Cardiovascular Preventive Care and Coordination of Care in Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Multi-Institutional Prospective Study

Assessing the effects of prostate cancer therapies on cardiovascular health

Contemporary advances in prostate cancer treatments have markedly improved patient outcomes, yet concerns persist regarding the increased cardiovascular toxicity of prostate cancer treatments, which is multifaceted. Local therapies entail non-negligible cardiovascular risks. The effects of androgen deprivation therapy, which is pivotal in disease management, on cardiovascular health remains contentious, with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists showing varying cardiovascular outcomes. Despite the ongoing controversy over the cardiovascular risks of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists versus agonists, current evidence does not support favouring one over the other based solely on cardiovascular risk. Combination therapy with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and androgen deprivation therapy shows additive cardiovascular risks, but robust comparative data are lacking. Chemotherapies such as docetaxel and cabazitaxel, along with emerging targeted therapies and radiopharmaceuticals, are associated with varied cardiovascular risks, necessitating personalized patient assessment. Clinicians should adhere to cardio-oncology guidelines when prescribing therapeutic agents, especially for patients with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. Optimal monitoring and management strategies are essential to mitigate cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Care Coordination Instrument for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Cancer requires interdisciplinary intersectoral care. The Care Coordination Instrument (CCI) captures patients' perspectives on cancer care coordination. We aimed to translate, adapt, and validate the CCI for Germany (CCI German version).

METHODS

The original English version contains 29 items in three domains, measured on a 4-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Validation was conducted in three phases (mixed methods): (I) translation; (II) adaptation: pilot testing and revision in an iterative process using semi-structured, cognitive interviews with patients and professionals (physicians specializing in cancer), with interviews transcribed and qualitatively analyzed by inductive coding; and (III) validation: quantitative validation performed online (LimeSurvey), of at least 80 German patients, each with common cancer (breast, prostate) and rare cancer (different entities), with examination of factor structure (factor analysis) and determination of internal consistency (Cronbach's α) as well as potential influencing factors such as gender, education, or migration background (multivariable regression).

RESULTS

Six patients and six professionals tested the translated instrument for comprehensibility, readability, and acceptability. Two items were consistently problematic for interviewees. A 31-item version (29 items + 2 alternative items) was validated in 192 patients. The alternative items had a higher variance in response behavior and were better understood; therefore, they replaced the two problematic items. However, the three original domains could not be confirmed statistically. Exploratively, a two-factorial structure (with cross-loadings) emerged, which can be interpreted as "communication/information" (16 items) and "need-based navigation" (17 items). Overall, the instrument had a high internal consistency (total score α = 0.931, M = 47.16, SD = 14.25; communication/information α = 0.924, M = 30.14, SD = 8.93; need-based navigation α = 0.868, M = 23.99, SD = 8.37). Significant factors on the care coordination score are treatment location (hospital vs. private practice oncologist M = -9.83 score points, p = 0.011) and gender (women vs. men M = 8.92 score points, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The CCI German version is a valid instrument for measuring patients' perceptions of cancer care coordination. Both domains reflect important aspects of care. The sensitivity of the CCI should be examined in future studies involving different cancer entities.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy/Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitor Treatments for Prostate Cancer: Pathophysiology and Review of Effects on Cardiovascular Disease

Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of systemic management for prostate cancer but is associated with multiple adverse effects that must be considered during treatment. These effects occur because of the profound hypogonadism that is induced from lack of testosterone or due to the medications used in the treatment or in combination with androgen receptor signaling inhibitors. This article critically reviews the associations between androgen deprivation therapy, androgen receptor signaling inhibitors, and cardiovascular complications such as prolonged QT interval, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral arterial occlusive disease. These unfavorable outcomes reinforce the need for regular cardiovascular screening of patients undergoing androgen deprivation for the management of prostate cancer.

