Search

BACKGROUND: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. RESULTS: Participants (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. CONCLUSION: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

BACKGROUND: Image-guided approaches improve the diagnostic yield of prostate biopsy and frequently modify estimates of clinical risk. To better understand the impact of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRF-TB) on risk assessment, we compared the distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groupings, as calculated from MRF-TB vs systematic biopsy alone. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 713 patients who underwent MRF-TB from January 2017 to July 2021. The primary study objective was to compare the distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groupings obtained using MRF-TB (systematic + targeted) vs systematic biopsy. RESULTS: Systematic biopsy alone classified 10% of samples as very low risk and 18.7% of samples as low risk, while MRF-TB classified 10.5% of samples as very low risk and 16.1% of samples as low risk. Among patients with benign findings, low-risk disease, and favorable/intermediate-risk disease on systematic biopsy alone, 4.6% of biopsies were reclassified as high risk or very high risk on MRF-TB. Of 207 patients choosing active surveillance, 64 (31%), 91 (44%), 42 (20.2%), and 10 (4.8%) patients were classified as having very low-risk, low-risk, and favorable/intermediate-risk and unfavorable/intermediate-risk criteria, respectively. When using systematic biopsy alone, 204 patients (28.7%) were classified as having either very low-risk and low-risk disease per NCCN guidelines, while 190 men (26.6%) received this classification when using MRF-TB. CONCLUSION: The addition of MRF-TB to systematic biopsy may change eligibility for active surveillance in only a small proportion of patients with prostate cancer. Our findings support the need for routine use of quantitative risk assessment over risk groupings to promote more nuanced decision making for localized cancer.

BACKGROUND: Americans Indians and Alaska Natives face disparities in cancer care with lower rates of screening, limited treatment access, and worse survival. Prostate cancer treatment access and patterns of care remain unknown. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data to compare incidence, primary treatment, and cancer-specific mortality across American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander, Black, and White patients. Baseline characteristics included prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score (GS), tumor stage, 9-level Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment risk score, county characteristics, and health-care provider density. Primary outcomes were first definitive treatment and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). RESULTS: American Indian and Alaska Native patients were more frequently diagnosed with higher PSA, GS greater than or equal or 8, stage greater than or equal to cT3, high-risk disease overall (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment risk score ≥ 6), and metastases at diagnosis than any other group. Adjusting for age, PSA, GS, and clinical stage, American Indian or Alaska Native patients with localized prostate cancer were more likely to undergo external beam radiation than radical prostatectomy and had the highest rates of no documented treatment. Five-year PCSM was higher among American Indian and Alaska Natives than any other racial group. However, after multivariable adjustment accounting for clinical and pathologic factors, county-level demographics, and provider density, American Indian and Alaska Native patient PCSM hazards were no different than those of White patients. CONCLUSIONS: American Indian or Alaska Native patients have more advanced prostate cancer, lower rates of definitive treatment, higher mortality, and reside in areas of less specialty care. Disparities in access appear to account for excess risks of PCSM. Focused health policy interventions are needed to address these disparities.

This cross-sectional analysis examined online US crowdfunding campaigns from 2010–2018. Campaigns including prostate, breast, bladder, kidney, cervical, uterine, ovarian, testicular, oral, and thyroid cancers were included. Multivariable modeling was utilized to examine predictive factors for successful campaigns. A total of 1830 online cancer campaigns were included in the final analysis. Breast cancer was estimated to be the most frequent online campaign type (n = 3682), followed by cervical (n = 492), kidney (n = 475), ovarian (n = 460), and prostate cancers (n = 382). Breast cancer campaigns generated the most total funding ($15.3 million). In adjusted models, breast cancers generated significantly more donations per campaign than any other cancer. There was no difference in the average amount of funds raised per campaign by most cancer types, except for thyroid (19.4% less than breast, p < 0.001). Friend-authored campaigns generated more funding than self- and family-authored. Male cancers are under-represented, and breast cancer campaigns are disproportionately over-represented in online medical crowdfunding and generate more donations than many other cancers. Gendered differences in cancer crowdfunding are likely multifactorial and may be influenced by social networks and public health campaigns.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic yielded rapid telehealth deployment to improve healthcare access, including for surgical patients.MethodsWe conducted a secret shopper study to assess telehealth availability for new patient and follow-up colorectal cancer care visits in a random national sample of Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals and investigated predictive facility-level factors.ResultsOf 397 hospitals, 302 (76%) offered telehealth for colorectal cancer patients (75% for follow-up, 42% for new patients). For new patients, NCI-designated Cancer Programs offered telehealth more frequently than Integrated Network (OR: 0.20, p = 0.01), Academic Comprehensive (OR: 0.18, p = 0.001), Comprehensive Community (OR: 0.10, p

