Dataset Information

Effect of a Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aid for African-American Men in Primary Care Settings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

African-American men have an elevated risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer. Shared decision-making (SDM) about prostate cancer screening is recommended but does not always occur.

Methods

We pilot-tested an online decision aid (DA) in primary care settings using a pre/postevaluation design among African-American men ages 45 to 70 years. Men completed surveys before and after using the DA, which had interactive segments (e.g., values clarification) and provided individualized assessment of prostate cancer risk. Primary outcomes included prostate cancer knowledge, confidence in ability to make informed decisions, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with the decision. Immediately after the clinical visit, patients reported the degree to which they were engaged by their provider in SDM.

Results

Among this sample of men (n = 49), use of the DA was associated with increased knowledge about prostate cancer [mean = 55.3% vs. 71.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 9.8-22.1; P < 0.001], reduced decisional conflict (mean = 33.4 vs. 23.6; 95% CI, -18.1 to -1.6; P = 0.002) on a scale from 0 to 100, and a decreased preference to be screened (88% vs. 69%; 95% CI, 0.09-0.64; P = 0.01). Most (89%) reported that the DA prepared them well/very well for SDM with their provider. Following the clinical visit with providers, scores on perceived involvement in SDM were 68.1 (SD 29.1) on a 0 to 100 scale.

Conclusions

The DA improved men's knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and promoted the perception of being prepared for SDM.

Impact

Findings suggest that use of an online DA to improve SDM outcomes warrants further testing in a future trial.

SUBMITTER: Allen JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8448197 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer is the third most prevalent cancer in the American population. Furthermore, the prognosis is worse in African American as there is increased morbidity and mortality associated with it.PurposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a new online method to educate the patient population regarding prostate cancer risk, diagnosis, treatments, and their decisions about whether to be screened for the early detection of prostate cancer.MethodsTwo hundred Black male patients are recruited from different clinical sites and randomized to either the control arm (usual care) or the intervention arm (educational program). We will compare the effectiveness of the intervention to see if patients are discussing the need of getting a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, and the possible benefits and harms that may result of having or not having the test, with their primary care providers.DiscussionShared decision-making (SDM) is the current standard in most cancer-screening guidelines and also a standard of person-centered care. However, there is a lack of evidence-based approaches to improve decision quality in clinical settings and an increased ambiguity of applying SDM for PSA-based screening among Black men in primary care. Our proposal to evaluate a decisional-aid intervention and measure the actual application of SDM during clinical encounters has a high potential to advance the translation path of implementing shared decision-making in clinical settings and provide evidence of the applicability of the guideline in general.Innovation and overall impactGiven the 2018 USPSTF updated guidelines recommending shared decision-making about PSA-based screening, the increased risk of prostate cancer mortality in Black men, the challenges of evidence-based decision-making due to the underrepresentation of Blacks in major randomized clinical trials, and implicit racial bias among primary care providers, the time is ripe for interventions to improve shared decision-making about prostate cancer screening in Black men. In this study, we address communication and knowledge gaps between Black men and their primary care providers. The intervention, if proven effective, can be readily scaled across primary care practices across the U.S. and may be adapted to other types of cancer where guidelines have included shared decision-making as well. Early detection of prostate cancer may decrease mortality and morbidity in the long term.

