Search

PURPOSE We conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS We conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. RESULTS Our study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS With patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer. Key words: behavior change; implementation; primary health care; prostatic neoplasms; urologists; surveillance; interdisciplinary communication; patient care team; continuity of care; coordination of care; qualitative research, INTRODUCTION For men with low-risk prostate cancer, national guidelines, such as those of the American Urological Association and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, recommend active surveillance as the primary [...]

IntroductionHow to provide practice-integrated decision support to patients remains a challenge. We are testing the effectiveness of a practice-integrated programme targeting patients with a physician recommendation for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.Methods and analysisIn partnership with healthcare teams, we developed 'e-assist: Colon Health', a patient-targeted, postvisit CRC screening decision support programme. The programme is housed within an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded patient portal. It leverages a physician screening recommendation as the cue to action and uses the portal to enrol and intervene with patients. Programme content complements patient-physician discussions by encouraging screening, addressing common questions and assisting with barrier removal. For evaluation, we are using a randomised trial in which patients are randomised to receive e-assist: Colon Health or one of two controls (usual care plus or usual care). Trial participants are average-risk, aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening and received a physician order for stool testing or colonoscopy. Effectiveness will be evaluated by comparing screening use, as documented in the EHR, between trial enrollees in the e-assist: Colon Health and usual care plus (CRC screening information receipt) groups. Secondary outcomes include patient-perceived benefits of, barriers to and support for CRC screening and patient-reported CRC screening intent. The usual care group will be used to estimate screening use without intervention and programme impact at the population level. Differences in outcomes by study arm will be estimated with hierarchical logit models where patients are nested within physicians.Ethics and disseminationAll trial aspects have been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the health system in which the trial is being conducted. We will disseminate findings in diverse scientific venues and will target clinical and quality improvement audiences via other venues. The intervention could serve as a model for filling the gap between physician recommendations and patient action.Trial registration numberNCT02798224; Pre-results.

Objectives To characterize the role of pathology explanation clinics (PECs) in prostate cancer care and determine their impact on patients, urologic oncologists, and quality of care. Methods Semistructured interviews with 10 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were conducted before and after a PEC pilot and at the 1- and 6-month follow-up visits. Information about participants' cancer knowledge and anxiety were collected quantitatively. Documented pathologist communications and proper review of outside biopsy slides were collected. Semistructured interviews were also completed with participating urologic oncologists following the pilot. Results Pathology explanation clinics improved participants' understanding of their diagnosis, cognitively and emotionally supporting them first in their urologic oncology visit and later in making an informed treatment decision. Mean knowledge scores were high, and a minority of participants had prostate cancer anxiety. Urologic oncologists noted improved understanding and reduced anxiety among participants, enabling nuanced conversations about prognosis and management during the visit. By ensuring review of outside biopsy slides and communication of clinically significant or unexpected diagnoses, PECs supported high-quality care and patient safety. Conclusions In this small pilot, PECs positively affected patients with prostate cancer, their clinicians, and the overall care system. Additional studies in larger populations and diverse settings will be useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PTEN loss is a promising prognostic and predictive biomarker in prostate cancer. Because it occurs most commonly via PTEN gene deletion, we developed a clinical-grade, automated, and inexpensive immunohistochemical assay to detect PTEN loss. We studied the sensitivity and specificity of PTEN immunohistochemistry relative to four-color fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for detection of PTEN gene deletion in a multi-institutional cohort of 731 primary prostate tumors. Intact PTEN immunostaining was 91% specific for the absence of PTEN gene deletion (549/602 tumors with two copies of the PTEN gene by FISH showed intact expression of PTEN by immunohistochemistry) and 97% sensitive for the presence of homozygous PTEN gene deletion (absent PTEN protein expression by immunohistochemistry in 65/67 tumors with homozygous deletion). PTEN immunohistochemistry was 65% sensitive for the presence of hemizygous PTEN gene deletion, with protein loss in 40/62 hemizygous tumors. We reviewed the 53 cases where immunohistochemistry showed PTEN protein loss and FISH showed two intact copies of the PTEN gene. On re-review, there was ambiguous immunohistochemistry loss in 6% (3/53) and failure to analyze the same tumor area by both methods in 34% (18/53). Of the remaining discordant cases, 41% (13/32) revealed hemizygous (n=8) or homozygous (n=5) PTEN gene deletion that was focal in most cases (11/13). The remaining 19 cases had two copies of the PTEN gene detected by FISH, representing truly discordant cases. Our automated PTEN immunohistochemistry assay is a sensitive method for detection of homozygous PTEN gene deletions. Immunohistochemistry screening is particularly useful to identify cases with heterogeneous PTEN gene deletion in a subset of tumor glands. Mutations, small insertions, or deletions and/or epigenetic or microRNA-mediated mechanisms may lead to PTEN protein loss in tumors with normal or hemizygous PTEN gene copy number.

