) that allows them to defer active treatment (AT) in the absence of cancer progression. Studies have explored reasons for selecting AS and for then switching to AT, but less is known about men’s experiences being on AS. We interviewed men to determine the clinical and psychological factors associated with selecting and adhering to AS protocols.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with men with a low-risk PCa at two academic medical centers. Subjects had either been on AS for ≥ 1 year or had opted for AT after a period of AS. We used an iterative, content-driven approach to analyze the interviews and to identify themes.

Results

We enrolled 21 subjects, mean age 70.4 years, 3 racial/ethnic minorities, and 16 still on AS. Men recognized the favorable prognosis of their cancer (some had sought second opinions when initially offered AT), valued avoiding treatment complications, were reassured that close monitoring would identify progression early enough to be successfully treated, and trusted their urologists. Although men reported feeling anxious around the time of surveillance testing, those who switched to AT did so based only on evidence of cancer progression.

Conclusions

Our selected sample was comfortable being on AS because they understood and valued the rationale for this approach. However, this highlights the importance of ensuring that men newly diagnosed with a low-risk PCa are provided sufficient information about prognosis and treatment options to make informed decisions.

Selecting Active Surveillance: Decision Making Factors for Men with a Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Background. Men with a low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) should consider observation, particularly active surveillance (AS), a monitoring strategy that avoids active treatment (AT) in the absence of disease progression. Objective. To determine clinical and decision-making factors predicting treatment selection. Design. Prospective cohort study. Setting. Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). Patients. Men newly diagnosed with low-risk PCa between 2012 and 2014 who remained enrolled in KPNC for 12 months following diagnosis. Measurements. We used surveys and medical record abstractions to measure sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and psychological and decision-making factors. Men were classified as being on observation if they did not undergo AT within 12 months of diagnosis. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results. The average age of the 1171 subjects was 61.5 years (s = 7.2 years), and 81% were white. Overall, 639 (57%) were managed with observation; in adjusted analyses, significant predictors of observation included awareness of low-risk status (odds ratio 1.75; 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.94), knowing that observation was an option (3.62; 1.62-8.09), having concerns about treatment-related quality of life (1.21, 1.09-1.34), reporting a urologist recommendation for observation (8.20; 4.68-14.4), and having a lower clinical stage (T1c v. T2a, 2.11; 1.16-3.84). Conversely, valuing cancer control (1.54; 1.37-1.72) and greater decisional certainty (1.66; 1.18-2.35) were predictive of AT. Limitations. Results may be less generalizable to other types of health care systems and to more diverse populations. Conclusions. Many participants selected observation, and this was associated with tumor characteristics. However, nonclinical decisional factors also independently predicted treatment selection. Efforts to provide early decision support, particularly targeting knowledge deficits, and reassurance to men with low-risk cancers may facilitate better decision making and increase uptake of observation, particularly AS.

Percutaneous MR-guided prostate cancer cryoablation technical updates and literature review

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common malignant tumor in males. The benefits in terms of overall reduction in specific mortality due to the widespread use of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening and the advancements in the curative treatments (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy) appear to have reached a plateau. There remains, however, the questions of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of such patients. Currently, the main challenge in the treatment of patients with clinically organ-confined PCa is to offer an oncologically efficient treatment with as little morbidity as possible. Amongst the arising novel curative techniques for PCa, cryoablation (CA) is the most established one, which is also included in the NICE and AUA guidelines. CA is commonly performed under ultrasound guidance with the inherent limitations associated with this technique. The recent advancements in MRI have significantly improved the accuracy of detecting and characterizing a clinically significant PCa. This, alongside the development of wide bore interventional MR scanners, has opened the pathway for in bore PCa treatment. Under MRI guidance, PCa CA can be used either as a standard whole gland treatment or as a tumor targeted one. With MR-fluoroscopy, needle guidance capability, multiplanar and real-time visualization of the iceball, MRI eliminates the inherent limitations of ultrasound guidance and can potentially lead to a lower rate of local complications. The aim of this review article is to provide an overview about PCa CA with a more specific insight on MR guided PCa CA; the limitations, challenges and applications of this novel technique will be discussed.

Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer

Objectives

Men diagnosed with low‐risk prostate cancer are typically eligible for active surveillance of their cancer, involving monitoring for cancer progression and making judgements about the risks of prostate cancer against those of active intervention. Our study examined how risk for prostate cancer is perceived and experienced by patients undergoing active surveillance with their clinicians, how risk is communicated in clinical consultations, and the implications for treatment and care.