Cardiometabolic healthcare for men with prostate cancer: an MD Anderson Cancer Center experience

BACKGROUND

Men diagnosed with prostate cancer are at risk for competing morbidity and mortality due to cardiometabolic disease given their advanced age at diagnosis, high prevalence of pre-existing risk factors, and receipt of systemic therapy that targets the androgen receptor (AR). Expert panels have stressed the importance of cardiometabolic risk assessment in the clinic and proposed evaluating key risks using consensus paradigms. Yet, there is a gap in real-world evidence for implementation of comprehensive cardiometabolic care for men with prostate cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, descriptive study of patients with prostate cancer who were referred and evaluated in the Healthy Heart Program at MD Anderson Cancer Center, which was established to mitigate cardiometabolic risks in men with prostate cancer. Patients were seen by a cardiologist and exercise physiologist to evaluate and manage cardiometabolic risk factors, including blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, tobacco use, and coronary artery disease, concurrent with management of their cancer by a medical oncologist.

RESULTS

From December 2018 through October 2021, the Healthy Heart Program enrolled 55 men with prostate cancer, out of which 35 had biochemical, locoregional recurrence or distant metastases, while all received at least a single dose of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analog. Ninety-three percent of men were overweight or obese, and 51% had an intermediate or high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at 10 years based on the pooled cohort equation. Most men had an overlap of two or more cardiometabolic diseases (84%), and 25% had an overlap of at least 4 cardiometabolic diseases. Although uncontrolled hypertension and hyperlipidemia were common among the cohort (45% and 26%, respectively), only 29% of men followed up with the clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with prostate cancer have a high burden of concurrent cardiometabolic risk factors. At a tertiary cancer center, the Healthy Heart Program was implemented to address this need, yet the utility of the program was limited by poor follow-up possibly due to outside cardiometabolic care and inconvenient appointment logistics, a lack of cardiometabolic labs at the time of visits, and telemedicine visits.

Cardiovascular disease prevention and management of pre-existent cardiovascular disease in a cohort of prostate cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a common cause of mortality among men with prostate cancer. However, receipt of preventive care and management of pre-existent CVD has not been well studied in prostate cancer survivors.

METHODS

This study examined a prospective cohort of men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2013 throughout North Carolina linked to Medicare and private insurance claims and clinical data from the Veterans Affairs (VA). In patients without pre-existent CVD, the primary outcome was a composite measure of annual preventive care (blood glucose screening, cholesterol level testing, and ≥ 1 primary care provider visit). In patients with pre-existent CVD, the primary outcome was annual cardiologist visit; blood glucose, cholesterol level testing, and primary care visits were also assessed.

RESULTS

Our sample comprised 492 patients successfully linked to insurance claims and/or VA data, among whom 103 (20.9%) had pre-existent CVD. Receipt of preventive care declined from 52.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.7 to 57.6%) during the first year after prostate cancer diagnosis to 40.8% (95% CI: 33.7 to 48.4%) during the third year. Among patients with pre-existent CVD, only 23.4% (95% CI: 13.6 to 37.2%) visited a cardiologist in all 3 years. Black men were more likely than White men to visit a cardiologist the first year (risk ratio [RR] = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.71).

CONCLUSION

In a population-based cohort of prostate cancer survivors, receipt of CVD preventive care declined over time, and frequency of cardiologist-led management of pre-existent CVD was low.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

There is a need to improve clinical strategies for reducing cardiovascular risk and managing pre-existent CVD in prostate cancer survivors.

Clinical Research Professional Providing Care Coordination Support: A Study of Hawaii Minority/Underserved NCORP Community Site Trial Participants

PURPOSE

Although effective care coordination (CC) is recognized as a vital component of a patient-centered, high-quality cancer care delivery system, CC experiences of patients who enroll and receive treatment through clinical trials (CTs) are relatively unknown. Using mixed methods, we examined perceptions of CC among patients enrolled onto therapeutic CTs through the Hawaii Minority/Underserved National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

METHODS

The Care Coordination Instrument, a validated instrument, was used to measure patients' perceptions of CC among CT participants (n = 45) and matched controls (n = 45). Paired t-tests were used to compare overall and three CC domain scores (Communication, Navigation, and Operational) between the groups. Semistructured focus group interviews were conducted virtually with 14 CT participants in 2020/2021.

