Dataset Information

A Systematic Approach to Discussing Active Surveillance with Patients with Low-risk Prostate Cancer.

ABSTRACT: Physicians report difficulty convincing patients with prostate cancer about the merits of active surveillance (AS); as a result, a majority of patients unnecessarily choose to undergo radical treatment.To develop and evaluate a systematic approach for physicians to counsel patients with low-risk prostate cancer to increase acceptance of AS.A systematic counseling approach was developed and piloted in one clinic. Then five surgeons participated in a 1-h training session in which they learned about the approach. A total of 1003 patients with Gleason 3+3 prostate cancer were included in the study. We compared AS rates for 761 patients who were counseled over a 24-mo period before the training intervention with AS rates for 242 patients who were counseled over a 12-mo period afterwards, controlling for temporal trends and case mix.A systematic approach for communicating the merits of AS using appropriate framing techniques derived from principles studied by negotiation scholars.The rate of AS acceptance by patients for management of low-risk prostate cancer.In the pilot phase, 81 of 86 patients (94%) accepted AS after counseling by the physician who developed the counseling approach. In the subsequent study, the cohort for the training intervention comprised 1003 consecutive patients, 80% of whom met the Epstein criteria for very low-risk disease. The proportion of patients who selected AS increased from 69% before the training intervention to 81% afterwards. After adjusting for time trends and case mix, the rate of AS after the intervention was 9.1% higher (95% confidence interval -0.4% to 19.4%) than expected, a relative reduction of approximately 30% in the risk of unnecessary curative treatment.A systematic approach to counseling can be taught to physicians in a 1-h lecture. We found evidence that even this minimal intervention can decrease overtreatment. Our novel approach offers a framework to help address cancer screening-related overtreatment that occurs across medicine.In this study, we evaluated the impact of teaching physicians how to better communicate the benefits and risks of prostate cancer treatments on the willingness of patients to choose active surveillance. Decisions related to cancer are often guided by emotions and biases that lead most patients to seek radical treatment; however, we demonstrated that if discussions are framed differently, these biases can be overcome and more patients will choose active surveillance.

SUBMITTER: Ehdaie B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5714298 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Approach to Discussing Active Surveillance with Patients with Low-risk Prostate Cancer.

Ehdaie Behfar B Assel Melissa M Benfante Nicole N Malhotra Deepak D Vickers Andrew A

European urology 20170124 6

<h4>Background</h4>Physicians report difficulty convincing patients with prostate cancer about the merits of active surveillance (AS); as a result, a majority of patients unnecessarily choose to undergo radical treatment.<h4>Objective</h4>To develop and evaluate a systematic approach for physicians to counsel patients with low-risk prostate cancer to increase acceptance of AS.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>A systematic counseling approach was developed and piloted in one clinic. Then ...[more]

PMID: 28129893

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Active surveillance is an important option to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment, but it remains underutilized in many countries. Models from the United States show that greater use of active surveillance is important for prostate cancer screening to be cost-effective. Objectives:To perform an up-to-date, nationwide, population-based study on use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer in Sweden. Design, Setting, and Participants:Cross-sectional study in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden from 2009 through 2014. The NPCR has data on 98% of prostate cancers diagnosed in Sweden and has comprehensive linkages to other nationwide databases. Overall, 32?518 men with a median age of 67 years were diagnosed with favorable-risk prostate cancer, including 4693, 15?403, and 17?115 men with very-low-risk (subset of the low-risk group) (clinical stage, T1c; Gleason score, ?6; prostate-specific antigen [PSA], <10 ng/mL; PSA density <0.15 ng/mL/cm3; and <8-mm total cancer length in ?4 positive biopsy cores), low-risk (including all men in the very-low-risk group) (T1-T2; Gleason score, ?6; and PSA, <10 ng/mL), and intermediate-risk disease (T1-T2 with Gleason score, 7 and/or PSA, 10-20 ng/mL). Exposures:Diagnosis with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures:Utilization of active surveillance. Results:The use of active surveillance increased in men of all ages from 57% (380 of 665) to 91% (939 of 1027) for very-low-risk prostate cancer and from 40% (1159 of 2895) to 74% (1951 of 2644) for low-risk prostate cancer, with the strongest increase occurring from 2011 onward. Among men aged 50 to 59 years, 88% (211 of 240) with very-low-risk and 68% (351 of 518) with low-risk disease chose active surveillance in 2014. Use of active surveillance for intermediate-risk disease remained lower, 19% (561 of 3030) in 2014. Conclusions and Relevance:Active surveillance has become the dominant management for low-risk prostate cancer among men in Sweden, with the highest rates yet reported and almost complete uptake for very-low-risk cancer. These data should serve as a benchmark to compare the use of active surveillance for favorable-risk disease around the world.

