Interdisciplinary decision making in prostate cancer therapy - 5-years' time trends at the Interdisciplinary Prostate Cancer Center (IPC) of the Charité Berlin

Helping patients make informed decisions. Two-year evaluation of the Gustave Roussy prostate cancer multidisciplinary clinic

•

The initial treatment decision for newly diagnosed non-metastatic prostate cancer is complex.

•

Specialist multidisciplinary consultations focus on shared decision-making.

•

The Gustave Roussy PCMC rendered high patient satisfaction and promoted active participation.

•

Information offered at the Gustave Roussy PCMC strongly influenced final treatment decisions.

Objectives

The initial treatment decision for newly diagnosed non-metastatic prostate cancer is complex. Multiple valid approaches exist, without a clear and absolute consensus for every clinical scenario, and therefore specialist opinions may vary. Multidisciplinary consultations focusing on shared decision-making aim to provide an apposite tool for the initial treatment decision. We have evaluated the first two years of activity of the Gustave Roussy Prostate Cancer Multidisciplinary Clinic (PCMC), dedicated to the initial decision-making for non-metastatic prostate cancer.

Methods

PCMC consists of two consecutive specialist consultations with a urological surgeon and a radiation oncologist, followed by a dedicated Tumor Board discussion. A study questionnaire was addressed to all PCMC patients via postal mail. Medical notes and questionnaire responses of 195 eligible patients were analyzed.

Results

The questionnaire response rate was 69% (134 patients). Complete satisfaction rate was high (114 of 118 responders, 97%). Patients were offered new treatment options in 55% of cases, and felt better informed in 98% (122 of 125 responders). The double consultation was considered useful (124 of 129 responders, 96%). Reported feeling of active participation was significantly elevated (117 of 131 responders, 89%), while 46% of patients (57 of 125) modified their decision on the management of their prostate cancer following their PCMC consultation.

Conclusions

The experience of a multidisciplinary consultation in the initial management of non-metastatic prostate cancer renders high patient satisfaction, improves their appreciation of feeling better informed, promotes active participation and shared decision-making and strongly influences their final decision.

A multidisciplinary group for prostate cancer management: A single institution experience

Increased knowledge regarding the heterogeneity of Prostate Cancer (PC) and its variable outcomes has generated controversy over the best clinical approach. Nowadays, it is well-known that patient outcomes and clinical management may be improved by an efficient organization of the national health care system. The Interdisciplinary Group for Oncological Care (GICO) for PC patients was created by our healthcare management company in September 2010. Since then, a multidisciplinary internal report was applied to PC patients. This report highlights our methodology and experience of planning a GICO, and illustrates the results obtained for the management of PC patients before and after the adopted GICO criteria in a single institution, the SS Annunziata Hospital (Chieti, Italy).

[Prostate gland - what would urologists like to know from radiologists?]

A more than 100-year period, where the prostate was only seen and treated as a whole is coming to an end right now. Finally, high resolution imaging is providing deep insights and detailed information so that new therapeutic procedures can aim for the smallest targets within the gland. The long-standing wish of patients for individual noninvasive diagnostics and treatment of prostate diseases can now be fulfilled by providing new tailored concepts; however, in order to transfer the enormous amount of new information into the specific clinical patient situation, a closely knit interdisciplinary approach is required. In this setting, the traditional outpatient consultation service is overstretched in every aspect. It is now the time for new innovative constructs. The current one-sided service concept for urologists, radiologists and radiation therapists is therefore behind the times and the development of a "prostate management team" with equally cooperating partners from each specialty is the task for the future.

The Effect of Evolving Strategies in the Surgical Management of Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Data from 2005 to 2014 in a Multicenter Setting

Introduction

The objective of this study was to evaluate changes of patient characteristics and surgical techniques in radical prostatectomy in Germany within the last decade.

Methods

Data from 44 German prostate cancer centers were included in the study. Patients’ characteristics (age, initial PSA value), surgical techniques (open vs. minimally invasive approaches), perioperative parameters (operating time, rate of nerve-sparing (NS) radical prostatectomies (RPs), hospitalization time, catheter indwelling time, surgical margin status, number of dissected lymph nodes (LN)), and pathological findings (tumor stage, Gleason score) were analyzed.

