Qualitative study on decision-making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance

Patient Interest in Exploring Nonsurgical Treatment Approaches for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

Advances in radiation therapy have enabled the ability to deliver ablative treatments, but there has been limited application of these treatments to early-stage breast cancers with a goal of omitting surgery. The purpose of this study was to explore patient interest in pursuing nonsurgical treatment approaches for their early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 21 patients with early-stage breast cancer who were eligible for participation in a phase 2 clinical trial offering omission of definitive surgery. Interviews were transcribed and an inductive, thematic analysis was performed by 3 independent reviewers to generate themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Data analysis revealed the following factors that affected patient willingness and desire to explore nonsurgical treatment options: (1) perceptions and feelings about their cancer; (2) current quality of life and the level of support available in their daily life; (3) external conversations focusing on family members' and friends' experiences with cancer and/or cancer treatments; (4) personal health care experiences, including their current breast cancer diagnosis; (5) perceptions and feelings about their physicians; (6) conversations with their physicians about their treatment options; and (7) self-identified desire to direct care decisions. Specifically, patients verbalized fearing surgery and surgical recovery; wanting to preserve their breast(s); the prior negative surgical experiences of friends, family, and themselves; a desire to receive treatment per the latest research; wanting to match the level of treatment with the severity of their cancer; and other comorbidities as reasons for wanting to explore omitting surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate an unmet need directed by patient interest to explore nonsurgical options for early-stage, biologically favorable breast cancer. These results may shape conversations around shared decision-making and clinical trial design, and result in more personalized treatment options for women with early-stage breast cancer.

Barriers and enablers of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a qualitive study of clinicians

OBJECTIVES

To identify and explore barriers to, and enablers of, active surveillance (AS) in men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPCa), as perceived by PCa clinicians.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Urologists and radiation oncologists in Australia and New Zealand were purposively sampled for a cross-section on gender and practice setting (metropolitan/regional; public/private). Using a grounded theory approach, semi-structed interviews were conducted with participants. Interviews were coded independently by two researchers using open, axial, and selective coding. A constant comparative approach was used to analyse data as it was collected. Thematic saturation was reached after 18 interviews, and a detailed model of barriers to, and enablers of, AS for LRPCa, as perceived by clinicians was developed.

RESULTS

A model explaining what affects clinician decision making regarding AS in LRPCa emerged. It was underpinned by three broad themes: (i) clinician perception of patients' barriers and enablers; (ii) clinician perception of their own barriers and enablers; and (iii) engagement with healthcare team and resource availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians unanimously agree that AS is an evidence-based approach for managing LRPCa. Despite this many men do not undergo AS for LRPCa, which is due to the interplay of patient and clinician factors, and their interaction with the wider healthcare system. This study identifies strategies to mitigate barriers and enhance enablers, which could increase access to AS by patients with LRPCa.

Modern Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review

The use of PSA screening has led to downstaging and downgrading of prostate cancer at diagnosis, increasing detection of indolent disease. Active surveillance aims to reduce over-treatment by delaying or avoiding radical treatment and its associated morbidity. However, there is not a consensus on the selection criteria and monitoring schedules that should be used. This article aims to summarize the evidence supporting the safety of active surveillance, the current selection criteria recommended and in use, the incidence of active surveillance, barriers existing to its uptake and future developments in patient selection.

Risk of progression following a negative biopsy in prostate cancer active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Currently, follow-up protocols are applied equally to men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) regardless of findings at their initial follow-up biopsy. To determine whether less intensive follow-up is suitable following negative biopsy findings, we assessed the risk of converting to active treatment, any subsequent upgrading, volume progression (>33% positive cores), and serious upgrading (grade group >2) for negative compared with positive findings on initial follow-up biopsy.

METHODS

13,161 men from 24 centres participating in the Global Action Plan Active Surveillance Prostate Cancer [GAP3] consortium database, with baseline grade group ≤2, PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, cT-stage 1-2, diagnosed after 1995, and ≥1 follow-up biopsy, were included in this study. Risk of converting to treatment was assessed using multivariable mixed-effects survival regression. Odds of volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading were assessed using mix-effects binary logistic regression for men with ≥2 surveillance biopsies.