RESULTS

CT participants reported significantly higher total CC scores than non-CT participants (P = .0008). Similar trends were found for Navigation and Operational domain scores (P = .007 and .001, respectively). Twenty-nine percent of CT participants reported receiving high-intensity CC assistance from their clinical research professionals (CRPs). Content analysis of focus group discussions revealed that nearly half of the focus group discussions centered on CRPs (47%), including CC support provided by CRPs (26%). Other key themes included general CT experiences (22%) and CRP involvement as an additional benefit to CT participation (15%).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that patients on CTs in this study had a more positive CC experience. This may be attributable in part to CC support provided by CRPs. These findings highlight both the improved experience of treatment for patients participating in a trial and the generally unrecognized yet integral role of CRPs as part of a cancer CT care team.

Effects of Exercise During Radiation Therapy on Physical Function and Treatment-Related Side Effects in Men With Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy is a commonly used treatment for prostate cancer; however, the side effects may negatively affect quality of life and cause patients to be less physically active. Although exercise has been shown to mitigate radiation therapy-related fatigue in men with prostate cancer during radiation therapy, other adverse effects of treatment such as physical deconditioning, urinary symptoms, or sexual dysfunction have not been systematically reviewed in this patient population. Thus, the purpose of this review was to investigate the effect of exercise on physical function and treatment-related side effects in men with prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases in December 2020. Included studies were randomized controlled trials examining the effects of aerobic and/or resistance exercise interventions on measures of physical function and treatment-related side effects in prostate cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes that were reported in 2 or more studies.

RESULTS

Seven publications from 6 randomized controlled trials involving 391 prostate cancer patients were included. Patients had stage I to IV cancer with a Gleason score of ≤6 to 10. Exercise resulted in consistent significant benefits for physical function in terms of cardiovascular fitness (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-1.36; P < .01) and muscle function (SMD, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.53-2.07; P < .01). Furthermore, there was a significant positive effect of exercise on urinary toxicity (SMD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.18; P < .01), but not on intestinal (P = .21) or hormonal toxicity (P = .41), depression (P = .45), or sleep symptoms (P = .88).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, exercise in men with prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy improves physical function and mitigates urinary toxicity. The effect of exercise on other treatment-related side effects are less clear and require further investigation.

The Role of the Medicaid Expansion in the Use of Preventive Health Care Services in California Men

Men’s use of preventive care services may be constrained due to a number of factors including lack of health care insurance. California used the Medicaid expansion provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to enroll low-income men between the ages of 18 and 64 years in publicly funded health insurance. Most studies on the effect of the ACA on health care services have focused on racial/ethnic differences rather than gender. Data from the California Health Interview Survey for the 2015–2016 survey period were used to model the use of preventive health care services in the year prior to interview. Population weights were used in the analysis which was done using PROC SURVEY LOGISTIC in SAS software, version 9.4. The sample consisted of men between the ages of 18 and 64 years (N = 6,180). Of these 66% (n = 4,088) reporting receiving any preventive care services in the year prior to interview. The largest proportions of respondents fell into the youngest group aged 18–25 (17%) followed by the oldest group aged 60–64 (16.9%); 43% reported they were married, 57% had incomes at greater than 300% of the federal poverty level. There was no effect of race or ethnicity on receiving preventive care services. Having a chronic condition such as hypertension or diabetes was associated with a greater odds of receiving preventive care. Expanding Medicaid to include low-income men below the age of 65 is associated with increased use of preventive health care, especially among those with chronic conditions.

Assessment and Management of Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among US Veterans With Prostate Cancer

Importance

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of mortality in patients with prostate cancer, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may worsen cardiovascular risk. Adherence to guideline-recommended assessment and management of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) in patients initiating ADT is unknown.

Objective

To describe CVRF assessment and management in men with prostate cancer initiating ADT and overall.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional analysis of 90 494 men treated within the US Veterans Health Administration diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, was conducted. Participants included men with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and treatment with ADT within 1 year of diagnosis. Data analysis was conducted from September 10, 2019, to July 1, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates of comprehensive CVRF assessment, uncontrolled CVRFs, and untreated CVRFs. Comprehensive CVRF assessment was defined as recorded measures for blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels; CVRF control as blood pressure lower than 140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 130 mg/dL, and hemoglobin A1c less than 7%; and CVRF treatment as receipt of cardiac risk-reducing medications. Multivariable risk difference regression assessed the association between ASCVD and initiation of ADT and these outcomes.

