Search

92 Background: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common among prostate cancer (PCa) patients. The benefits and risks of the majority of CAM is inconclusive, and thus understanding trends in use is necessary to guide future research. We sought to investigate the prevalence of CAM use and trends in newly diagnosed PCa patients using the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE). Methods: Between 1996-2017, 7,989 CaPSURE subjects completed questionnaires on use of over 50 CAM types. For prevalence, subjects were identified as users if they ever indicated CAM use. We then performed univariate analyses to examine associations between sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with CAM use using chi-squared tests. To observe trends in CAM use among newly diagnosed patients, we limited subject responses to questionnaires completed within 24 months of diagnosis (7,358 subjects). We then grouped subjects by diagnosis year and calculated percent change in use. Results: Overall, 56% of subjects reported any CAM use. Commonly used CAM were multivitamins (40% of participants) and essential fatty acids and omega-3 (24% of participants). Compared to non-CAM users, a greater proportion of CAM users were college-educated, had a higher household income, and lived in the West and Midwest regions of the U.S (all p < 0.01). In exploring trends, we found that overall CAM use increased by +203% (19% to 56%) between those diagnosed in 1996-1999 and 2010-2017. Between those diagnosed in 2005-2009 and 2010-2017, the largest changes in use were seen in acupuncture (+289%), Vitamin D (+204%), selenium (-59%), and vitamin E (-39%). Conclusions: PCa patients reported widespread CAM use in 1996-2017. Multivitamins were the most prevalent CAM, and use of acupuncture and Vitamin D increased dramatically. This information may help to prioritize research needs and reinforces the importance of discussing CAM use with patients, with referral to specialists (e.g., nutritionists) when indicated.

132 Background: We evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of a decision support intervention designed to help men with low-risk prostate cancer consider active surveillance and standard treatments. The intervention incorporated a decision aid with coaching and question-listing. Our decision aid is the first to include data on long-term survival and side effects from men with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance, surgery, and radiation. Methods: To develop the intervention, we conducted focus groups using the Nominal Group Technique. We used a survey instrument from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards to measure the stakeholder endorsement of our intervention. To test the intervention, we administered it to newly diagnosed men with low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason sum < = 3+4, stage < = T2N0M0, PSA < = 10 ng/ml) seen at UCSF. Before and after the intervention, we administered a survey with questions from the Decision Quality Instrument for Prostate Cancer. Our primary outcome was change in knowledge as assessed by two multiple-choice items: How many men diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer will eventually die of prostate cancer? How much would waiting 3 months to make a treatment decision affect chances of survival? Correct answers were: “Most will die of something else” and “A little or not at all.” Results: The development phase involved 6 patients, 1 family member, 2 physicians, and 5 other health care providers and four iterations of the intervention until consensus endorsement was reached. In the pilot test, 57 men consented, and 44 received the decision support intervention and completed surveys at both timepoints. Before the intervention, 30/44 (68%) got both questions right, compared to 36/44 (82%) after the intervention. 82% maintained or achieved perfect scores; 16% answered 1 or more incorrectly both before and after the intervention; and 2% answered both items correctly before, but 1 wrong after. Conclusions: This novel decision support intervention was feasible, and appeared to improve knowledge and informed decision-making. Data will guide the development of a larger scale randomized clinical trial to improve decision quality in men with prostate cancer, in the community. Clinical trial information: NCT02451345.

e16037 Background: Treatments available for prostate cancer (PCa) provide similar survival outcomes, so that quality of life becomes more important in treatment decisions. Different general and dis...

6078 Background: We analyzed the pattern of prostate cancer related and unrelated resource use (RU) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in a long-term cohort of men with prostate cancer (CaP). Methods...