ObjectiveTo assess whether private equity (PE) acquisitions of urology practices were associated with changes in Medicare payments and patient volume.MethodsWe identified PE acquisitions of urology practices through financial databases, industry news outlets, practice websites, and Google search. Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service's Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (2012-2019), we conducted descriptive statistics and trends analysis to examine whether PE acquisition was associated with changes in Medicare payments and patient volume in comparison to non-PE affiliated urologists within the same states.ResultsWe identified PE acquisitions of 10 independent urology practices across 6 states during the study period. In the preacquisition period, urologists later joining private-equity groups received greater mean inflation-adjusted Medicare payments ($246,977 vs $160,038; P

ObjectiveTo characterize appointment access for Medicaid-insured patients seeking care at urology practices affiliated with private equity firms in light of the recent national trends in practice consolidation.MethodsWe identified 214 urology offices affiliated with private equity firms that were geographically matched with 231 non-private equity affiliated urology offices. Using a standardized script, researchers posed as an adult patient with either Medicaid or commercial insurance in the clinical setting of new onset, painless hematuria. The primary outcome was whether the patient's insurance was accepted for an appointment. The secondary outcome was appointment wait time.ResultsWe conducted 815 appointment inquiry calls to 214 private equity (PE) and 231 non-PE-affiliated urology offices across 12 states. Appointment availability was higher for commercially-insured patients (99.0%; 95% CI: 98.1%-99.9%) vs Medicaid-insured patients (59.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 55.0%-64.6%) (P < .0001). Medicaid acceptance was higher at non-PE affiliated (66.8%; CI 60.4%-73.2%) than PE-affiliated practices (52.1%; 95% CI 45.0%-59.2%) (P = .003). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, state Medicaid expansion status (odds ratio [OR] 2.20; CI 1.14-4.28; P = .020) was independently associated with Medicaid appointment availability, whereas PE-affiliation (OR 0.55; CI 0.37-0.83; P = .004) was independently associated with lower Medicaid access. Appointment wait times did not differ significantly for commercially-insured vs Medicaid patients (19.2 vs 20.1 days; p = .59), but PE-affiliated practices offered shorter mean wait times than non-PE offices (17.5 vs 21.4 days; P = .017).ConclusionAccess disparities for urologic evaluation in patients with Medicaid insurance at urology practices and were more pronounced at private equity acquired practices.

BackgroundAlthough the Decipher genomic classifier has been validated as a prognostic tool for several prostate cancer endpoints, little is known about its role in assessing the risk of biopsy reclassification for patients on active surveillance, a key event that often triggers treatment.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between Decipher genomic classifier scores and biopsy Gleason upgrading among patients on active surveillance.Design setting and participantsThis was a retrospective cohort study among patients with low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent biopsy-based Decipher testing as part of their clinical care.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisWe evaluated the association between the Decipher score and any increase in biopsy Gleason grade group (GG) using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for models comprising baseline clinical variables with or without the Decipher score.Results and limitationsWe identified 133 patients for inclusion with a median age of 67.7 yr and median prostate-specific of 5.6 ng/ml. At enrollment, 75.9% had GG1 and 24.1% had GG2 disease. Forty-three patients experienced biopsy upgrading. On multivariable logistic regression, the Decipher score was significantly associated with biopsy upgrading (odds ratio 1.37 per 0.10 unit increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.79; p = 0.02). The Decipher score was associated with upgrading among patients with biopsy GG 1 disease, but not GG2 disease. The discriminative ability of a clinical model (AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.74) was improved by integration of the Decipher score (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.80).ConclusionsThe Decipher genomic classifier score was associated with short-term biopsy Gleason upgrading among patients on active surveillance.Patient summaryThe results from this study indicate that among patients with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance, those with higher Decipher scores were more likely to have higher-grade disease found over time. These findings indicate that the Decipher test might be useful for guiding the intensity of monitoring during active surveillance, such as more frequent biopsy for patients with higher scores.

