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

The journey from bench to bedside-it takes a science village

I was fortunate enough to start my career at what was the dawn of modern-day molecular biology and to apply it to an important health problem. While my early work focused on fundamental science, the desire to understand human disease better and to find practical applications for research discoveries resulted, over the following decades, in creating a stream of translational research directed specifically toward epithelial cancers. This could only have been possible through multiple collaborations. This type of team science would eventually become a hallmark of my career. With the development of higher throughput molecular techniques, the pace of research and discovery has quickened, and the concept of personalized medicine based on genomics is now coming to fruition. I hope my legacy will not just reflect my published works, but will also include the impact I have had on the development of the next generation of scientists and clinician scientists who inspired me with their dedication, knowledge, and enthusiasm.

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area.

RESULTS

Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.

Low-risk prostate lesions: An evidence review to inform discussion on losing the "cancer" label

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) mitigates harms from overtreatment of low-risk prostate lesions. Recalibration of diagnostic thresholds to redefine which prostate lesions are considered "cancer" and/or adopting alternative diagnostic labels could increase AS uptake and continuation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and EMBASE to October 2021 for evidence on: (1) clinical outcomes of AS, (2) subclinical prostate cancer at autopsy, (3) reproducibility of histopathological diagnosis, and (4) diagnostic drift. Evidence is presented via narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

AS: one systematic review (13 studies) of men undergoing AS found that prostate cancer-specific mortality was 0%-6% at 15 years. There was eventual termination of AS and conversion to treatment in 45%-66% of men. Four additional cohort studies reported very low rates of metastasis (0%-2.1%) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (0%-0.1%) over follow-up to 15 years. Overall, AS was terminated without medical indication in 1%-9% of men. Subclinical reservoir: 1 systematic review (29 studies) estimated that the subclinical cancer prevalence was 5% at <30 years, and increased nonlinearly to 59% by >79 years. Four additional autopsy studies (mean age: 54-72 years) reported prevalences of 12%-43%. Reproducibility: 1 recent well-conducted study found high reproducibility for low-risk prostate cancer diagnosis, but this was more variable in 7 other studies. Diagnostic drift: 4 studies provided consistent evidence of diagnostic drift, with the most recent (published 2020) reporting that 66% of cases were upgraded and 3% were downgraded when using contemporary diagnostic criteria compared to original diagnoses (1985-1995).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence collated may inform discussion of diagnostic changes for low-risk prostate lesions.

Supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer: A systematic review update

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is highly prevalent and impacts profoundly on patients' quality of life, leading to a range of supportive care needs.

METHODS

An updated systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative data using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, to explore prostate cancer patients' experience of, and need for, supportive care. Five databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Emcare and ASSIA) were searched; extracted data were synthesised using Corbin and Strauss's 'Three Lines of Work' framework.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2091 citations, of which 105 were included. Overarching themes emerged under the headings of illness, everyday life and biographical work. Illness work needs include consistency and continuity of information, tailored to ethnicity, age and sexual orientation. Biographical work focused on a desire to preserve identity in the context of damaging sexual side effects. Everyday life needs centred around exercise and diet support and supportive relationships with partners and peers. Work-related issues were highlighted specifically by younger patients, whereas gay and bisexual men emphasised a lack of specialised support.

CONCLUSION

While demonstrating some overarching needs common to most patients with prostate cancer, this review offers novel insight into the unique experiences and needs of men of different demographic backgrounds, which will enable clinicians to deliver individually tailored supportive care.