BackgroundPTEN is the most commonly deleted tumor suppressor gene in primary prostate cancer (PCa) and its loss is associated with poor clinical outcomes and ERG gene rearrangement.ObjectiveWe tested whether PTEN loss is associated with shorter recurrence-free survival (RFS) in surgically treated PCa patients with known ERG status.Design setting and participantsA genetically validated, automated PTEN immunohistochemistry (IHC) protocol was used for 1275 primary prostate tumors from the Canary Foundation retrospective PCa tissue microarray cohort to assess homogeneous (in all tumor tissue sampled) or heterogeneous (in a subset of tumor tissue sampled) PTEN loss. ERG status as determined by a genetically validated IHC assay was available for a subset of 938 tumors.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisAssociations between PTEN and ERG status were assessed using Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate weighted Cox proportional models for RFS were constructed.Results and limitationsWhen compared to intact PTEN, homogeneous (hazard ratio [HR] 1.66, p = 0.001) but not heterogeneous (HR 1.24, p = 0.14) PTEN loss was significantly associated with shorter RFS in multivariate models. Among ERG-positive tumors, homogeneous (HR 3.07, p < 0.0001) but not heterogeneous (HR 1.46, p = 0.10) PTEN loss was significantly associated with shorter RFS. Among ERG-negative tumors, PTEN did not reach significance for inclusion in the final multivariate models. The interaction term for PTEN and ERG status with respect to RFS did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.11) for the current sample size.ConclusionsThese data suggest that PTEN is a useful prognostic biomarker and that there is no statistically significant interaction between PTEN and ERG status for RFS.Patient summaryWe found that loss of the PTEN tumor suppressor gene in prostate tumors as assessed by tissue staining is correlated with shorter time to prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

BackgroundScreening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, particularly for vulnerable populations. Effective intervention programs are needed to increase screening rates. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to learn about how vulnerable individuals in North Carolina value different aspects of CRC screening programs.MethodsWe enrolled English-speaking adults ages 50-75 at average risk of CRC from rural North Carolina communities with low rates of CRC screening, targeting those with public or no insurance and low incomes. Participants received basic information about CRC screening and potential program features, then completed a 16 task DCE and survey questions that examined preferences for four attributes of screening programs: testing options available; travel time required; money paid for screening or rewards for completing screening; and the portion of the cost of follow-up care paid out of pocket. We used Hierarchical Bayesian methods to calculate individual-level utilities for the 4 attributes' levels and individual-level attribute importance scores. For each individual, the attribute with the highest importance score was considered the most important attribute. Individual utilities were then aggregated to produce mean utilities for each attribute. We also compared DCE-based results with those from direct questions in a post-DCE survey.ResultsWe enrolled 150 adults. Mean age was 57.8 (range 50-74); 55% were women; 76% White and 19% African-American; 87% annual household income under $30,000; and 51% were uninsured. Individuals preferred shorter travel; rewards or small copayments compared with large copayments; programs that included stool testing as an option; and greater coverage of follow-up costs. Follow-up cost coverage was most frequently found to be the most important attribute from the DCE (47%); followed by test reward/copayment (33%). From the survey, proportion of follow-up costs paid was most frequently cited as most important (42% of participants), followed by testing options (32%). There was moderate agreement (45%) in attribute importance between the DCE and the single question in the post-DCE survey.ConclusionsScreening test copayments and follow-up care coverage costs are important program characteristics in this vulnerable, rural population.

IntroductionWe examined race/ethnic differences in treatment-related job loss and the financial impact of treatment-related job loss, in a population-based sample of women diagnosed with breast cancer.MethodsThree thousand two hundred fifty two women with non-metastatic breast cancer diagnosed (August 2005-February 2007) within the Los Angeles County and Detroit Metropolitan Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries, were identified and asked to complete a survey (mean time from diagnosis = 8.9 months). Latina and African American women were over-sampled (n = 2268, eligible response rate 72.1%).ResultsOne thousand one hundred eleven women (69.6%) of working age (

Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. Treatment guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, which involves monitoring for progression, to avoid or delay definitive treatments and their side effects. Despite increased uptake, adherence to surveillance remains a challenge. Methods: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative, virtual interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), with men (15) who were or had been on active surveillance for their low-risk prostate cancer in 2020. Interviews were transcribed and coded under TDF's behavioral theory-based domains. We analyzed domains related to adherence to surveillance using constructivist grounded theory to identify themes influencing decision processes in adherence. Results: The TDF domains of emotion, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, and social influences were most relevant to surveillance adherence-. From these four TDF domains, three themes emerged as underlying decision processes: trust in surveillance as treatment, quality of life, and experiences of self and others. Positive perceptions of these three themes supported adherence while negative perceptions contributed to non-adherence (i.e., not receiving follow-up or stopping surveillance). The relationship between the TDF domains and themes provided a theoretical process describing factors impacting active surveillance adherence for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Conclusions: Men identified key factors impacting active surveillance adherence that provide opportunities for clinical implementation and practice improvement. Future efforts should focus on multi-level interventions that foster trust in surveillance as treatment, emphasize quality of life benefits and enhance patients' interpersonal experiences while on surveillance to optimize adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]