RESULTS

27% of the cohort (n = 3590) had no evidence of PCa at their initial biopsy. Over 50% of subsequent biopsies in this group were also negative. A negative initial biopsy was associated with lower risk of conversion (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.49), subsequent upgrading (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.45-0.62) and serious upgrading (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59-92). Radiological progression was not assessed due to limited imaging data.

CONCLUSION

Despite heterogeneity in follow-up schedules, findings from this global study indicated reduced risk of converting to treatment, volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading among men whose initial biopsy findings were negative compared with positive. Given the low risk of progression and high likelihood of further negative biopsy findings, consideration should be given to decreasing follow-up intensity for this group to reduce unnecessary invasive biopsies.

Five-year follow-up study of a population-based prospective cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: the treatment options in prostate cancer study (TOPCS): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) to reduce overtreatment and to maintain patients' quality of life (QOL). However, whether African American (AA) men can safely undergo AS is controversial due to concerns of more aggressive disease and lack of empirical data on the safety and effectiveness of AS in this population. Withholding of AS may lead to a lost opportunity for improving survivorship in AA men. In this study, peer-reviewed and funded by the US Department of Defense, we will assess whether AS is an equally effective and safe management option for AA as it is for White men with LRPC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project extends follow-up of a large contemporary population-based cohort of LRPC patients (n=1688) with a high proportion of AA men (~20%) and well-characterised baseline and 2-year follow-up data. The objectives are to (1) determine any racial differences in AS adherence, switch rate from AS to curative treatment and time to treatment over 5 years after diagnosis, (2) compare QOL among AS group and curative treatment group over time, overall and by race and (3) evaluate whether reasons for switching from AS to curative treatment differ by race. Validation of survey responses related to AS follow-up procedures is being conducted through medical record review. We expect to obtain 5-year survey from ~900 (~20% AA) men by the end of this study to have sufficient power. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques will be used to examine racial differences in AS adherence, effectiveness and QOL.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The parent and current studies were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Wayne State University and Emory University. Since it is an observational study, ethical or safety risks are low. We will disseminate our findings to relevant conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Patient participation in treatment decision-making of prostate cancer: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Despite increasing development in decision-making strategies for patients with prostate cancer, little is known about patients' individual experience and perception throughout the decision-making process. The objective of this study was to explore patients' experiences and perceptions towards treatment decision-making.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative interview study with 30 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. We transcribed interviews verbatim and inductively identified codes. Thematic analysis was used to develop and refine a codebook that aided in the identification of themes.

RESULTS

Three key themes and nine subthemes emerged, which were as follows: I. less involved in treatment decision-making, (i) passive decisional control, (ii) lack of medical knowledge, and (iii) domination by family members; II. the right to be informed of the disease condition and to choose treatment options, (i) sociocultural influences, (ii) patients believe that they should know the true facts of the disease, and (iii) patient autonomy during treatment; and III. future consideration and advance care planning, (i) fewer future concerns, (ii) advance care planning is poorly understood, and (iii) acceptance of advance care planning.

CONCLUSION

The study results show that patients with prostate cancer have a diversity of needs to cultivate their ability to make treatment decisions, and healthcare professionals should empower patients, as well as provide decision aids or decision support for patients.

Factors that influence clinicians' decisions to decrease active surveillance monitoring frequency or transition to watchful waiting for localised prostate cancer: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about clinicians' decision-making about decreasing active surveillance (AS) testing/converting patients to watchful waiting (WW), nor are there any guidelines. The objective of this study was to identify factors that clinicians consider when decreasing AS testing/converting to WW for men with prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Exploratory qualitative study.

SETTING

All participants practiced in various institutions in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible clinicians had to provide clinical care for patients with prostate cancer in the USA and speak English. Clinicians could be either urologists or radiation oncologists. Of the 24 clinicians, 83% were urologists representing 11 states, 92% were men and 62% were white.

METHODS

This qualitative study used data from semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to ensure geographical variation in the USA. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was achieved. Framework analysis guided coding and identification of themes. Two researchers coded all transcripts independently, met to discuss and reached consensus.

