Patient reported factors influencing the decision-making process of men with localised prostate cancer when considering Active Surveillance-A systematic review and thematic synthesis

Personalized Dynamic Prediction Model for Biopsy Timing in Patients With Prostate Cancer During Active Surveillance

Importance

Active surveillance (AS) for patients with prostate cancer (PC) often includes fixed repeat prostate biopsies that do not account for the varying risk of reclassification to significant disease. Given the invasive nature and potential complications of biopsies, a personalized approach is needed to balance the burden of biopsies with the risk of missing disease progression.

Objective

To develop and externally validate a dynamic model that predicts an individual's risk of PC reclassification during AS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prognostic study developed a dynamic prediction model using data from the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study, which was initiated in 2006. Follow-up was truncated until April 2023. External validation was conducted using cohorts from the world's largest centralized AS database, the Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative database. The PRIAS study is a multicenter, prospective, web-based cohort study monitoring patients undergoing AS, involving more than 175 academic, nonacademic, and private centers across 23 countries worldwide. For the development and external validation of the model, all patients diagnosed with Grade Group 1 PC who underwent at least 1 baseline or follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 1 follow-up biopsy were included. Data were analyzed from September 2023 to January 2024.

Exposures

AS, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, MRI, and prostate biopsies according to a fixed follow-up schedule.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A joint model for longitudinal and time-to-event data was used to predict reclassification to Grade Group 2 or greater on repeat biopsy using predefined baseline and repeated clinical characteristics. Performance was assessed using time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and negative predictive value.

Results

The development cohort included 2512 patients (median [IQR] age, 65 [59-69] years). Characteristics significantly associated with a higher risk of reclassification were increased age, higher PSA and velocity, lower prostate volume, a suspicious lesion on MRI, and no previous negative biopsy findings. Depending on the threshold and time point used, the model demonstrated a negative predictive value of 86% to 97%. External validation included 3199 patients from 9 other cohorts. The time-dependent area under the curve ranged from 0.81 to 0.84 in the development cohort and 0.52 to 0.90 at external validation.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this prognostic study, the developed dynamic risk model effectively identified patients at low risk of PC reclassification during AS. After prospective validation, this model may support personalized, risk-based AS and reduce the burden of unnecessary biopsies.

The Experiences and Perspectives of Persons with Prostate Cancer and Their Partners: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Using Meta-Ethnography

Prostate cancer affects one in nine men, so understanding patients' and their partners experiences is crucial for developing effective treatments. The purpose of this review was to synthesis and report the experiences and views of persons with prostate cancer and their partners.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) was conducted following the eMERGe reporting guideline. Six databases were searched for the relevant literature, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool was used for quality appraisal.

RESULTS

A total of 1372 papers were identified, and 36 met the inclusion criteria. Four themes emerged: quality of life, relationships and dynamics, treatment journey and survivorship and aftercare.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer's impact on patients and partners is significant, requiring comprehensive support, holistic care, tailored assistance, and research into therapies to minimize adverse effects and address emotional distress and relationship strain. Prostate cancer treatment causes physical changes, triggering feelings of loss and grief, and affects coping mechanisms. Drawing on emotional support and education is vital for boosting confidence and resilience, as many patients and partners face fears of recurrence and lifestyle changes, highlighting the need for tailored information and presurgery support.

'It Just Makes Sense to Me': A qualitative study exploring patient decision-making and experiences with prostate MRI during active surveillance for prostate cancer

Introduction

Although prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the diagnosis, staging and active surveillance of prostate cancer, little is known about patient perspectives on MRI.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Interviews focused on experiences with and knowledge of prostate MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy during active surveillance. We purposively sampled patients who received prostate MRI as part of their clinical care, conducted interviews until reaching thematic saturation and performed conventional content analysis to analyse data.

Results

Twenty patients aged 51-79 years (mean = 68 years) participated in the study. At diagnosis, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and three (15%) had a grade group 2 tumour. Overall, participants viewed prostate MRI as a valuable tool that accurately localizes and monitors prostate cancer over time, and they considered prostate MRI central to active surveillance monitoring. We identified five thematic categories related to MRI use: (1) the experiential aspects of undergoing an MRI scan; (2) the experience of visualizing one's own prostate and prostate cancer; (3) adequacy of provider explanations of MRI results; (4) confidence in prostate MRI in decision-making; and (5) the role of prostate MRI in longitudinal follow-up, including an interest in using MRI to modify the timing of, or replace, prostate biopsy.

Conclusion

Patients value prostate MRI as a tool that enhances their confidence in the initial diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. This work can inform future studies to optimize patient experience, education and counselling during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Patient experiences with tissue-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer

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.

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area.

RESULTS

Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.

Active surveillance versus treatment in low-risk DCIS: Women's preferences in the LORD-trial

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer (IBC), but most DCIS lesions remain indolent. However, guidelines recommend surgery, often supplemented by radiotherapy. This implies overtreatment of indolent DCIS. The non-randomised patient preference LORD-trial tests whether active surveillance (AS) for low-risk DCIS is safe, by giving women with low-risk DCIS a choice between AS and conventional treatment (CT). Here, we aim to describe how participants are distributed among both trial arms, identify their motives for their preference, and assess factors associated with their choice.

