Physicians' Perceptions of Factors Influencing the Treatment Decision-making Process for Men With Low-risk Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess physicians' attitudes regarding multiple factors that may influence recommendations for active surveillance (AS) vs active treatment (AT) given the central role physicians play in the treatment decision-making process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews to assess factors that physicians consider important when recommending AS vs AT, as well as physicians' perceptions of what their patients consider important in the decision. Participants included urologists (N = 11), radiation oncologists (N = 12), and primary care physicians (N = 10) from both integrated and fee-for-service healthcare settings.

RESULTS

Across the specialties, quantitative data indicated that most physicians reported that their recommendations for AS were influenced by patients' older age, willingness and ability to follow a surveillance protocol, anxiety, comorbidities, life expectancy, and treatment preferences. Qualitative findings highlighted physicians' concerns about malpractice lawsuits, given the possibility of disease progression. Additionally, most physicians noted the role of the healthcare setting, suggesting that financial incentives may be associated with AT recommendations in fee-for-service settings. Finally, most physicians reported spouse or family opposition to AS due to their own anxiety or lack of understanding of AS.

CONCLUSION

We found that patient and physician preferences, healthcare setting, and family or spouse factors influence physicians' treatment recommendations for men with low-risk PCa. These were consistent themes across physician subspecialties in both an Health Maintenance Organization and in fee-for-service settings.

Active surveillance and focal therapy for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer

Low risk and many cases of low-intermediate risk prostate cancer, are indolent, have little or no metastatic potential, and are not life threatening. Major advances have been made in understanding who these patients are, and in encouraging the use of conservative management in such individuals. Conservative management incorporates the early identification of those 'low risk' patients who harbor higher risk disease, and benefit from definitive therapy. Based on the current algorithm of PSA followed by systematic biopsy, this represents about 30% of newly diagnosed low risk patients. A further small proportion of patients with low risk disease demonstrate biological progression to higher grade disease. Men with lower risk disease can defer treatment, usually for life. Men with higher risk disease that can be localized to a relatively small volume of the prostate may be candidates for focal, prostate sparing therapy. The results of active surveillance, embodying conservative management with selective delayed intervention for the subset who are re-classified as higher risk over time based on repeat biopsy, imaging, or biomarker results, have shown that this approach is safe in the intermediate to long term, with a 1-5% cancer specific mortality at 15 years. Further refinement of the surveillance approach is ongoing, incorporating MRI, targeted biopsies, and molecular biomarkers.

Active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: current and future challenges

INTRODUCTION

The implementation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has coincided with a decrease in mortality rate from prostate cancer at the cost of overtreatment. Active surveillance has thus emerged to address the concern for over-treatment in men with low-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

A contemporary review of literature with respect to low-risk prostate cancer and active surveillance was conducted. The premise of active surveillance, ideal candidates, follow-up practices, treatment triggers, and the observed outcomes of delayed interventions are reviewed. Various institutional protocols are compared and contrasted.

RESULTS

Eligibility criteria from various institutions share similar principles. Candidates are followed with PSA kinetics and/or repeat biopsies to identify those who require intervention. Various triggers for intervention have been recognized achieving overall and cancer-specific survival rates > 90% in most protocols. New biomarkers, imaging modalities and genetic tests are also currently being investigated to enhance the efficacy of active surveillance programs.

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance has been shown to be safe and effective in managing men with low-risk prostate cancer. Although as high as 30% of men on surveillance will eventually need intervention, survival rates with delayed intervention remain reassuring. Long-term studies are needed for further validation of current active surveillance protocols.