RESULTS

Interviews with clinicians demonstrated that testing or monitoring for AS or transitioning to WW is happening in practice, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Decisions to decrease AS were personalised and tailored to patients' health status. Life expectancy was the dominant factor that influenced decision, but clinicians were generally hesitant to specify an age when they would decrease AS or transition to WW. Fear that poor adherence could lead to missed progression and concerns about the medico-legal issue of not doing enough were cited as barriers to decreasing AS.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that in certain situations, AS frequency is reduced or transitioned to WW, yet decisions appear to be inconsistent and there are no significant barriers. These findings could inform further areas to explore when drafting recommendations that consider patients' values and preferences when making decisions about decreasing AS/converting to WW.

Understanding Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To assess how active surveillance for prostate cancer is apportioned across specialties and how testing patterns and transition to treatment vary by specialty.

METHODS

We used a 20% national sample of Medicare claims to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2010 through 2016 initiating surveillance (N = 13,048). Patients were assigned to the physician responsible for the bulk of surveillance care based on billing patterns. Freedom from treatment was assessed by specialty of the responsible physician (urology, radiation oncology, medical oncology, and primary care). Multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine associations between specialty and treatment patterns.

RESULTS

Urologists were responsible for surveillance in 93.7% of patients in 2010 and 96.2% of patients in 2016 (P for trend = .01). Testing patterns varied by specialty. For example, patients of medical oncologists had more frequent prostate-specific antigen testing compared with patients of urologists (1.85 v 2.39 tests per year, respectively; P < .01). Three years after diagnosis, a significantly smaller proportion of patients managed by radiation oncologists (64.3%) remained on surveillance compared with patients managed by other physicians (75.8%-79.5%; P < .01). Although radiation was the most common treatment among all men who transitioned to treatment, a disproportionate percentage of patients followed by radiation oncologists (28.9%) ultimately underwent radiation compared with patients followed by other physicians (15.1%-15.4%; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Nontrivial percentages of patients on active surveillance are managed by physicians outside of urology. Given the interspecialty variations observed, efforts to strengthen the evidence underlying surveillance pathways and to engage other specialties in guideline development are needed.

Perceived barriers to the adoption of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of community and academic urologists

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines recommend active surveillance as the preferred treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer, but only a minority of eligible men receive active surveillance, and practice variation is substantial. The aim of this study is to describe barriers to urologists' recommendation of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer and explore variation of barriers by setting.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews among 22 practicing urologists, evenly distributed between academic and community practice. We coded barriers to active surveillance according to a conceptual model of determinants of treatment quality to identify potential opportunities for intervention.

RESULTS

Community and academic urologists were generally in agreement on factors influencing active surveillance. Urologists perceived patient-level factors to have the greatest influence on recommendations, particularly tumor pathology, patient age, and judgements about the patient's ability to adhere to follow-up protocols. They also noted cross-cutting clinical barriers, including concerns about the adequacy of biopsy samples, inconsistent protocols to guide active surveillance, and side effects of biopsy procedures. Urologists had differing opinions on the impact of environmental factors, such as financial disincentives and fear of litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite national and international recommendations, both academic and community urologists note a variety of barriers to implementing active surveillance in low risk prostate cancer. These barriers will need to be specifically addressed in efforts to help urologists offer active surveillance more consistently.

Adoption of Active Surveillance for Very Low-Risk Differentiated Thyroid Cancer in the United States: A National Survey

CONTEXT

Active surveillance (AS) of thyroid cancer with serial ultrasounds is a newer management option in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

This work aimed to understand factors associated with the adoption of AS.

METHODS

We surveyed endocrinologists and surgeons in the American Medical Association Masterfile. To estimate adoption, respondents recommended treatment for 2 hypothetical cases appropriate for AS. Established models of guideline implementation guided questionnaire development. Outcome measures included adoption of AS (nonadopters vs adopters, who respectively did not recommend or recommended AS at least once; and partial vs full adopters, who respectively recommended AS for one or both cases).