Method

Participants were nine patients and three clinicians from a university hospital urology clinic. A staged, qualitative, multi‐method data collection approach was undertaken, comprising: observations of consultations; patient and clinician interviews; and patient surveys. The three data sets were analysed separately using thematic analysis and then integrated to give a comprehensive view of patient and clinician views.

Results

Thirty data points (eight patient surveys; 10 observations of consultations between patients and clinicians; 10 patient interviews; and two clinician interviews) combined to create a detailed picture of how patients perceived and appraised risk, in three themes of “Making sense of risk”, “Talking about risk” and “Responding to risk”.

Conclusion

Effective risk communication needs to be finely tuned and timed to individual patient's priorities and information requirements. A structured information exchange process that identifies patients' priorities, and details key moments in risk assessment, so that complexities of risk are discussed in ways that are meaningful to patients, may benefit patient care. These findings could inform the development of patient‐centric risk assessment procedures and service delivery models in prostate cancer care more broadly.

Prostate Cancer Patient Characteristics Associated With a Strong Preference to Preserve Sexual Function and Receipt of Active Surveillance

Background

Men with early-stage prostate cancer have multiple options that have similar oncologic efficacy but vary in terms of their impact on quality of life. In low-risk cancer, active surveillance is the option that best preserves patients' sexual function, but it is unknown if patient preference affects treatment selection. Our objectives were to identify patient characteristics associated with a strong preference to preserve sexual function and to determine whether patient preference and baseline sexual function level are associated with receipt of active surveillance in low-risk cancer.

Methods

In this population-based cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, baseline patient-reported sexual function was assessed using a validated instrument. Patients were also asked whether preservation of sexual function was very, somewhat, or not important. Prostate cancer disease characteristics and treatments received were abstracted from medical records. A modified Poisson regression model with robust standard errors was used to compute adjusted risk ratio (aRR) estimates. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Among 1194 men, 52.6% indicated a strong preference for preserving sexual function. Older men were less likely to have a strong preference (aRR = 0.98 per year, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97 to 0.99), while men with normal sexual function were more likely (vs poor function, aRR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.39 to 1.82). Among 568 men with low-risk cancer, there was no clear association between baseline sexual function or strong preference to preserve function with receipt of active surveillance. However, strong preference may differnetially impact those with intermediate baseline function vs poor function (Pinteraction = .02).

Conclusions

Treatment choice may not always align with patients' preferences. These findings demonstrate opportunities to improve delivery of patient-centered care in early prostate cancer.

Quality of life among men with low-risk prostate cancer during the first year following diagnosis: the PREPARE prospective cohort study

As many as 40% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer have low-risk disease, which results in the need to decide whether to undergo active treatment (AT) or active surveillance (AS). The treatment decision can have a significant effect on general and prostate-specific quality of life (QOL). The purpose of this study was to assess the QOL among men with low-risk prostate cancer during the first year following diagnosis. In a prospective cohort study, we conducted pretreatment telephone interviews (N = 1,139; 69.3% response rate) with low-risk PCa patients (PSA ≤ 10, Gleason ≤ 6) and a follow-up assessment 6-10 months postdiagnosis (N = 1057; 93%). We assessed general depression, anxiety, and physical functioning, prostate-specific anxiety, and prostate-specific QOL at both interviews. Clinical variables were obtained from the medical record. Men were 61.7 (SD = 7.2) years old, 82% white, 39% had undergone AT (surgery or radiation), and 61.0% had begun AS. Linear regression analyses revealed that at follow-up, the AS group reported significantly better sexual, bowel, urinary, and general physical function (compared to AT), and no difference in depression. However, the AS group did report greater general anxiety and prostate-specific anxiety at follow-up, compared to AT. Among men with low-risk PCa, adjusting for pretreatment functioning, the AS group reported better prostate-related QOL, but were worse off on general and prostate-specific anxiety compared to men on AT. These results suggest that, within the first year postdiagnosis, men who did not undergo AT may require additional support in order to remain comfortable with this decision and to continue with AS when it is clinically indicated.

Perceptions of Barriers Towards Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From a National Survey of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists

PURPOSE

The reasons for low clinical adoption of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain poorly understood. Thus, we conducted a national survey of radiation oncologists (ROs) and urologists (UROs) to elucidate perceived barriers to AS for low-risk PCa.