METHODS

Data were extracted from baseline questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the distribution and characteristics of participants; thematic analyses to extract self-reported reasons for the choice of trial arm, and multivariable logistic regression analyses to investigate associations between patient characteristics and chosen trial arm.

RESULTS

Of 377 women included, 76% chose AS and 24% CT. Most frequently cited reasons for AS were "treatment is not (yet) necessary" (59%) and trust in the AS-plan (39%). Reasons for CT were cancer worry (51%) and perceived certainty (29%). Women opting for AS more often had lower educational levels (OR 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.93) and more often reported experiencing shared decision making (OR 2.71; 95% CI, 1.37-5.37) than women choosing CT.

CONCLUSION

The LORD-trial is the first to offer women with low-risk DCIS a choice between CT and AS. Most women opted for AS and reported high levels of trust in the safety of AS. Their preferences highlight the necessity to establish the safety of AS for low-risk DCIS.

Eliciting men's preferences for decision-making relative to treatments of localized prostate cancer with a good or moderate prognosis

PURPOSE

In diseases where there is no real consensus regarding treatment modalities, promoting shared decision-making can contribute to improving safety and quality of care. This is the case in low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer (PC) treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the preferences guiding men's decisions regarding the characteristics of the treatment strategies for PC to help physicians adopt a more patient-centered approach.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter study used a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The attributes and the modalities were identified from a qualitative study and a literature review. Relative preferences were estimated using a logistic regression model. Interaction terms (demographic, clinical and socio-economic characteristics) were added to the model to assess heterogeneity in preferences.

RESULTS

652 men were enrolled in the study and completed a questionnaire with 12 pairs of hypothetical therapeutic alternatives between which they had to choose. Men's choices were significantly negatively influenced by the risk of impotence and urinary incontinence, death, and the length and frequency of care. They preferred treatments with a rescue possibility in case of deterioration or recurrence and the use of innovative technology. Surprisingly, the possibility of undergoing prostate ablation negatively influenced their choice. The results also highlighted differences in trade-offs according to socio-economic level.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the importance of considering patients' preferences in the decision-making process. It appears essential to better understand these preferences to allow physicians to improve communication and promote case-by-case decision-making.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Past, Current, and Future Trends

In response to the rising incidence of indolent, low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the 1990s, active surveillance (AS) emerged as a treatment modality to combat overtreatment by delaying or avoiding unnecessary definitive treatment and its associated morbidity. AS consists of regular monitoring of PSA levels, digital rectal exams, medical imaging, and prostate biopsies, so that definitive treatment is only offered when deemed necessary. This paper provides a narrative review of the evolution of AS since its inception and an overview of its current landscape and challenges. Although AS was initially only performed in a study setting, numerous studies have provided evidence for the safety and efficacy of AS which has led guidelines to recommend it as a treatment option for patients with low-risk PCa. For intermediate-risk disease, AS appears to be a viable option for those with favourable clinical characteristics. Over the years, the inclusion criteria, follow-up schedule and triggers for definitive treatment have evolved based on the results of various large AS cohorts. Given the burdensome nature of repeat biopsies, risk-based dynamic monitoring may further reduce overtreatment by avoiding repeat biopsies in selected patients.

Patient Preferences and Satisfaction With Decisions in Stage-III Melanoma: A Mixed Methods Study

INTRODUCTION

Rapid accumulation of data in surgical and medical oncology has changed the treatment landscape for patients with stage-III melanoma, introducing options for active surveillance and adjuvant systemic therapy; however, these options have increased the complexity of decision making.

METHODS

We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study consisting of surveys and semistructured interviews among patients diagnosed with stage-III melanoma at a single institution from August 2019 to December 2021. The survey included the validated 30-point satisfaction with decision scale (SWD). The interview guide was developed using a shared decision-making framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-six participants completed the survey (response rate 40%) and 17 were interviewed. In the survey, 69% of participants reported receiving a recommendation for active surveillance and 23% received a recommendation for adjuvant systemic therapy. Overall SWD for treatment of the lymph node basin and adjuvant systemic therapy was high at 27.94 and 26.21 out of 30, respectively. In the interviews, participants stressed the importance of the physician's recommendation as well as the desire to minimize intervention and avoid potential side effects in their decisions. However, they demonstrated persistent knowledge gaps in their understanding of the treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

Like other cancer types where the option for active surveillance exists, the physician's recommendation is influential in shaping decisions for patients with stage-III melanoma. Physicians can improve shared decision making in this complex treatment landscape through improved multidisciplinary collaboration and mechanisms for ensuring patients' understanding of the treatment options.

Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Data

Simple Summary

AS is an option for the initial management of selected patients with intermediate-risk PC. The proper way to predict which men will have an aggressive clinical course or indolent PC who would benefit from AS has not been unveiled. Genetics and MRI can help in the decision-making, but it remains unclear which men would benefit from which tests. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. Large series and a few RCTs are under investigation, and more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk PC. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions.

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) is a monitoring strategy to avoid or defer curative treatment, minimizing the side effects of radiotherapy and prostatectomy without compromising survival. AS in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) has increasingly become used. There is heterogeneity in intermediate-risk PC patients. Some of them have an aggressive clinical course and require active treatment, while others have indolent disease and may benefit from AS. However, intermediate-risk patients have an increased risk of metastasis, and the proper way to select the best candidates for AS is unknown. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. A few large series and randomized trials are under investigation. Therefore, more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions.