Perceived barriers to the adoption of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of community and academic urologists

Barriers and enablers of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a qualitive study of clinicians

OBJECTIVES

To identify and explore barriers to, and enablers of, active surveillance (AS) in men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPCa), as perceived by PCa clinicians.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Urologists and radiation oncologists in Australia and New Zealand were purposively sampled for a cross-section on gender and practice setting (metropolitan/regional; public/private). Using a grounded theory approach, semi-structed interviews were conducted with participants. Interviews were coded independently by two researchers using open, axial, and selective coding. A constant comparative approach was used to analyse data as it was collected. Thematic saturation was reached after 18 interviews, and a detailed model of barriers to, and enablers of, AS for LRPCa, as perceived by clinicians was developed.

RESULTS

A model explaining what affects clinician decision making regarding AS in LRPCa emerged. It was underpinned by three broad themes: (i) clinician perception of patients' barriers and enablers; (ii) clinician perception of their own barriers and enablers; and (iii) engagement with healthcare team and resource availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians unanimously agree that AS is an evidence-based approach for managing LRPCa. Despite this many men do not undergo AS for LRPCa, which is due to the interplay of patient and clinician factors, and their interaction with the wider healthcare system. This study identifies strategies to mitigate barriers and enhance enablers, which could increase access to AS by patients with LRPCa.

Patient perspectives on factors influencing active surveillance adherence for low-risk prostate cancer: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. Treatment guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, which involves monitoring for progression, to avoid or delay definitive treatments and their side effects. Despite increased uptake, adherence to surveillance remains a challenge.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured, qualitative, virtual interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), with men (15) who were or had been on active surveillance for their low-risk prostate cancer in 2020. Interviews were transcribed and coded under TDF's behavioral theory-based domains. We analyzed domains related to adherence to surveillance using constructivist grounded theory to identify themes influencing decision processes in adherence.

RESULTS

The TDF domains of emotion, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, and social influences were most relevant to surveillance adherence-. From these four TDF domains, three themes emerged as underlying decision processes: trust in surveillance as treatment, quality of life, and experiences of self and others. Positive perceptions of these three themes supported adherence while negative perceptions contributed to non-adherence (i.e., not receiving follow-up or stopping surveillance). The relationship between the TDF domains and themes provided a theoretical process describing factors impacting active surveillance adherence for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Men identified key factors impacting active surveillance adherence that provide opportunities for clinical implementation and practice improvement. Future efforts should focus on multi-level interventions that foster trust in surveillance as treatment, emphasize quality of life benefits and enhance patients' interpersonal experiences while on surveillance to optimize adherence.

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.

Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite its low-risk nature, grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer (PCa) remains overtreated. This suggests a disconnect between daily physician practice and the standard of care. We hypothesized that GG 1 disease is overtreated because of common misconceptions regarding its true natural history.

OBJECTIVE

To survey physicians worldwide to better understand their approach to management of GG 1 PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 17-question survey was sent to urology, radiation oncology, and pathology societies on six continents, and was posted on Twitter. Responses were collected and analyzed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Pearson's χ2 test was used to assess correlation between physician-related variables and the perception of active surveillance (AS) for GG 1 PCa. Logistic regression was used for multivariable analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 1303 participants, 55% were urologists, 47% had completed fellowship, and 49% practice in an academic setting. Among the clinicians, 724 (83%) routinely recommend AS for GG 1 PCa and have never/rarely regretted it, while 18 (2%) "often" regretted it. Routine AS was more common among physicians aged <40 yr, those in practice for <10 yr, and those living in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. More than one-third of the respondents practicing in nonacademic settings reported 15-yr PCa mortality in low-risk PCa of >3%. Regarding reclassification of GG 1 to a precancerous lesion, 428 (39%) felt that this is a good idea, 340 (31%) disagreed, and 323 (30%) were uncertain. Those in support were more likely to be aged <40 yr (p = 0.001), in practice for <5 yr (p = 0.005), urologists (p < 0.001), and fellows trained in urologic oncology (p < 0.001). Opposition was common among pathologists (61%). Among terminologies proposed to replace "cancer" for GG 1 are neoplasm of low malignant potential (51% approval), indolent neoplasm rarely requiring treatment (23%), and indolent lesion of epithelial origin (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

AS is more commonly recommended by physicians who are younger, are fellowship-trained in urologic oncology, practice in academic settings, and are based in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. Misconceptions regarding AS outcomes may hinder its adoption. Frequent use of AS is associated with support for changing the "cancer" nomenclature.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we found that active surveillance remains underused in the management of low-risk prostate cancer because of incorrect perceptions regarding cancer outcomes. Omitting the word "cancer" for low-risk lesions is a challenging but promising effort that is favored by many clinicians, particularly by those who advocate for active surveillance.

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.

Upgrading on Per Protocol versus For Cause surveillance prostate biopsies: An opportunity to decreasing the burden of active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Most prostate cancer (PC) active surveillance (AS) protocols recommend "Per Protocol" surveillance biopsy (PPSBx) every 1-3 years, even if clinical and imaging parameters remained stable. Herein, we compared the incidence of upgrading on biopsies that met criteria for "For Cause" surveillance biopsy (FCSBx) versus PPSBx.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed men with GG1 PC on AS in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Surveillance prostate biopsies obtained 1 year after diagnosis were classified as either PPSBx or FCSBx. Biopsies were retrospectively deemed FCSBx if any of these criteria were met: PSA velocity > 0.75 ng/mL/year; rise in PSA > 3 ng from baseline; surveillance magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (sMRI) with a PIRADS ≥ 4; change in DRE. Biopsies were classified PPSBx if none of these criteria were met. The primary outcome was upgrading to ≥GG2 or ≥GG3 on surveillance biopsy. The secondary objective was to assess for the association of reassuring (PIRADS ≤ 3) confirmatory or surveillance MRI findings and upgrading for patients undergoing PPSBx. Proportions were compared with the chi-squared test.

RESULTS

We identified 1773 men with GG1 PC in MUSIC who underwent a surveillance biopsy. Men meeting criteria for FCSBx had more upgrading to ≥GG2 (45%) and ≥GG3 (12%) compared with those meeting criteria for PPSBx (26% and 4.9%, respectively, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). Men with a reassuring confirmatory or surveillance MRI undergoing PPSBx had less upgrading to ≥GG2 (17% and 17%, respectively) and ≥GG3 (2.9% and 1.8%, respectively) disease compared with men without an MRI (31% and 7.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing PPSBx had significantly less upgrading compared with men undergoing FCSBx. Confirmatory and surveillance MRI seem to be valuable tools to stratify the intensity of surveillance biopsies for men on AS. These data may help inform the development of a risk-stratified, data driven AS protocol.

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.