Search

Objective To understand the informational needs during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer from the perspectives of patients and providers. Methods We conducted seven focus groups with 37 AS patients in two urban clinical settings, and 24 semi-structured interviews with a national sample of providers. Transcripts were analyzed using applied thematic analysis, and themes were organized using descriptive matrix analyses. Results We identified six themes related to informational needs during AS: 1) more information on prostate cancer (biopsy features, prognosis), 2) more information on active surveillance (difference from watchful waiting, testing protocol), 3) more information on alternative management options (complementary medicine, lifestyle modification), 4) greater variety of resources (multiple formats, targeting different audiences), 5) more social support and interaction, and 6) verified integrity of information (trusted, multidisciplinary and secure). Conclusions Patients and providers described numerous drawbacks to existing prostate cancer resources and a variety of unmet needs including information on prognosis, AS testing protocols, and lifestyle modification. They also expressed a need for different types of resources, including interaction and unbiased information. Practical implications These results are useful to inform the design of future resources for men undergoing AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze the association between US urology department Twitter presence and U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) reputation scores, to examine the content, informational value, and intended audience of these platforms, and to identify objectives for Twitter use.Materials and Methods: We identified Twitter accounts for urology departments scored in the 2016-2017 USNWR. Correlation coefficients were calculated between Twitter metrics (number of followers, following, tweets, and Klout influence scores) with USNWR reputation scores. We also performed a detailed content analysis of urology department tweets during a 6-month period to characterize the content. Finally, we distributed a survey to the urology department accounts via Twitter, inquiring who administers the content, and their objectives for Twitter use.Results: Among 42 scored urology departments with Twitter accounts, the median number of followers, following, and tweets were 337, 193, and 115, respectively. All of these Twitter metrics had a statistically significant positive correlation with reputation scores (P <.05). Content analyses revealed that most tweets were about conferences, education, and publications, targeting the general public or urologic community. Survey results revealed that the primary reason for twitter use among urology departments was visibility and reputation, and urologists are considered the most important target audience.Conclusion: There is statistically significant correlation between Twitter activity and USNWR reputation scores for urology departments. Our results suggest that Twitter provides a novel mechanism for urology departments to communicate about academic and educational topics, and social media engagement can enhance reputation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To understand the informational needs during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer from the perspectives of patients and providers.Methods: We conducted seven focus groups with 37 AS patients in two urban clinical settings, and 24 semi-structured interviews with a national sample of providers. Transcripts were analyzed using applied thematic analysis, and themes were organized using descriptive matrix analyses.Results: We identified six themes related to informational needs during AS: 1) more information on prostate cancer (biopsy features, prognosis), 2) more information on active surveillance (difference from watchful waiting, testing protocol), 3) more information on alternative management options (complementary medicine, lifestyle modification), 4) greater variety of resources (multiple formats, targeting different audiences), 5) more social support and interaction, and 6) verified integrity of information (trusted, multidisciplinary and secure).Conclusions: Patients and providers described numerous drawbacks to existing prostate cancer resources and a variety of unmet needs including information on prognosis, AS testing protocols, and lifestyle modification. They also expressed a need for different types of resources, including interaction and unbiased information.Practical Implications: These results are useful to inform the design of future resources for men undergoing AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: According to current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, routine imagining for staging low-risk prostate cancer is not recommended. However, extensive overuse of guideline-discordant imaging continues to persist. Incidental findings are common on imaging and little is known about the optimal management. Rates of incidental findings vs. false positive diagnosis from inappropriate imaging are poorly understood and have yet to be quantified for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.Objective: To determine the frequency of positive radiologic findings in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer during initial staging at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients' medical records from the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System for diagnosis from 2005 to 2015. We reviewed each individual's prebiopsy prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, and clinical stage. We also determined if imaging obtained yielded a false positive, incidental finding, or if metastatic disease occurred within the 6 months following initial diagnosis.Results: There were 414 men, who were classified as low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer and underwent inappropriate staging imaging of 4,306 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Of these 414 men, 178 (43%) had additional follow-up imaging for positive findings. We calculated an incidental finding rate of 10% and a false positive rate of 38% for patients. Five (1%) patients had metastatic disease.Conclusion: Despite guideline recommendations, imaging overuse remains an issue for low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. The false positive rate found in this analysis is alarmingly high at 38%. This use of scans is burdensome to the healthcare system and patient. This study highlights the frequency of inappropriate imaging and its negative consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]