Project description:ImportanceActive surveillance (AS) is now recognized as the preferred management option for most low-risk prostate cancers to minimize risks of overtreatment. Despite increasing use of AS in the US, wide regional variability has been observed, and these regional variations in contemporary practice have not been well described.ObjectiveTo explore variations between county and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions in AS in the US.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study using the SEER Prostate with Watchful Waiting (WW) database linked to the County Area Health Resource File for detailed county-level demographics and physician distribution data was conducted from January 2010 to December 2015. Analysis was performed in October 2020. A total of 79 825 men with clinically localized, low-risk prostate cancer eligible for AS or WW were included.ExposuresMultiple patient-, county-, and SEER region-level factors, including age, year of diagnosis, county-level densities of urologists, radiation oncologists, primary care physicians, and SEER registry region.Main outcomes and measuresUse of AS or WW as the initial reported treatment strategy were noted. Hierarchical mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to evaluate clustered random regional variation on use of AS or WW. Temporal trends by year in proportions of initial treatment type, as well as county-level local variation, were also estimated.ResultsOf 79 825 men (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [7.6] years, 11 292 [14.1%] non-Hispanic Black, 7506 [9.4%] Hispanic) with low-risk prostate cancer, the mean annualized percent increase in AS rates from 2010 to 2015 ranged from 6.3% in New Mexico to 81.0% in New Jersey. Differences across SEER regions accounted for 17% of the total variation in AS. Increasing age (51-60 years: odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.21-1.46; 61-70 years: OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.70-2.04; 71-80 years: OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 2.05-2.50) was associated with greater odds of AS. Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85), T category (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84), and Medicaid enrollment (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81) were associated with lower odds of AS. Black race, county-level socioeconomic factors (household income, educational level, and city type), and specialist densities were not associated with AS use.Conclusions and relevanceIn this US cohort study based on the SEER-WW database, although the use of AS increased, considerable practice variation appeared to be associated with geographic location, but use of AS was not associated with Black race, specialty professional density, or socioeconomic factors. This small area variation underlies the broader national trends in AS practice and may inform policies aimed at continuing to affect risk-appropriate care for men throughout the US.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a model and methodology for predicting the risk of Gleason upgrading in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS) and using the predicted risks to create risk-based personalised biopsy schedules as an alternative to one-size-fits-all schedules (e.g. annually). Furthermore, to assist patients and doctors in making shared decisions on biopsy schedules, by providing them quantitative estimates of the burden and benefit of opting for personalised vs any other schedule in AS. Lastly, to externally validate our model and implement it along with personalised schedules in a ready to use web-application.Patients and methodsRepeat prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements, timing and results of previous biopsies, and age at baseline from the world's largest AS study, Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS; 7813 patients, 1134 experienced upgrading). We fitted a Bayesian joint model for time-to-event and longitudinal data to this dataset. We then validated our model externally in the largest six AS cohorts of the Movember Foundation's third Global Action Plan (GAP3) database (>20 000 patients, 27 centres worldwide). Using the model predicted upgrading risks; we scheduled biopsies whenever a patient's upgrading risk was above a certain threshold. To assist patients/doctors in the choice of this threshold, and to compare the resulting personalised schedule with currently practiced schedules, along with the timing and the total number of biopsies (burden) planned, for each schedule we provided them with the time delay expected in detecting upgrading (shorter is better).ResultsThe cause-specific cumulative upgrading risk at the 5-year follow-up was 35% in PRIAS, and at most 50% in the GAP3 cohorts. In the PRIAS-based model, PSA velocity was a stronger predictor of upgrading (hazard ratio [HR] 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.93-2.99) than the PSA level (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89-1.11). Our model had a moderate area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.6-0.7) in the validation cohorts. The prediction error was moderate (0.1-0.2) in theGAP3 cohorts where the impact of the PSA level and velocity on upgrading risk was similar to PRIAS, but large (0.2-0.3) otherwise. Our model required re-calibration of baseline upgrading risk in the validation cohorts. We implemented the validated models and the methodology for personalised schedules in a web-application (http://tiny.cc/biopsy).ConclusionsWe successfully developed and validated a model for predicting upgrading risk, and providing risk-based personalised biopsy decisions in AS of prostate cancer. Personalised prostate biopsies are a novel alternative to fixed one-size-fits-all schedules, which may help to reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies, while maintaining cancer control. The model and schedules made available via a web-application enable shared decision-making on biopsy schedules by comparing fixed and personalised schedules on total biopsies and expected time delay in detecting upgrading.