Results

Of 90 494 veterans, median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 62-70 years); and 22 700 men (25.1%) received ADT. Overall, 68.1% (95% CI, 67.8%-68.3%) of the men received comprehensive CVRF assessment; 54.1% (95% CI. 53.7%-54.4%) of those assessed had uncontrolled CVRFs, and 29.6% (95% CI, 29.2%-30.0%) of those with uncontrolled CVRFs were not receiving corresponding cardiac risk-reducing medication. Compared with the reference group of patients without ASCVD not receiving ADT, patients with ASCVD not receiving ADT had a 10.4% (95% CI, 9.5%-11.3%) higher probability of comprehensive CVRF assessment, 4.0% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.1%) lower risk of uncontrolled CVRFs, and 22.2% (95% CI, 21.1%-23.3%) lower risk of untreated CVRFs. Similar differences were observed in patients with ASCVD receiving ADT. In contrast, patients without ASCVD receiving ADT had only a 3.0% (95% CI, 2.1%-3.9%) higher probability of comprehensive CVRF assessment, 2.6% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.5%) higher risk of uncontrolled CVRFs, and 5.4% (95% CI, 4.2%-6.6%) lower risk of untreated CVRFs.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that veterans with prostate cancer had a high rate of underassessed and undertreated CVRFs, and ADT initiation was not associated with substantial improvements in CVRF assessment or management. These findings highlight gaps in care and the need for interventions to improve CVRF mitigation in this population.

Effects of Radiotherapy or Radical Prostatectomy on the Risk of Long-Term Heart-Specific Death in Patients With Prostate Cancer

Objective: The prognosis of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) has improved in recent years, but treatment-related cardiotoxicity remains unclear. This study investigated the heart-specific mortality and prognostic factors of patients with PCa after radiotherapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP), and compared their long-term heart-specific mortality with that of the general male population.

Materials and Methods: Data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database. Patients with PCa were included who underwent RT or RP from 2000 to 2012, and were followed through 2015. A cumulative mortality curve and a competitive risk regression model were applied to assess the prognostic factors of heart-specific mortality. Standardized mortality rates (SMRs) were calculated.

Results: Of 389,962 men, 49.7% and 50.3% received RP and RT, respectively. The median follow-up was 8.3 years. For patients given RT, in about 9 years postdiagnosis, the cumulative mortality due to heart-specific disease exceeded that due to PCa. In patients who underwent RP, cumulative mortality from heart-specific disease or PCa was comparable. Relative to the general male population, overall, the heart-specific mortality of patients with PCa receiving RT or RP was not higher, but in patients aged 70 to 79 years, those given RT experienced slightly higher heart-specific mortality than the age-matched general population.

Conclusions: Patients with PCa treated with RT or RP overall do not incur risk of heart-specific mortality higher than that of the general male population, except for patients aged 70–74 years receiving RT.

Optimizing screening and management of cardiovascular health in prostate cancer: A review

In clinical practice, cancer management does not consistently encompass screening and identification of cardiovascular (CV) risk. The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer has been associated with increased CV risk and development of metabolic syndrome, necessitating identification of patients at risk in this population (e.g., those with pre-existing CV disease). A multidisciplinary team of Canadian physicians was assembled to develop a series of recommendations intended to identify patients who may benefit from optimal management of their CV disease and/or modification of cardiac risk factors. A key goal was the development of a simple screening tool for identification of patients with pre-existing CV disease. This simple and inclusive set of recommendations are intended for use within urology clinics to facilitate holistic approaches and simplify the management of patients.

Assessing Patients' Perceptions of Cancer Care Coordination in a Community-Based Setting

PURPOSE

Effective care coordination (CC) is a hallmark of a high-quality cancer care. However, efforts to improve cancer care delivery are limited by the lack of a clinically useful tool to assess CC. In this study, we examined patients' perceptions of cancer CC using a novel tool, the Care Coordination Instrument (CCI), and evaluated the quality of the CCI.

