1
|
Hoffman RM, Lobo T, Van Den Eeden SK, Davis KM, Luta G, Leimpeter AD, Aaronson D, Penson DF, Taylor K. Selecting Active Surveillance: Decision Making Factors for Men with a Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. Med Decis Making 2019; 39:962-974. [PMID: 31631745 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x19883242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard M Hoffman
- Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA.,Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Tania Lobo
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Kimberly M Davis
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - George Luta
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - David Aaronson
- Department of Urology, Kaiser Permanente East Bay, Oakland, CA, USA
| | - David F Penson
- Department of Urological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Kathryn Taylor
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Andriole GL, Culkin D, Wheeler T, Aronson WJ, Brawer MK. Follow-up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 377:132-142. [PMID: 28700844 DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1615869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 366] [Impact Index Per Article: 52.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We previously found no significant differences in mortality between men who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer and those who were treated with observation only. Uncertainty persists regarding nonfatal health outcomes and long-term mortality. METHODS From November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or observation. We extended follow-up through August 2014 for our primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and the main secondary outcome, prostate-cancer mortality. We describe disease progression, treatments received, and patient-reported outcomes through January 2010 (original follow-up). RESULTS During 19.5 years of follow-up (median, 12.7 years), death occurred in 223 of 364 men (61.3%) assigned to surgery and in 245 of 367 (66.8%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 5.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 12.4; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.01; P=0.06). Death attributed to prostate cancer or treatment occurred in 27 men (7.4%) assigned to surgery and in 42 men (11.4%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 8.3; hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.02; P=0.06). Surgery may have been associated with lower all-cause mortality than observation among men with intermediate-risk disease (absolute difference, 14.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.8 to 25.6) but not among those with low-risk disease (absolute difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.5 to 11.8) or high-risk disease (absolute difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.5 to 16.1) (P=0.08 for interaction). Treatment for disease progression was less frequent with surgery than with observation (absolute difference, 26.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 19.0 to 32.9); treatment was primarily for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) progression. Urinary incontinence and erectile and sexual dysfunction were each greater with surgery than with observation through 10 years. Disease-related or treatment-related limitations in activities of daily living were greater with surgery than with observation through 2 years. CONCLUSIONS After nearly 20 years of follow-up among men with localized prostate cancer, surgery was not associated with significantly lower all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality than observation. Surgery was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events than observation but a lower frequency of treatment for disease progression, mostly for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical progression. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644 .).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy J Wilt
- From the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System and Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research and the Section of General Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (T.J.W.); the VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Perry Point, MD (K.M.J.); the General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (M.J.B.); the Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (G.L.A.); the Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City (D.C.); the Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (T.W.); VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles (W.J.A.); and Myriad Genetics Laboratories, Salt Lake City (M.K.B.)
| | - Karen M Jones
- From the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System and Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research and the Section of General Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (T.J.W.); the VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Perry Point, MD (K.M.J.); the General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (M.J.B.); the Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (G.L.A.); the Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City (D.C.); the Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (T.W.); VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles (W.J.A.); and Myriad Genetics Laboratories, Salt Lake City (M.K.B.)
| | - Michael J Barry
- From the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System and Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research and the Section of General Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (T.J.W.); the VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Perry Point, MD (K.M.J.); the General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (M.J.B.); the Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (G.L.A.); the Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City (D.C.); the Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (T.W.); VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles (W.J.A.); and Myriad Genetics Laboratories, Salt Lake City (M.K.B.)
| | - Gerald L Andriole
- From the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System and Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research and the Section of General Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (T.J.W.); the VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Perry Point, MD (K.M.J.); the General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (M.J.B.); the Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (G.L.A.); the Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City (D.C.); the Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (T.W.); VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles (W.J.A.); and Myriad Genetics Laboratories, Salt Lake City (M.K.B.)
| | - Daniel Culkin
- From the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System and Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research and the Section of General Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (T.J.W.); the VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Perry Point, MD (K.M.J.); the General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (M.J.B.); the Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (G.L.A.); the Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City (D.C.); the Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (T.W.); VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles (W.J.A.); and Myriad Genetics Laboratories, Salt Lake City (M.K.B.)
| | - Thomas Wheeler
- From the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System and Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research and the Section of General Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (T.J.W.); the VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Perry Point, MD (K.M.J.); the General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (M.J.B.); the Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (G.L.A.); the Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City (D.C.); the Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (T.W.); VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles (W.J.A.); and Myriad Genetics Laboratories, Salt Lake City (M.K.B.)