Results

Data from 11,675 patients who underwent RP between 2005 and 2014 were analyzed. The rate of open RP approaches decreased by 1.7% (p = 0.0164), the rate of minimally invasive approaches increased by 1.8% (p = 0.0164). Robot-assisted RPs (RARP) increased by 4.6% (p < 0.0001). The number of NS procedures and pelvic lymphadenectomy (LA) increased by 4.5% (p < 0.0001) and 4.7% (p < 0.0001), respectively. Catheter indwelling time and hospitalization time decreased by 1 day (p < 0.0001). No change in the rate of positive surgical margins (p = 0.5061) and the ratio of positive lymph nodes removed (p = 0.4628) was observed. The number of Gleason ≤6 tumors decreased significantly (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The number of RARP has significantly increased over the past decade and there is a trend towards surgeries on more advanced tumors with higher yields of lymph nodes dissected. At the same time, the rate of nerve-sparing procedures has significantly increased.

Treatment trends for clinically localised prostate cancer. National population analysis: GESCAP group

OBJECTIVES

To describe the established therapies for localised prostate cancer (PC) in Spain and to assess compliance with the 2010 UAE guidelines.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was an epidemiological, observational, prospective and multicentre study. Of the 3,918 patients diagnosed with PC during 2010, only those patients with localised PC were included. Follow-up was ultimately conducted for a minimum of one year from the diagnosis for 3,713 patients (94.77%). The treatment groups assessed were as follows: radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, hormone therapy, brachytherapy, active surveillance or observation and experimental local treatment (cryotherapy or other treatment). Compliance with the recommendations of the EAU guidelines was studied, describing the treatment groups according to D'Amico risk stratification criteria (localised [low, intermediate and high risk] and locally advanced), age, PSA and Gleason score.

RESULTS

By applying the D'Amico criteria, we included 3,641 (92.93%) patients. Based on the UAE recommendations: 1) 68.87% of the patients at low-intermediate risk aged≤65 years underwent radical prostatectomy; 2) 34.51% of the patients>65 years at high risk with locally advanced disease were administered radiation therapy and hormone therapy; 3) 30.36% of the patients at high risk with locally advanced disease were only treated with hormone therapy; 4) 15.20% of the patients at low risk were only treated with brachytherapy; 5) active surveillance or observation was selected for 2.44% of the patients aged≤65 years and for 10.63% of the patients at low-intermediate risk who were>65 years. Lastly, 86.5% of the patients at low risk underwent a single treatment, and 43.62% of the patients at high risk with locally advanced disease underwent combined treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first national European study to evaluate the therapeutic management of localised PC based on the risk group to which the patient belonged. Most young patients (≤65 years) with low-intermediate risk localised PC were treated with surgery, which adheres to the recommendations of the 2010 UAE guidelines. Various therapeutic combinations have been employed for patients with high-risk, locally advanced localised tumours, revealing the need for a multidisciplinary approach (Controlled-trials.com number: ISRCTN19893319).

Interdisciplinary counseling service for renal malignancies: a patient-centered approach to raise guideline adherence

OBJECTIVES

Tumor boards have become an integral part of high-quality cancer care, but in general, patients are not directly involved. To overcome this weakness, we established an interdisciplinary counseling service for renal malignancies where 4 specialists talked to the patient at once. We evaluated this approach from the patients' and physicians' perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For 3 months, we assessed organizational and clinical data. Within a standardized telephone interview lasting for 14 ± 8 minutes, we explored the patients' view 1 week after counseling. A focus group contributed the physicians' perspective. Costs and revenues were calculated from the hospital's perspective.

RESULTS

We included 52 consecutive patients aged 62 ± 10 years. Patients' initiative for a "second opinion" triggered 37% of all appointments. Patients had localized (52%) and systemic (48%) disease presenting with primary diagnosis (48%), relapse (27%), or under continuous therapy (25%). The treatment strategy was changed significantly in 16 of 30 (53%) patients reporting a specific external opinion. The most frequent changes in recommendation were nephron-sparing surgery instead of radical nephrectomy in 8 cases and divergent judgments on restaging causing changes in systemic treatment in 6 cases. We successfully interviewed 43 of 52 patients. Overall, patients rated the consultation as very positive and only 1 patient (2%) was dissatisfied. Patients rated the quality of interpersonal interaction as very positive and said they would recommend the consultation service to others. Disease state was not associated with ratings. Physicians expressed a very positive opinion, highlighting the patients' benefit and very constructive case discussions. Nevertheless, they report remarkable efforts concerning time investment and effective coordination of medical experts. We estimated a deficit of 39 Euro per patient given the German health care system. There might be relevant secondary positive economic effects for the hospital such as recommendations from one patient to another leading to acquisition of additional patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient involvement in multidisciplinary tumor boards is feasible and well regarded by patients and physicians likewise. By stimulating interdisciplinary collaboration, the interdisciplinary counseling service improves patient satisfaction and clinical decision making. The interdisciplinary counseling service corrected half of the external treatment plans for better guideline adherence. These positive effects come at the price of higher resource utilization. (www.germanctr.de, number DRKS00003279).