METHODS

The CCI is a 29-item patient questionnaire that assesses CC across varied practice settings and patient populations overall and for three critical domains of CC: communication, navigation, and operational. We conducted univariable and multivariable regression analyses to identify patient clinical and practice characteristics associated with optimal versus suboptimal CC.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients with cancer completed the CCI questionnaire between October 2018 and January 2019, of whom 189 were used for the analysis. The presence of a family caregiver and a diagnosis of a blood cancer were correlated with overall positive reports of CC (P < .001 and P < .05, respectively). Poorer perceptions of CC were associated with having a head and neck cancer and the absence of family caregiver support. The effects of cancer disease stage and having access to a patient navigator on CC were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Integrating a patient-centered tool to assess cancer CC can be a strategy to optimize cancer care delivery. Understanding factors associated with effective and ineffective CC can help inform efforts to improve overall quality of care and care delivery.

Development and psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire to measure cancer patients' perception of care coordination

BACKGROUND

Although the importance of care coordination (CC) is well-recognized, cancer patients often receive poorly coordinated care across varied care settings and different oncology providers. Efforts to improve cancer care are hampered by lack of adequate measures. In this two-part, mixed-method study, we describe the development, refinement, and validation of a new care coordination instrument (CCI) designed to assess cancer patients' perception of CC.

METHODS

In Study 1, an initial CCI was developed incorporating questions based on literature review. The items were then modified following four field tests conducted in a large academic hospital with oncology nurses (n = 20) and cancer patients (n = 120). This modified instrument was used to determine whether the CCI was able to distinguish CC between two practices (30 GI and 30 myeloma patients) within the same hospital setting. In Study 2, 68 patients receiving community-based care participated in seven focus groups. Based on these discussions, the CCI items were again refined, and psychometric evaluation was conducted to assess the quality of the instrument.

RESULTS

Based on field tests, 3 domains of the CCI, Communication, Navigation, and Operational, were defined as critical components of CC. The Operational domain evaluates efficiency of care and is unique to this CCI. The field test demonstrated that GI patients reported significantly better CC Overall and for the Communication and Navigation domains (all p < .05). In Study 2, patients expressed concordance with the CCI items and their CC experiences, establishing validity of the CCI. Qualitative analysis of the focus group discussions indicated that the items with the highest frequencies of participants' comments were related to the concepts of Navigator, Team, Survey, and Communication. Quantitative analysis identified items with a limited response range or high rates of "neutral" responses; accordingly, those items were removed. The final CCI survey is a 29 item, multiple-choice questionnaire with excellent reliability, Cronbach's α = .922.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a novel, patient-centered tool with excellent psychometric properties that can be utilized across varied practice settings to assess patients' perception of cancer care coordination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not required; retrospectively registered ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03594006 20 July 2018.

Prevalence and prognosis significance of cardiovascular disease in cancer patients: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a heavy burden on cancer patients worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and influence of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) and CVD on the all-cause mortality among Chinese cancer patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 13.0% of all cancer patients had at least one type of CVRFs and 5.0% with CVDs. Patients with CVRF or CVD presented more frequently at later stages and received higher percentage of oncotherapy. During 1,782,527 person-years of follow-up, the all-cause mortality in cancer patients with CVDs and with CVRFs was higher compared with those without (182.6/1000, 109.5/1000 and 93.3/1000 person-years, respectively). Cox regression analysis showed that patients with heart failure (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.61-1.99), myocardial infarction (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.16-1.95), atrial fibrillation (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.09-1.53), stroke (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.11-1.32), hypertension (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.16) and diabetes (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24) had increased all-cause mortality, whereas dyslipidemia patients had better prognosis (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.83). Stratified by cancer type, the prognostic impact of specific CVRF or CVD varied.

METHODS

We consecutively recruited 710,170 cancer patients between Feb. 1995 and Jun. 2018. A stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the effect of comorbidities on the overall survival of patients stratified by cancer type.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients are vulnerable to comorbidity related to heart and cerebral disease. The influence of comorbidities on prognosis is noticeable and specific both for the type of cancer and comorbidities.