METHODS

In 2017, we undertook a four-wave mail survey of 1855 ROs and UROs. The survey instrument assessed attitudes about possible barriers towards AS for low-risk PCa. We used Pearson Chi square and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify physician characteristics associated with attitudes about AS.

RESULTS

We received 691 completed surveys for an overall response rate of 37.3%. A majority of respondents indicated that they felt comfortable recommending AS (90.0%), agreed that high-level evidence supports it (82.3%), and considered AS equally effective for survival compared with surgery and radiation therapy (84.4%). UROs were less likely to agree that patients were not interested in AS for low-risk PCa compared with ROs (16.5 vs. 48.9%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.18, p < 0.001). Similarly, UROs were less likely to concur patients avoid AS because of repeat prostate biopsies than ROs (36.3 vs. 55.4%; adjusted OR 0.41, p < 0.001). ROs and UROs were more likely to agree that patients preferred treatments delivered by the respondent's specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician perceptions of patient lack of interest in AS, need for repeat prostate biopsies, and biases of patient treatment preferences in favor of their own specialty treatments represent key barriers to AS. Shared decision making may be a meaningful approach to engaging patients in conversations about treatment decisions.

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

CONTEXT

Despite support for active surveillance (AS) as a first treatment choice for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), this strategy is largely underutilised.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review barriers and facilitators to selecting and adhering to AS for low-risk PC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched PsychINFO, PubMed, Medline 2000-now, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases between 2002 and 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance (PREFS) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) quality criteria were applied. Forty-seven studies were identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Key themes emerged as factors influencing both choice and adherence to AS: (1) patient and tumour factors (age, comorbidities, knowledge, education, socioeconomic status, family history, grade, tumour volume, and fear of progression/side effects); (2) family and social support; (3) provider (speciality, communication, and attitudes); (4) healthcare organisation (geography and type of practice); and (5) health policy (guidelines, year, and awareness).

CONCLUSIONS

Many factors influence men's choice and adherence to AS on multiple levels. It is important to learn from the experience of other chronic health conditions as well as from institutions/countries that are making significant headway in appropriately recruiting men to AS protocols, through standardised patient information, clinician education, and nationally agreed guidelines, to ultimately decrease heterogeneity in AS practice.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines.

Discussing Conservative Management With Older Patients With CKD: An Interview Study of Nephrologists

BACKGROUND

Although dialysis may not provide a large survival benefit for older patients with kidney failure, few are informed about conservative management. Barriers and facilitators to discussions about conservative management and nephrologists' decisions to present the option of conservative management may vary within the nephrology provider community.

STUDY DESIGN

Interview study of nephrologists.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

National sample of US nephrologists sampled based on sex, years in practice, practice type, and region.

METHODOLOGY

Qualitative semistructured interviews continued until thematic saturation.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Thematic and narrative analysis of recorded and transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

Among 35 semistructured interviews with nephrologists from 18 practices, 37% described routinely discussing conservative management ("early adopters"). 5 themes and related subthemes reflected issues that influence nephrologists' decisions to discuss conservative management and their approaches to these discussions: struggling to define nephrologists' roles (determining treatment, instilling hope, and improving patient symptoms), circumventing end-of-life conversations (contending with prognostic uncertainty, fearing emotional backlash, jeopardizing relationships, and tailoring information), confronting institutional barriers (time constraints, care coordination, incentives for dialysis, and discomfort with varied conservative management approaches), conservative management as "no care," and moral distress. Nephrologists' approaches to conservative management discussions were shaped by perceptions of their roles and by a common view of conservative management as no care. Their willingness to pursue conservative management was influenced by provider- and institutional-level barriers and experiences with older patients who regretted or had been harmed by dialysis (moral distress). Early adopters routinely discussed conservative management as a way of relieving moral distress, whereas others who were more selective in discussing conservative management experienced greater distress.

LIMITATIONS

Participants' views are likely most transferable to large academic medical centers, due to oversampling of academic clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings clarify how moral distress serves as a catalyst for conservative management discussion and highlight points of intervention and mechanisms potentially underlying low conservative management use in the United States.