Project description:BackgroundDespite higher risks associated with prostate cancer, young African American men are poorly represented in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) trials, which limits proper evidence-based guidance. We evaluated the impact of PSA screening, alongside primary care provider utilization, on prostate cancer outcomes for these patients.MethodsWe identified African American men aged 40-55 years, diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2017 within the Veterans Health Administration. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity scores were used in multivariable models to assess PSA screening on PSA levels higher than 20, Gleason score of 8 or higher, and metastatic disease at diagnosis. Lead-time adjusted Fine-Gray regression evaluated PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), with noncancer death as competing events. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsThe cohort included 4726 patients. Mean age was 51.8 years, with 84-month median follow-up. There were 1057 (22.4%) with no PSA screening prior to diagnosis. Compared with no screening, PSA screening was associated with statistically significantly reduced odds of PSA levels higher than 20 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.63; P < .001), Gleason score of 8 or higher (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.88; P < .001), and metastatic disease at diagnosis (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.64; P < .001), and decreased PCSM (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.76; P < .001). Primary care provider visits displayed similar effects.ConclusionsAmong young African American men diagnosed with prostate cancer, PSA screening was associated with statistically significantly lower risk of PSA levels higher than 20, Gleason score of 8 or higher, and metastatic disease at diagnosis and statistically significantly reduced risk of PCSM. However, the retrospective design limits precise estimation of screening effects. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Project description:The incidence and mortality rates of prostate cancer are significantly higher in African-American men when compared to European-American men. We tested the hypothesis that differences in tumor biology contribute to this survival health disparity. Using microarray technology, we obtained gene expression profiles of primary prostate tumors resected from 33 African-American and 36 European-American patients. These tumors were matched on clinical parameters. We also evaluated 18 non-tumor prostate tissues from 7 African-American and 11 European-American patients. The resulting datasets were analyzed for expression differences on the gene and pathway level comparing African-American with European-American patients. Our analysis revealed a significant number of genes, e.g., 162 transcripts at a false-discovery rate less than 5%, to be differently expressed between African-American and European-American patients. Using a disease association analysis, we identified a common relationship of these transcripts with autoimmunity and inflammation. These findings were corroborated on the pathway level with numerous differently expressed genes clustering in immune response, stress response, cytokine signaling, and chemotaxis pathways. Furthermore, a two-gene tumor signature was identified that accurately differentiated between African-American and European-American patients. This finding was confirmed in a blinded analysis of a second sample set. In conclusion, the gene expression profiles of prostate tumors indicate prominent differences in tumor immunobiology between African-American and European-American men. The profiles portray the existence of a distinct tumor microenvironment in these two patient groups. Experiment Overall Design: A total of 69 fresh-frozen prostate tumors were obtained from the NCI Cooperative Prostate Cancer Tissue Resource (CPCTR) and the Department of Pathology at the University of Maryland (UMD). All tumors were resected adenocarcinomas that had not received any therapy prior to prostatectomy. The macro-dissected CPCTR tumor specimens (n = 59) were reviewed by a CPCTR-associated pathologist, who confirmed the presence of tumor in the specimens. These tissues were collected between 2002 and 2004 at four different sites, with each site providing tissues from both African-American and European-American patients. Information on race/ethnicity (33 African-Americans and 36 European-Americans) was either extracted from medical records (CPCTR) or obtained through an epidemiological questionnaire in which race/ethnicity was self-reported (UMD). Only one patient, a European-American, was also Hispanic. Surrounding non-tumor prostate tissue was collected from 18 of the recruited patients in this study. Of those, 7 were African-American men and 11 were European-American men. We also isolated total RNA from 10 needle biopsy specimens collected from patients at the National Naval Medical Center (one African-American and 9 European-Americans) that did not have prostate cancer. From those, we prepared two RNA pools, each representing 5 patients. Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients, including age at prostatectomy, histology, Gleason score, pathological stage, PSA at diagnosis, tumor size, extraprostatic extension, margin involvement, and seminal vesicle invasion were obtained from CPCTR. For UMD cases, this information was extracted from the medical and pathology records, if available. Written informed consent was obtained from all donors. Tissue collection and study design were approved by the institutional review boards of the participating institutions.

Project description:BackgroundThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients.MethodsWe conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55-80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range = 0-9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months.ResultsAmong 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean = 2.6 vs. 5.5, difference = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p < 0.001). Preferences across the overall sample remained similar such that 54% preferred screening at baseline and 50% after viewing; however, 28% of participants changed their preference (to or away from screening) from baseline to after viewing. We assessed screening behavior for 36 participants who had a primary care visit during the 3-month period following enrollment. Eighteen of 36 preferred screening after decision aid viewing. Of these 18, 10 discussed screening, 8 had a test ordered, and 6 completed LDCT. Among the 18 who preferred no screening, 7 discussed screening, 5 had a test ordered, and 4 completed LDCT.ConclusionsIn primary care patients, a lung cancer screening decision aid improved knowledge regarding screening-related benefits and harms. Screening preferences and behavior were heterogeneous.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov . NCT03077230 (registered retrospectively,November 22, 2016).