RESULTS

The 464 respondents (33.3% response) demographically represented specialties that treat thyroid cancer. Nonadopters (45.7%) were significantly (P < .001) less likely than adopters to practice in academic settings, see more than 25 thyroid cancer patients/year, be aware of AS, use applicable guidelines (P = .04), know how to determine whether a patient is appropriate for AS, have resources to perform AS, or be motivated to use AS. Nonadopters were also significantly more likely to be anxious or have reservations about AS, be concerned about poor outcomes, or believe AS places a psychological burden on patients. Among adopters, partial and full adopters were similar except partial adopters were less likely to discuss AS with patients (P = .03) and more likely to be anxious (P = .04), have reservations (P = .03), and have concerns about the psychological burden (P = .009) of AS. Few respondents (3.2%) believed patients were aware of AS.

CONCLUSION

Widespread adoption of AS will require increased patient and physician awareness, interest, and evaluation of outcomes.

Views of healthcare professionals about the role of active monitoring in the management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): Qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is an in-situ (pre-cancerous) breast malignancy whereby malignant cells are contained within the basement membrane of the breast ducts. Increasing awareness that some low-risk forms of DCIS might remain indolent for many years has led to concern about overtreatment, with at least 3 clinical trials underway internationally assessing the safety of active monitoring for low-risk DCIS. This study aimed to understand healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views on the management options for patients with DCIS.

METHODS

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with HCPs involved in the diagnosis and management of DCIS in Australia and New Zealand. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis method.

RESULTS

Twenty-six HCPs including 10 breast surgeons, 3 breast physicians, 6 radiation oncologists, and 7 breast care nurses participated. There was a strong overall consensus that DCIS requires active treatment. HCPs generally felt uncomfortable recommending active monitoring as a management option for low-risk DCIS as they viewed this as outside current standard care. Overall, HCPs felt that active monitoring was an unproven strategy in need of an evidence base; however, many acknowledged that active monitoring for low-risk DCIS could be appropriate for patients with significant co-morbidities or limited life expectancy. They believed that most patients would opt for surgery wherever possible.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the important need for robust randomised controlled trial data about active monitoring for women with low-risk DCIS, to provide HCPs with confidence in their management recommendations and decision-making.

Negative first follow-up prostate biopsy on active surveillance is associated with decreased risk of upgrading, suspicion of progression and converting to active treatment

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk of disease progression and conversion to active treatment following a negative biopsy while on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men on an AS programme at a single tertiary hospital (London, UK) between 2003 and 2018 with confirmed low-intermediate-risk PCa, Gleason Grade Group <3, clinical stage <T3 and a diagnostic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of <20 ng/mL. This cohort included men diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography guided (12-14 cores) or transperineal (median 32 cores) biopsy. Multivariate Cox hazards regression analysis was undertaken to determine (i) risk of upgrading, (ii) clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and (iii) transitioning to active treatment. Suspicion of disease progression was defined as any biopsy upgrading, >30% positive cores, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Likert score >3/T3 or PSA level of >20 ng/mL. Conversion to treatment included radical or hormonal treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 460 eligible patients, 23% had negative follow-up biopsy findings. The median follow-up was 62 months, with one to two repeat biopsies and two MRIs per patient during that period. Negative biopsy findings at first repeat biopsy were associated with decreased risk of converting to active treatment (hazard ration [HR] 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.37; P < 0.001), suspicion of disease progression (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.94; P = 0.029), and upgrading (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99; P = 0.047). Data are limited by fewer men with multiple follow-up biopsies.

CONCLUSION

A negative biopsy finding at the first scheduled follow-up biopsy among men on AS for PCa was strongly associated with decreased risk of subsequent upgrading, clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and conversion to active treatment. A less intense surveillance protocol should be considered for this cohort of patients.

Why men with a low-risk prostate cancer select and stay on active surveillance: A qualitative study

Objective

Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly utilized strategy for monitoring men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) that allows them to defer active treatment (AT) in the absence of cancer progression. Studies have explored reasons for selecting AS and for then switching to AT, but less is known about men’s experiences being on AS. We interviewed men to determine the clinical and psychological factors associated with selecting and adhering to AS protocols.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with men with a low-risk PCa at two academic medical centers. Subjects had either been on AS for ≥ 1 year or had opted for AT after a period of AS. We used an iterative, content-driven approach to analyze the interviews and to identify themes.