Patient and provider experiences with active surveillance: A scoping review

Objective

Active surveillance (AS) represents a fundamental shift in managing select cancer patients that initiates treatment only upon disease progression to avoid overtreatment. Given uncertain outcomes, patient engagement could support decision-making about AS. Little is known about how to optimize patient engagement for AS decision-making. This scoping review aimed to characterize research on patient and provider communication about AS, and associated determinants and outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2006 to October 2016. English language studies that evaluated cancer patient or provider AS views, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.

Results

A total of 2,078 studies were identified, 1,587 were unique, and 1,243 were excluded based on titles/abstracts. Among 344 full-text articles, 73 studies were eligible: 2 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 4 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 6 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and 61 prostate cancer. The most influential determinant of initiating AS was physician recommendation. Others included higher socioeconomic status, smaller tumor size, comorbid disease, older age, and preference to avoid adverse treatment effects. AS patients desired more information about AS and reassurance about future treatment options, involvement in decision-making and assessment of illness uncertainty and supportive care needs during follow-up. Only three studies of prostate cancer evaluated interventions to improve AS communication or experience.

Conclusions

This study revealed a paucity of research on AS communication for DCIS, RCC and CLL, but generated insight on how to optimize AS discussions in the context of routine care or clinical trials from research on AS for prostate cancer. Further research is needed on AS for patients with DCIS, RCC and CLL, and to evaluate interventions aimed at patients and/or providers to improve AS communication, experience and associated outcomes.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess physicians' attitudes regarding multiple factors that may influence recommendations for active surveillance (AS) vs active treatment (AT) given the central role physicians play in the treatment decision-making process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews to assess factors that physicians consider important when recommending AS vs AT, as well as physicians' perceptions of what their patients consider important in the decision. Participants included urologists (N = 11), radiation oncologists (N = 12), and primary care physicians (N = 10) from both integrated and fee-for-service healthcare settings.

RESULTS

Across the specialties, quantitative data indicated that most physicians reported that their recommendations for AS were influenced by patients' older age, willingness and ability to follow a surveillance protocol, anxiety, comorbidities, life expectancy, and treatment preferences. Qualitative findings highlighted physicians' concerns about malpractice lawsuits, given the possibility of disease progression. Additionally, most physicians noted the role of the healthcare setting, suggesting that financial incentives may be associated with AT recommendations in fee-for-service settings. Finally, most physicians reported spouse or family opposition to AS due to their own anxiety or lack of understanding of AS.

CONCLUSION

We found that patient and physician preferences, healthcare setting, and family or spouse factors influence physicians' treatment recommendations for men with low-risk PCa. These were consistent themes across physician subspecialties in both an Health Maintenance Organization and in fee-for-service settings.

Decision-making processes among men with low-risk prostate cancer: A survey study

OBJECTIVE

To characterize decision-making processes and outcomes among men expressing early-treatment preferences for low-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We conducted telephone surveys of men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer in 2012 to 2014. We analyzed subjects who had discussed prostate cancer treatment with a clinician and expressed a treatment preference. We asked about decision-making processes, including physician discussions, prostate-cancer knowledge, decision-making styles, treatment preference, and decisional conflict. We compared the responses across treatment groups with χ² or ANOVA.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 761) had a median age of 62; 82% were white, 45% had a college education, and 35% had no comorbidities. Surveys were conducted at a median of 25 days (range 9-100) post diagnosis. Overall, 55% preferred active surveillance (AS), 26% preferred surgery, and 19% preferred radiotherapy. Participants reported routinely considering surgery, radiotherapy, and AS. Most were aware of their low-risk status (97%) and the option for AS (96%). However, men preferring active treatment (AT) were often unaware of treatment complications, including sexual dysfunction (23%) and urinary complications (41%). Most men (63%) wanted to make their own decision after considering the doctor's opinion, and about 90% reported being sufficiently involved in the treatment discussion. Men preferring AS had slightly more uncertainty about their decisions than those preferring AT.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects were actively engaged in decision making and considered a range of treatments. However, we found knowledge gaps about treatment complications among those preferring AT and slightly more decisional uncertainty among those preferring AS, suggesting the need for early decision support.

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.