PurposeThe risk of prostate cancer among persons living with human immunodeficiency virus (PWH) is not well understood and may be obscured by different opportunities for detection.Materials and methodsWe identified 123,472 (37,819 PWH and 85,653 comparators) men enrolled in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study, a prospective national cohort of PWH and demographically matched, uninfected comparators in 2000-2015. We calculated rates of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status and fit multivariable Poisson models comparing the rates of PSA testing, prostate biopsy, and cancer incidence.ResultsThe mean age at enrollment was 52 years. Rates of PSA testing were lower in PWH versus uninfected comparators (0.58 versus 0.63 tests per person-year). Adjusted rates of PSA screening and prostate biopsy were lower among PWH (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-0.84 and IRR 0.79 95% CI 0.74-0.83, respectively). The crude IRR for prostate cancer was lower in PWH versus controls (IRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97). However, in a multivariable model adjusting for PSA testing, cancer incidence was similar by HIV status (IRR=0.93, 95% CI 0.86-1.01, p=0.08). Among patients who received a prostate biopsy, incidence of prostate cancer did not differ significantly by HIV status (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98-1.15, p=0.15). Among incident cancers, there were significant differences in the distributions of Gleason grade (p=0.05), but not cancer stage (p=0.14) by HIV status.ConclusionsWhen accounting for less PSA testing among PWH, the incidence of prostate cancer was similar by HIV status. These findings suggest that less screening contributed to lower observed incidence of prostate cancer in PWH.

BackgroundCrowdfunding is increasingly used to offset the financial burdens of illness and health care. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated infodemic, the role of crowdfunding to support controversial COVID-19 stances is unknown.ObjectiveWe sought to examine COVID-19-related crowdfunding focusing on the funding of alternative treatments not endorsed by major medical entities, including campaigns with an explicit antivaccine, antimask, or antihealth care stances.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis of GoFundMe campaigns for individuals requesting donations for COVID-19 relief. Campaigns were identified by key word and manual review to categorize campaigns into "Traditional treatments," "Alternative treatments," "Business-related," "Mandate," "First Response," and "General." For each campaign, we extracted basic narrative, engagement, and financial variables. Among those that were manually reviewed, the additional variables of "mandate type," "mandate stance," and presence of COVID-19 misinformation within the campaign narrative were also included. COVID-19 misinformation was defined as "false or misleading statements," where cited evidence could be provided to refute the claim. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study cohort.ResultsA total of 30,368 campaigns met the criteria for final analysis. After manual review, we identified 53 campaigns (0.17%) seeking funding for alternative medical treatment for COVID-19, including popularized treatments such as ivermectin (n=14, 26%), hydroxychloroquine (n=6, 11%), and vitamin D (n=4, 7.5%). Moreover, 23 (43%) of the 53 campaigns seeking support for alternative treatments contained COVID-19 misinformation. There were 80 campaigns that opposed mandating masks or vaccination, 48 (60%) of which contained COVID-19 misinformation. Alternative treatment campaigns had a lower median amount raised (US $1135) compared to traditional (US $2828) treatments (P