Results

We enrolled 21 subjects, mean age 70.4 years, 3 racial/ethnic minorities, and 16 still on AS. Men recognized the favorable prognosis of their cancer (some had sought second opinions when initially offered AT), valued avoiding treatment complications, were reassured that close monitoring would identify progression early enough to be successfully treated, and trusted their urologists. Although men reported feeling anxious around the time of surveillance testing, those who switched to AT did so based only on evidence of cancer progression.

Conclusions

Our selected sample was comfortable being on AS because they understood and valued the rationale for this approach. However, this highlights the importance of ensuring that men newly diagnosed with a low-risk PCa are provided sufficient information about prognosis and treatment options to make informed decisions.

Decision-making dilemmas of paediatricians: a qualitative study in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To delineate the critical decision-making processes that paediatricians apply when treating children with life-threatening conditions and the psychosocial experience of paediatricians involved in such care.

DESIGN

We conducted semistructured, individual face-to-face interviews for each participant from 2014 to 2015. The content of each interview was subjected to a comprehensive qualitative analysis. The categories of dilemma were extracted from a second-round content analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were board-certified paediatricians with sufficient experience in making decisions in relation to children with severe illnesses or disabilities. We repeated purposive sampling and analyses until we reached saturation of the category data.

RESULTS

We performed interviews with 15 paediatricians. They each reported both unique and overlapping categories of dilemmas that they encountered when making critical decisions. The dilemmas included five types of causal elements: (1) paediatricians' convictions; (2) the quest for the best interests of patients; (3) the quest for medically appropriate plans; (4) confronting parents and families and (5) socioenvironmental issues. Dilemmas occurred and developed as conflicting interactions among these five elements. We further categorised these five elements into three principal domains: the decision-maker (decider); consensus making among families, colleagues and society (process) and the consequential output of the decision (consequence).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first qualitative study to demonstrate the framework of paediatricians' decision-making processes and the complex structures of dilemmas they face. Our data indicate the necessity of establishing and implementing an effective support system for paediatricians, such as structured professional education and arguments for creating social consensus that assist them to reach the best plan for the management of severely ill children.

Resisting recommended treatment for prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of the lived experience of possible overdiagnosis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the lived experience of a possible prostate cancer overdiagnosis in men who resisted recommended treatment.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study SETTING: Australia PARTICIPANTS: 11 men (aged 59-78 years) who resisted recommended prostate cancer treatment because of concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

OUTCOMES

Reported experience of screening, diagnosis and treatment decision making, and its impact on psychosocial well-being, life and personal circumstances.

RESULTS

Men's accounts revealed profound consequences of both prostate cancer diagnosis and resisting medical advice for treatment, with effects on their psychological well-being, family, employment circumstances, identity and life choices. Some of these men were tested for prostate-specific antigen without their knowledge or informed consent. The men felt uninformed about their management options and unsupported through treatment decision making. This often led them to develop a sense of disillusionment and distrust towards the medical profession and conventional medicine. The findings show how some men who were told they would soon die without treatment (a prognosis which ultimately did not eventuate) reconciled issues of overdiagnosis and potential overtreatment with their own diagnosis and situation over the ensuing 1 to 20+ years.

CONCLUSIONS

Men who choose not to have recommended treatment for prostate cancer may avoid treatment-associated harms like incontinence and impotence, however our findings showed that the impact of the diagnosis itself is immense and far-reaching. A high priority for improving clinical practice is to ensure men are adequately informed of these potential consequences before screening is considered.

Factors Influencing Men's Choice of and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-method Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Despite support for active surveillance (AS) as a first treatment choice for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), this strategy is largely underutilised.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review barriers and facilitators to selecting and adhering to AS for low-risk PC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched PsychINFO, PubMed, Medline 2000-now, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases between 2002 and 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance (PREFS) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) quality criteria were applied. Forty-seven studies were identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Key themes emerged as factors influencing both choice and adherence to AS: (1) patient and tumour factors (age, comorbidities, knowledge, education, socioeconomic status, family history, grade, tumour volume, and fear of progression/side effects); (2) family and social support; (3) provider (speciality, communication, and attitudes); (4) healthcare organisation (geography and type of practice); and (5) health policy (guidelines, year, and awareness).

