Dataset Information

Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer are typically eligible for active surveillance of their cancer, involving monitoring for cancer progression and making judgements about the risks of prostate cancer against those of active intervention. Our study examined how risk for prostate cancer is perceived and experienced by patients undergoing active surveillance with their clinicians, how risk is communicated in clinical consultations, and the implications for treatment and care.

Method

Participants were nine patients and three clinicians from a university hospital urology clinic. A staged, qualitative, multi-method data collection approach was undertaken, comprising: observations of consultations; patient and clinician interviews; and patient surveys. The three data sets were analysed separately using thematic analysis and then integrated to give a comprehensive view of patient and clinician views.

Results

Thirty data points (eight patient surveys; 10 observations of consultations between patients and clinicians; 10 patient interviews; and two clinician interviews) combined to create a detailed picture of how patients perceived and appraised risk, in three themes of "Making sense of risk", "Talking about risk" and "Responding to risk".

Conclusion

Effective risk communication needs to be finely tuned and timed to individual patient's priorities and information requirements. A structured information exchange process that identifies patients' priorities, and details key moments in risk assessment, so that complexities of risk are discussed in ways that are meaningful to patients, may benefit patient care. These findings could inform the development of patient-centric risk assessment procedures and service delivery models in prostate cancer care more broadly.

SUBMITTER: Hogden A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6803412 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer.

Hogden Anne A Churruca Kate K Rapport Frances F Gillatt David D

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20190516 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>Men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer are typically eligible for active surveillance of their cancer, involving monitoring for cancer progression and making judgements about the risks of prostate cancer against those of active intervention. Our study examined how risk for prostate cancer is perceived and experienced by patients undergoing active surveillance with their clinicians, how risk is communicated in clinical consultations, and the implications for treatment and ...[more]

PMID: 31095822

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer can postpone definitive treatment without raising their risk of metastasis or death from disease. Active surveillance (AS) is a method of monitoring select men, with the option of switching to active treatment upon signs of progression, thereby avoiding the well-known side-effects of surgery and radiotherapy. This review analyzes the data from long-running AS cohorts to determine the safety and efficacy of AS. We conducted a narrative review of recently published data, including 14 articles from 13 AS cohorts. The cohorts used varying inclusion criteria, with reported differences in clinical T stage and Gleason Score (Grade Group), among other features. Some studies (n=5) limited their cohorts to low-risk patients, while others (n=8) also included intermediate-risk patients. The heterogeneity of the cohorts produced mixed results, with the risk of prostate cancer metastasis ranging from 0.1-1.0% at 10 years and the risk of prostate cancer mortality ranging from 0-1.9% at 10 years. However, the majority of studies reported risks of less than 0.5% at 10 years for both metastasis and death. For most cohorts, half of men remained untreated for 5-10 years, with estimates ranging from 37% receiving active treatment in the Toronto cohort to 73% in the Prostate Cancer Research International AS (PRIAS) study. Current data do not support the use of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to avoid scheduled biopsy. Taken together, the data collected from these AS cohorts suggests that AS is a safe approach for men with low-grade prostate cancer and some men with intermediate risk disease. AS should be more broadly implemented for eligible patients to avoid the decreases in quality of life from undergoing active treatment. Studies expanding the inclusion criteria and further defining a subset of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who might safely benefit from AS are needed to assess the long-term outcomes of using AS in intermediate-risk groups.

Project description:Initial management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer is evolving, with no clear recommendation for treatment. Data on utilization of active surveillance for patients with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk prostate cancer may help clarify emerging trends. To further characterize US national trends of initial management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. This cohort study included patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020. Eligible patients were diagnosed in US hospitals included in the National Cancer Database; National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk stratification guidelines were used to characterize as favorable vs unfavorable intermediate risk. Analysis was performed in September 2023. Active surveillance vs intervention with surgery and/or radiation or no treatment. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and their association with the use of active surveillance; further subgroup analysis was conducted for those with favorable vs unfavorable intermediate risk classification. In total, 289 584 men diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were identified from 2010 to 2020 (46 147 Black [15.9%], 230 071 White [79.5%]). Among patients, 153 726 (53.1%) underwent prostatectomy, 107 152 (37.0%) underwent radiotherapy, and 15 847 (5.5%) underwent active surveillance as initial treatment strategy. Overall, active surveillance quadrupled from 418 of 21 457 patients (2.0%) in 2010 to 2428 of 28 192 patients (8.6%) in 2020 for the entire cohort (P < .001). Active surveillance increased from 317 of 12 858 patients (2.4%) in 2010 to 2020 of 12 902 patients (13.5%) in 2020 in men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (P < .001). In the unfavorable intermediate-risk cohort, active surveillance increased from 101 of 8181 patients (1.2%) in 2010 to 408 of 12 861 patients (3.1%) in 2020 (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, use of active surveillance was associated with increased age (age 70-80 years vs <50 years: odds ratio [OR], 3.09; 95% CI, 2.66-3.59), lower Gleason score (3 + 3 vs 3 + 4: OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 3.25-3.66), early T stage (T2c vs T1a through T2a: OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.32-0.38), treatment at an academic center (community vs academic center: OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78), higher level of education (communities with 21% or higher population without high school vs less than 7%: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79), insurance type (Medicare or other governmental service vs private: OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.16), proximity to treatment facility (greater than 120 miles vs less than 60 miles: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84), facility location (South Atlantic vs New England: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.46-0.53), and lower income (less than $38 000 vs $63 000 or greater: OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.31). These findings highlight increasing implementation of active surveillance in the initial management of intermediate risk prostate cancer. Prospective data with improved risk stratification incorporating genomics and digital pathology artificial intelligence as well as novel surveillance strategies may continue to better delineate optimal treatment recommendations in this patient population.

Dataset Information

Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer.

Objectives

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets