The Development and Validation of Prostate Cancer-specific Physician-Hospital Networks

OBJECTIVE

To develop prostate cancer-specific physician-hospital networks to define hospital-based units that more accurately group hospitals, providers, and the patients they serve.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, we identified men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. We created physician-hospital networks by assigning each patient to a physician and each physician to a hospital based on treatment patterns. We assessed content validity by examining characteristics of hospitals anchoring the physician-hospital networks and of the patients associated with these hospitals.

RESULTS

We identified 42,963 patients associated with 344 physician-hospital networks. Networks anchored by a teaching hospital (compared to a nonteaching hospital) had higher median numbers of prostate cancer patients (117 [interquartile range {71-189} vs 82 {50-126}]) and treating physicians (7 [4-11] vs 4 [3-6]) (both P <0.001). On average, patients traveled farther to networks anchored by a teaching hospital (49 miles [standard deviation] [207] vs 41 [183]; P <.001). Hospitals known as high-volume centers for robotic prostatectomies, proton-beam therapy, and active surveillance had network rates for these procedures well above the mean. Hospitals known as safety net providers served higher proportions of minorities.

CONCLUSION

We empirically developed prostate-cancer specific physician-hospital networks that exhibit content validity and are relevant from a clinical and policy perspective. They have the potential to become targets for policy interventions focused on improving the delivery of prostate cancer care.

Consistent Biopsy Quality and Gleason Grading Within the Global Active Surveillance Global Action Plan 3 Initiative: A Prerequisite for Future Studies

Within the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative, 25 centers across the globe collaborate to standardize active surveillance (AS) protocols for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). A centralized PCa AS database, comprising data of more than 15000 patients worldwide, was created. Comparability of the histopathology between the different cohorts was assessed by a centralized pathology review of 445 biopsies from 15 GAP3 centers. Grade group 1 (Gleason score 6) in 85% and grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥7) in 15% showed 89% concordance at review with moderate agreement (κ=0.56). Average biopsy core length was similar among the analyzed cohorts. Recently established highly adverse pathologies, including cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma, were observed in 3.6% of the reviewed biopsies. In conclusion, the centralized pathology review of 445 biopsies revealed comparable histopathology among the 15 GAP3 centers with a low frequency of high-risk features. This enables further data analyses-without correction-toward uniform global AS guidelines for men with low-risk PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative combines data from 15000 men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) across the globe to standardize active surveillance protocols. Histopathology review confirmed that the histopathology was consistent with low-risk PCa in most men and comparable between different centers.

GPs' understanding and practice of safety netting for potential cancer presentations: a qualitative study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Safety netting is a diagnostic strategy used in UK primary care to ensure patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained. Despite being recommended in cancer diagnosis guidelines, little evidence exists about which components are effective and feasible in modern-day primary care.

AIM

To understand the reality of safety netting for cancer in contemporary primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative study of GPs in Oxfordshire primary care.

METHOD

In-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs were undertaken. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using constant comparison.

RESULTS

GPs revealed uncertainty about which aspects of clinical practice are considered safety netting. They use bespoke personal strategies, often developed from past mistakes, without knowledge of their colleagues' practice. Safety netting varied according to the perceived risk of cancer, the perceived reliability of each patient to follow advice, GP working patterns, and time pressures. Increasing workload, short appointments, and a reluctance to overburden hospital systems or create unnecessary patient anxiety have together led to a strategy of selective active follow-up of patients perceived to be at higher risk of cancer or less able to act autonomously. This left patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms of cancer with less robust or absent safety netting.

CONCLUSION

GPs would benefit from clearer guidance on which aspects of clinical practice contribute to effective safety netting for cancer. Practice systems that enable active follow-up of patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms, which could represent malignancy, could reduce delays in cancer diagnosis without increasing GP workload.

Acceptability of text messages for safety netting patients with low-risk cancer symptoms: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Safety netting is an important diagnostic strategy for patients presenting to primary care with potential (low-risk) cancer symptoms. Typically, this involves asking patients to return if symptoms persist. However, this relies on patients re-appraising their symptoms and making follow-up appointments, which could contribute to delays in diagnosis. Text messaging is increasingly used in primary care to communicate with patients, and could be used to improve safety netting.

AIM

To explore the acceptability and feasibility of using text messages to safety net patients presenting with low-risk cancer symptoms in GP primary care (txt-netting).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative focus group and interview study with London-based GPs.

METHOD

Participants were identified using convenience sampling methods. Five focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 22 GPs between August and December 2016. Sessions were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

GPs were amenable to the concept of using text messages in cancer safety netting, identifying it as an additional tool that could help manage patients and promote symptom awareness. There was wide variation in GP preferences for text message content, and a number of important potential barriers to txt-netting were identified. Concerns were raised about the difficulties of conveying complex safety netting advice within the constraints of a text message, and about confidentiality, widening inequalities, and workload implications.

CONCLUSION

Text messages were perceived to be an acceptable potential strategy for safety netting patients with low-risk cancer symptoms. Further work is needed to ensure it is cost-effective, user friendly, confidential, and acceptable to patients.

ED observation unit targets 24-hour stays

Faced with denials for short stays and pressure to get patients out of the emergency department, Massachusetts General Hospital established an emergency department observation unit for patients whose stays are likely to be 24 hours or less. The emergency department and case management staff compiled a list of diagnoses and complaints that typically result in short stays and target those for transfer to the unit. The unit has a dedicated staff that includes nurses, case managers, nurse practitioners, and a physical therapist who evaluates patients each morning. The team concentrates on ensuring that patients get the services and evaluations they need to be discharged in 24 hours.

Growing the range of services in a radiology observation unit

The establishment of a Radiology Observation Unit allowed the radiology department at Southern NH Medical Center to operate independently to schedule and perform minor and invasive procedures to meet the needs of patients and providers. The unit is staffed by three advanced practice nurses who provide, promote, and maintain patient care in imaging environments. In addition to their nursing training they are educated and prepared to manage complications for imaging procedures performed. Cost reduction was realized in the cleaning of inpatient rooms and in the time used to transport patients to and from nursing units to radiology for their procedures. Patient and staff satisfaction also improved.

Acceptance and durability of surveillance as a management choice in men with screen-detected, low-risk prostate cancer: improved outcomes with stringent enrollment criteria

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the acceptance rate and durability of surveillance among contemporary men with low-risk prostate cancer managed at a large, US academic institution.

METHODS

Patients with low-risk parameters on initial and repeat biopsy were offered surveillance regardless of age. Regular clinical evaluation and repeat prostate biopsy were recommended every 1-2 years, and intervention was recommended based on adverse clinical and pathologic parameters on follow-up. Acceptance rate of active surveillance, freedom from intervention, and freedom from recommended intervention were measured.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 202 low-risk patients, 86 (43%) chose immediate treatment and 116 (57%) underwent repeat biopsy for consideration of surveillance. Intervention was recommended after initial repeat biopsy in 27 (23%) men because of higher-risk features, leaving a total of 89 men on surveillance. Over a median follow-up of 33 months, 16 men were ultimately treated and 8 were recommended to undergo treatment because of adverse clinical features on subsequent evaluations. Of the men on surveillance, the 3-year freedom from intervention and freedom from recommended intervention was 87% (95% CI, 78-93) and 93% (95% CI, 85-97), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance of surveillance (57%) in low-risk patients in this series is substantially higher than previous reports, and approximately one-third of these patients are ultimately managed by surveillance using stringent criteria. The risk of reclassification to a more aggressive cancer over short-term follow-up in appropriately selected patients is low.