CONCLUSIONS

Many factors influence men's choice and adherence to AS on multiple levels. It is important to learn from the experience of other chronic health conditions as well as from institutions/countries that are making significant headway in appropriately recruiting men to AS protocols, through standardised patient information, clinician education, and nationally agreed guidelines, to ultimately decrease heterogeneity in AS practice.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines.

Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer

Background

Over the last decade, active surveillance has proven to be a safe approach for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Although active surveillance presents several advantages for both patients and the health care system, all eligible patients do not adopt this approach. Our goal was to evaluate the factors that influence physicians to recommend active surveillance and the barriers that impact adherence to this approach.

Methods

Focus groups (n = 5) were held with physicians who provided care for men with low-risk prostate cancer and had engaged in conversations with men and their families about active surveillance. The experience of health care professionals (HCPs) was captured to understand their decisions in proposing active surveillance and to reveal the barriers and facilitators that affect the adherence to this approach. A content analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts from the sessions.

Results

Although physicians agreed that active surveillance is a suitable approach for low-risk prostate cancer patients, they were concerned about the rapidly evolving and non-standardized guidelines for patient follow-up. They pointed out the need for additional tools to appropriately identify proper patients for whom active surveillance is the best option. Urologists and radiation-oncologists were keen to collaborate with each other, but the role of general practitioner remained controversial once patients were referred to a specialist.

Conclusions

Integration of more reliable tools and/or markers in addition to more specific guidelines for patient follow-up would increase the confidence of both patients and physicians in the choice of active surveillance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3273-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of Conservative Management for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in the Veterans Affairs Integrated Health Care System From 2005-2015

This study uses US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data to characterize trends in the use of watchful waiting and active surveillance as strategies for managing low-risk prostate cancer in US veterans from 2005 through 2015.

Which Patients Report That Their Urologists Advised Them to Forgo Initial Treatment for Prostate Cancer?

OBJECTIVE

To examine how frequently patients report that their urologist recommended forgoing definitive treatment and assess the impact of these recommendations on treatment choice and perceived quality of cancer care.

METHODS

We mailed surveys to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2014 and 2015 (adjusted response rate of 51.3%). Men reported whether their urologist recommended forgoing definitive treatment. Using logistic regression models, we assessed patient-level predictors of receiving a recommendation to forgo definitive treatment and estimated associations of receiving this recommendation with receipt of definitive treatment and perceived quality of cancer care among men with low-risk tumors and limited life expectancies.

RESULTS

Nearly two-thirds (62.2%) of men with low-risk tumors and 46.4% with limited life expectancies received recommendations from their urologists to forgo definitive treatment. Among men with limited life expectancies, those with low-risk tumors were more likely to receive this recommendation compared with men with high-risk tumors (odds ratio [OR] 3.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.17-5.37). Men with low-risk tumors who were recommended to forgo definitive treatment were less likely to receive definitive treatment (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.73) but did not report lower perceived quality of care (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.63-1.48).

CONCLUSION

In this population-based study, a majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer report receiving recommendations from their urologists to forgo definitive treatment. Our results suggest that urologists have a strong influence on patient treatment choice and could increase active surveillance uptake in men eligible for expectant management without patients perceiving lower quality of cancer care.

Patient and provider experiences with active surveillance: A scoping review

Objective

Active surveillance (AS) represents a fundamental shift in managing select cancer patients that initiates treatment only upon disease progression to avoid overtreatment. Given uncertain outcomes, patient engagement could support decision-making about AS. Little is known about how to optimize patient engagement for AS decision-making. This scoping review aimed to characterize research on patient and provider communication about AS, and associated determinants and outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2006 to October 2016. English language studies that evaluated cancer patient or provider AS views, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.