Potential overtreatment among men aged 80 years and older with localized prostate cancer in Japan

Despite treatment guidelines recommending observation for men with low‐risk prostate cancer with life expectancy <10 years, a majority of elderly patients choose active treatment, which may result in overtreatment. Given the growing burden of prostate cancer among men aged ≥80 years (super‐elderly men), accumulation of survival data for evaluation of overtreatment among super‐elderly patients is imperative. Here, we report results of a population‐based cohort study to clarify potential overtreatment of super‐elderly men with localized prostate cancer. We used cancer registry data from the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan project, which covers 47% of the Japanese population. The subjects were men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2006 and 2008. Follow‐up period was 5 years. We calculated 5‐year relative survival rates among the active treatment and observation groups after imputation for missing values. Of the 48 782 patients with prostate cancer included in the analysis, 15.1% were super‐elderly men. The 5‐year relative survival rates of super‐elderly men with localized cancer were 105.9% and 104.1% among the active treatment and observation groups, respectively. This excellent relative survival rate in the observation group remained consistent even after stratification by tumor grade. Of the 2963 super‐elderly men with localized cancer, 252 (8.5%) with curative treatment and 1476 (49.8%) with hormone therapy were assumed to have been overtreated. The proportion of overtreatment was estimated to reach 80% after imputation. These specific survival data in super‐elderly men in the observation group can be useful in shared decision‐making for these patients and may lead to a reduction in overtreatment.

Physicians' perspectives on the informational needs of low-risk prostate cancer patients

Despite the evidence indicating that decision aids (DA) improve informed treatment decision making for prostate cancer (PCa), physicians do not routinely recommend DAs to their patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with urologists (n = 11), radiation oncologists (n = 12) and primary care physicians (n = 10) about their methods of educating low-risk PCa patients regarding the treatment decision, their concerns about recommending DAs, and the essential content and format considerations that need to be addressed. Physicians stressed the need for providing comprehensive patient education before the treatment decision is made and expressed concern about the current unevaluated information available on the Internet. They made recommendations for a DA that is brief, applicable to diverse populations, and that fully discloses all treatment options (including active surveillance) and their potential side effects. Echoing previous studies showing that low-risk PCa patients are making rapid and potentially uninformed treatment decisions, these results highlight the importance of providing patient education early in the decision-making process. This need may be fulfilled by a treatment DA, should physicians systematically recommend DAs to their patients. Physicians' recommendations for the inclusion of particular content and presentation methods will be important for designing a high quality DA that will be used in clinical practice.

Testosterone therapy and prostate cancer

The use of exogenous testosterone to treat hypogonadism in the men with a history of prostate cancer (CaP) remains controversial due to fears of cancer recurrence or progression. Due to the detrimental impact of hypogonadism on patient quality of life, recent work has examined the safety of testosterone therapy (TTh) in men with a history of CaP. In this review, we evaluate the literature with regards to the safety of TTh in men with a history of CaP. TTh results in improvements in quality of life with little evidence of biochemical recurrence or progression in men with a history of CaP, or de novo cancer in unaffected men. An insufficient amount of evidence is currently available to truly demonstrate the safe use of TTh in men with low risk CaP. In men with high-risk cancer, more limited data suggest that TTh may be safe, but these findings remain inconclusive. Despite the historic avoidance of TTh in men with a history of CaP, the existing body of evidence largely supports the safe and effective use of testosterone in these men, although additional study is needed before unequivocal safety can be demonstrated.

The Role of Proteomics in Biomarker Development for Improved Patient Diagnosis and Clinical Decision Making in Prostate Cancer

Prostate Cancer (PCa) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in men worldwide. Although increased expression of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is an effective indicator for the recurrence of PCa, its intended use as a screening marker for PCa is of considerable controversy. Recent research efforts in the field of PCa biomarkers have focused on the identification of tissue and fluid-based biomarkers that would be better able to stratify those individuals diagnosed with PCa who (i) might best receive no treatment (active surveillance of the disease); (ii) would benefit from existing treatments; or (iii) those who are likely to succumb to disease recurrence and/or have aggressive disease. The growing demand for better prostate cancer biomarkers has coincided with the development of improved discovery and evaluation technologies for multiplexed measurement of proteins in bio-fluids and tissues. This review aims to (i) provide an overview of these technologies as well as describe some of the candidate PCa protein biomarkers that have been discovered using them; (ii) address some of the general limitations in the clinical evaluation and validation of protein biomarkers; and (iii) make recommendations for strategies that could be adopted to improve the successful development of protein biomarkers to deliver improvements in personalized PCa patient decision making.