PurposeAlthough circumcision is the most commonly performed surgery in males, less is known about the incidence and indications of adult circumcision. In this study, we aim to present the incidence of adult circumcision across the United States.MethodsUsing IBM MarketScan® Commercial Database from 2015 to 2018, we obtained claims for circumcision in men between 18 and 64 years of age. We calculated the incidence of adult circumcision over the study period and across the United States. We also collected data on indications for surgery using International Classification of Diseases codes.ResultsWe identified a total of 12,298 claims for adult circumcisions. The mean age was 39 (±12.9) years. The average incidence rates remained relatively constant from 98.1 per 100,000 person-years in 2015 to 98.2 per 100,000 person-years in 2018 (Δ+0.1%). The age-standardized incidence rates varied significantly across the United States (from 0 to 194.8 per 100,000 person-years) with South Dakota having the highest rate. The most common indications for adult circumcision were phimosis (52.5%), routine/ritual circumcision (28.7%), phimosis + balanitis/balanoposthitis (6.8%), balanitis (3.8%) and balanoposthitis (2.6%), and significantly varied by age groups.ConclusionThis study suggested a wide geographic variation in rates of adult circumcision between states with highest incidences in the Northeast United States. Future studies can identify the underlying causes for the observed variations.

Background: we aimed to characterize the financial needs expressed through online crowdfunding for urologic cancers. Methods: the data used in this study came from the online crowdfunding platform GoFundMe.com. Using an automated software method, we extracted data for campaigns related to urologic cancers. Subsequently, four independent investigators reviewed all extracted data on prostate, bladder, kidney and testicular cancer. We analyzed campaigns’ basic characteristics, goals, fundraising, type of treatment and factors associated with successful campaigns. Results: in total, we identified 2126 individual campaigns, which were related to direct treatment costs (34%), living expenses (17%) or both (48%). Median fundraising amounts were greatest for testicular cancer. Campaigns for both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) (median $11,000) or CAM alone (median $8527) achieved higher fundraising totals compared with those for conventional treatments alone (median $5362) (p < 0.01). The number of social media shares was independently associated with campaign success and highest quartile of fundraising. Conclusions: using an automated web-based approach, we identified and characterized online crowdfunding for urologic cancer care. These findings indicated a diverse range of patient needs related to urologic care and factors related to campaigns’ success.

For men with low-stage prostate cancer (PCa) managed with active surveillance (AS), clinical thresholds for intervention have not been definitively established. We aimed to evaluate whether the magnitude of quantitative risk change may serve as a refined end point. We identified 735 men managed with AS at our institution who received a minimum of two biopsies and who were followed for a median of 52 mo. We described the relative changes in the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score from diagnosis to last follow-up and evaluated the proportion of patients experiencing changes in constituent clinical variables. Among patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP), the association between change in CAPRA score and the occurrence of adverse pathology (pT3a or higher and/or primary Gleason pattern ≥4) was assessed using logistic regression models. Among patients ultimately treated with RP (n=196), unit increases in CAPRA score from diagnosis were associated with the occurrence of adverse pathology (odds ratio: 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.04; p

OBJECTIVE:To compare the predictions of dominant Gleason pattern ≥ 4 or non-organ confined disease with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2) with or without proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (1H-MRSI). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty-nine men underwent 3-tesla endorectal multiparametric MRI including 1H-MRSI and prostatectomy. Two radiologists assigned PI-RADS v2 and 1H-MRSI scores to index lesions. Statistical analyses used logistic regressions, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and 2x2 tables for diagnostic accuracies. RESULTS:The sensitivity and specificity of 1H-MRSI and PI-RADS v2 for high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) were 85.7% (57.1%) and 92.9% (100%), and 56% (68.0%) and 24.0% (24.0%). The sensitivity and specificity of 1H-MRSI and PI-RADS v2 for extra-prostatic extension (EPE) were 64.0% (40%) and 20.0% (48%), and 50.0% (57.1%) and 71.4% (64.3%). The area under the ROC curves (AUC) for prediction of high-grade prostate cancer were 0.65 and 0.61 for PI-RADS v2 and 0.72 and 0.70 when combined with 1H-MRSI (readers 1 and 2, p = 0.04 and 0.21). For prediction of EPE the AUC were 0.54 and 0.60 for PI-RADS v2 and 0.55 and 0.61 when combined with 1H-MRSI (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION:1H-MRSI might improve the discrimination of high-grade prostate cancer when combined to PI-RADS v2, particularly for PI-RADS v2 score 4 lesions, but it does not affect the prediction of EPE.