Results

A total of 2,078 studies were identified, 1,587 were unique, and 1,243 were excluded based on titles/abstracts. Among 344 full-text articles, 73 studies were eligible: 2 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 4 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 6 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and 61 prostate cancer. The most influential determinant of initiating AS was physician recommendation. Others included higher socioeconomic status, smaller tumor size, comorbid disease, older age, and preference to avoid adverse treatment effects. AS patients desired more information about AS and reassurance about future treatment options, involvement in decision-making and assessment of illness uncertainty and supportive care needs during follow-up. Only three studies of prostate cancer evaluated interventions to improve AS communication or experience.

Conclusions

This study revealed a paucity of research on AS communication for DCIS, RCC and CLL, but generated insight on how to optimize AS discussions in the context of routine care or clinical trials from research on AS for prostate cancer. Further research is needed on AS for patients with DCIS, RCC and CLL, and to evaluate interventions aimed at patients and/or providers to improve AS communication, experience and associated outcomes.

Biomarkers in active surveillance

The use of active surveillance (AS) is increasing for favorable-risk prostate cancer. However, there remain challenges in patient selection for AS, due to the limitations of current clinical staging. In addition, monitoring protocols relying on serial biopsies is invasive and presents risks such as infection. For these reasons, there is substantial interest in identifying markers that can be used to improve AS selection and monitoring. In this article, we review the evidence on serum, urine and tissue markers in AS.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices

In the last decade, active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an acceptable choice for low-risk prostate cancer (PC), however there is discordance amongst large AS cohort studies with respect to entry and monitoring protocols. We systematically reviewed worldwide AS practices in studies reporting ≥5 years follow-up. We searched PubMed and Medline 2000-now and identified 13 AS cohorts. Three key areas were identified: (I) patient selection; (II) monitoring protocols; (III) triggers for intervention—(I) all studies defined clinically localised PC diagnosis as T2b disease or less and most agreed on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) threshold (<10 µg/L) and Gleason score threshold (3+3). Inconsistency was most notable regarding pathologic factors (e.g., number of positive cores); (II) all agreed on PSA surveillance as crucial for monitoring, and most agreed that confirmatory biopsy was required within 12 months of initiation. No consensus was reached on optimal timing of digital rectal examination (DRE), general health assessment or re-biopsy strategies thereafter; (III) there was no universal agreement for intervention triggers, although Gleason score, number or percentage of positive cancer cores, maximum cancer length (MCL) and PSA doubling time were used by several studies. Some also used imaging or re-biopsy. Despite consistent high progression-free/cancer-free survival and conversion-to-treatment rates, heterogeneity exists amongst these large AS cohorts. Combining existing evidence and gathering more long-term evidence [e.g., the Movember’s Global AS database or additional information on use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] is needed to derive a broadly supported guideline to reduce variation in clinical practice.

Informational needs during active surveillance for prostate cancer: A qualitative study

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.

Active Surveillance Versus Watchful Waiting for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Model to Inform Decisions

BACKGROUND

An increasing proportion of prostate cancer is being managed conservatively. However, there are no randomized trials or consensus regarding the optimal follow-up strategy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare life expectancy and quality of life between watchful waiting (WW) versus different strategies of active surveillance (AS).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A Markov model was created for US men starting at age 50, diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose conservative management by WW or AS using different testing protocols (prostate-specific antigen every 3-6 mo, biopsy every 1-5 yr, or magnetic resonance imaging based). Transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from the literature.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Primary outcomes were life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes include radical treatment, metastasis, and prostate cancer death.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

All AS strategies yielded more life years compared with WW. Lifetime risks of prostate cancer death and metastasis were, respectively, 5.42% and 6.40% with AS versus 8.72% and 10.30% with WW. AS yielded more QALYs than WW except in cohorts age >65 yr at diagnosis, or when treatment-related complications were long term. The preferred follow-up strategy was also sensitive to whether people value short-term over long-term benefits (time preference). Depending on the AS protocol, 30-41% underwent radical treatment within 10 yr. Extending the surveillance biopsy interval from 1 to 5 yr reduced life years slightly, with a 0.26 difference in QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

AS extends life more than WW, particularly for men with higher-risk features, but this is partly offset by the decrement in quality of life since many men eventually receive treatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

More intensive active surveillance protocols extend life more than watchful waiting, but this is partly offset by decrements in quality of life from subsequent treatment.