| | - William J Aronson
- From the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System and Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research and the Section of General Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (T.J.W.); the VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Perry Point, MD (K.M.J.); the General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (M.J.B.); the Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (G.L.A.); the Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City (D.C.); the Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (T.W.); VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles (W.J.A.); and Myriad Genetics Laboratories, Salt Lake City (M.K.B.)
| | - Michael K Brawer
- From the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System and Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research and the Section of General Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis (T.J.W.); the VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Perry Point, MD (K.M.J.); the General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (M.J.B.); the Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (G.L.A.); the Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City (D.C.); the Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (T.W.); VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles (W.J.A.); and Myriad Genetics Laboratories, Salt Lake City (M.K.B.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Maurice MJ, Zhu H, Kim SP, Abouassaly R. Robotic prostatectomy is associated with increased patient travel and treatment delay. Can Urol Assoc J 2016; 10:192-201. [PMID: 27713799 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.3628] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION New technologies may limit access to treatment. We investigated radical prostatectomy (RP) access over time since robotic introduction and the impact of robotic use on RP access relative to other approaches in the modern era. METHODS Using the National Cancer Data Base, RPs performed during the eras of early (2004-2005) and late (2010-2011) robotic dissemination were identified. The primary endpoints, patient travel distance and treatment delay, were compared by era, and for 2010-2011, by surgical approach. Analyses included multivariable and multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS 138 476 cases were identified, 32% from 2004-2005 and 68% from 2010-2011. In 2010-2011, 74%, 21%, and 4.3% of RPs were robotic, open, and laparoscopic, respectively. Treatment in 2010-2011 and robotic approach were independently associated with increased patient travel distance and longer treatment delay (p<0.001). Men treated robotically had 1.1-1.2 times higher odds of traveling medium-to-long-range distances and 1.2-1.3 higher odds of delays 90 days or greater compared to those treated open (p<0.001). Laparoscopic approach was associated with increased patient travel and treatment delay, but to a lesser extent than the robotic approach (p<0.001). In high-risk patients, treatment delays remained significantly longer for minimally invasive approaches (p<0.001). Other factors associated with the robotic approach included referral from an outside facility, treatment at an academic or high-volume hospital, higher income, and private insurance. Potential limitations include the retrospective observational design and lack of external validation of the primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS The robotic approach is associated with increased travel burden and treatment delay, potentially limiting access to surgical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew J Maurice
- Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States
| | - Hui Zhu
- Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States;; Division of Urology, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States
| | - Simon P Kim
- Urology Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States
| | - Robert Abouassaly
- Urology Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Maurice MJ, Zhu H, Kiechle JE, Kim SP, Abouassaly R. Nonclinical Factors Predict Selection of Initial Observation for Renal Cell Carcinoma. Urology 2015; 86:892-9. [PMID: 26291563 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2015] [Revised: 06/04/2015] [Accepted: 06/18/2015] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the rate of observation utilization over time and to identify factors influencing its use. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using the National Cancer Data Base, we studied observation utilization in patients diagnosed with localized renal cell carcinoma from 2003 to 2010. Relationships between temporal, demographic, provider, and clinical factors and the likelihood of observation were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS Of 109,410 analyzed patients, 7047 (6.4%) underwent observation with stable use over time (range, 6.1% to 6.8%). Patient and disease factors were the strongest predictors of observation. Specifically, the odds of biopsy were 1.8-11 times higher for elderly or comorbid patients and 1.6-8.4 times higher for small (clinical T1a), biopsied, or bilateral tumors (P <.01 for all). Racial and socioeconomic factors also significantly predicted observation usage. In particular, observation rates were higher among poor, African American, and uninsured or socially insured patients, with these groups having 1.2-3.5 times higher odds of observation (P <.01). Patients receiving care at community, low-volume, or nearby hospitals were also significantly more likely to undergo observation (P <.01). CONCLUSION Despite the continued rise in the incidence of incidental renal masses, initial observation use has remained stable. In accordance with treatment guidelines, observation is preferentially utilized in elderly and comorbid patients. However, nonclinical factors also predict observation use, suggesting that utilization may be influenced by racial and socioeconomic disparities in health care quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew J Maurice
- Urology Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Division of Urology, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH
| | - Hui Zhu
- Division of Urology, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Jonathan E Kiechle
- Urology Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Division of Urology, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH
| | - Simon P Kim
- Urology Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH
| | - Robert Abouassaly
- Urology Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
| |
Collapse
|