Project description:BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) is a viable management option for approximately 50% of men who are newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. To the authors' knowledge, no direct comparisons between the different variants of AS protocols have been conducted to date. The authors developed a microsimulation decision model to evaluate which of 3 alternative AS protocols is optimal for men with low-risk prostate cancer, and compared each of these with immediate treatment.MethodsMen who were diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer at age 65 years were modeled as having been treated with either immediate therapy or via each of 3 AS protocols. Modeled AS protocols represent those in the literature; a modified AS protocol was included in a sensitivity analysis. Immediate therapy included radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsImmediate therapy produced fewer QALYs than all variants of AS. Of the AS protocols evaluated, biennial biopsy was found to be the only efficient option, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3490 per QALY compared with immediate therapy. It delayed the need for curative therapy by a mean of 56 months, and was found to be preferred in >86.9% of cases in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. A modified version of low-intensity AS dominated all other options.ConclusionsFor a 65-year-old man with low-risk prostate cancer, AS with biennial biopsy appears to be highly cost-effective compared with common alternatives. An AS protocol using triennial biopsy was found to dominate all other strategies and should be considered for men who are comfortable with a longer period between biopsies. The optimal strategy depends on a patient's tolerance for periodic biopsies and comfort with delaying radical treatment. Physicians should incorporate these patient preferences into decision making.

Project description:CONTEXT:Despite support for active surveillance (AS) as a first treatment choice for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), this strategy is largely underutilised. OBJECTIVE:To systematically review barriers and facilitators to selecting and adhering to AS for low-risk PC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION:We searched PsychINFO, PubMed, Medline 2000-now, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases between 2002 and 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance (PREFS) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) quality criteria were applied. Forty-seven studies were identified. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:Key themes emerged as factors influencing both choice and adherence to AS: (1) patient and tumour factors (age, comorbidities, knowledge, education, socioeconomic status, family history, grade, tumour volume, and fear of progression/side effects); (2) family and social support; (3) provider (speciality, communication, and attitudes); (4) healthcare organisation (geography and type of practice); and (5) health policy (guidelines, year, and awareness). CONCLUSIONS:Many factors influence men's choice and adherence to AS on multiple levels. It is important to learn from the experience of other chronic health conditions as well as from institutions/countries that are making significant headway in appropriately recruiting men to AS protocols, through standardised patient information, clinician education, and nationally agreed guidelines, to ultimately decrease heterogeneity in AS practice. PATIENT SUMMARY:We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines.

Project description:ImportanceThere are few published studies prospectively assessing pharmacological interventions that may delay prostate cancer progression in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS).ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide monotherapy plus AS vs AS alone in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThe ENACT study was a phase 2, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2016 to August 2020 at 66 US and Canadian sites. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had received a diagnosis of histologically proven low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer within 6 months of screening, and were undergoing AS. Patients were monitored during 1 year of treatment and up to 2 years of follow-up. Data analysis was conducted in February 2021.InterventionsRandomized 1:1 to enzalutamide, 160 mg, monotherapy for 1 year or continued AS, as stratified by cancer risk and follow-up biopsy type.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was time to pathological or therapeutic prostate cancer progression (pathological, ≥1 increase in primary or secondary Gleason pattern or ≥15% increased cancer-positive cores; therapeutic, earliest occurrence of primary therapy for prostate cancer). Secondary end points included incidence of a negative biopsy result, percentage of cancer-positive cores, and incidence of a secondary rise in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 1 and 2 years, as well as time to PSA progression. Adverse events were monitored to assess safety.ResultsA total of 114 patients were randomized to treatment with enzalutamide plus AS and 113 to AS alone; baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [7.8] years; 1 Asian individual [0.4%], 21 Black or African American individuals [9.3%], 1 Hispanic individual [0.4%], and 204 White individuals [89.9%]). Enzalutamide significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer progression by 46% vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.89; P = .02). Compared with AS, odds of a negative biopsy result were 3.5 times higher; there was a significant reduction in the percentage of cancer-positive cores and the odds of a secondary rise in serum PSA levels at 1 year with treatment with enzalutamide; no significant difference was observed at 2 years. Treatment with enzalutamide also significantly delayed PSA progression by 6 months vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97; P = .03). The most commonly reported adverse events during enzalutamide treatment were fatigue (62 [55.4%]) and gynecomastia (41 [36.6%]). Three patients in the enzalutamide arm died; none were receiving the study drug at the time of death. No deaths were considered treatment-related.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that enzalutamide monotherapy was well-tolerated and demonstrated a significant treatment response in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. Enzalutamide may provide an alternative treatment option for patients undergoing AS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02799745.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Approach to Discussing Active Surveillance with Patients with Low-risk Prostate Cancer.

Publications

A Systematic Approach to Discussing Active Surveillance with Patients with Low-risk Prostate Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets