Decision support for men with prostate cancer: Concordance between treatment choice and tumor risk.
active surveillance
decision making
decision support techniques
prostate cancer
risk
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 01 2021
15 01 2021
Historique:
received:
30
07
2020
revised:
04
09
2020
accepted:
09
09
2020
pubmed:
30
10
2020
medline:
28
8
2021
entrez:
29
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Decision support tools improve decisional conflict and elicit patient preferences related to prostate cancer treatment. It was hypothesized that men using the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) would be more likely to pursue guideline-concordant treatment. Men from a trial assessing the P3P decision support intervention were identified. The primary exposure was allocation to P3P (vs usual care), and the outcome was appropriate treatment per guidelines (eg, low risk = active surveillance). It was assessed whether providers recommended against any treatment options (ie, restricted). A multivariable model was fit for men with low-risk cancer that estimated the odds of the outcome of interest. This study identified 295 men in the cohort: 113 (38%) had low-risk disease, 119 (40%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 63 (21%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Among low-risk patients, more men pursued active surveillance after using P3P whether they were given unrestricted (62% vs 54% with usual care; P = .54) or restricted options (71% vs 59% with usual care; P = .34). After adjustments, only Black race (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.89) and restricted options (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.65) had an inverse association with the receipt of surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. An impact associated with P3P versus usual care (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.36-2.20) was not observed. Among men in a trial assessing a decision support tool, Black race and restricted treatment options were associated with less use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Although the P3P instrument ameliorates decisional conflict, its use was not associated with more appropriate alignment of treatment with disease risk.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Decision support tools improve decisional conflict and elicit patient preferences related to prostate cancer treatment. It was hypothesized that men using the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) would be more likely to pursue guideline-concordant treatment.
METHODS
Men from a trial assessing the P3P decision support intervention were identified. The primary exposure was allocation to P3P (vs usual care), and the outcome was appropriate treatment per guidelines (eg, low risk = active surveillance). It was assessed whether providers recommended against any treatment options (ie, restricted). A multivariable model was fit for men with low-risk cancer that estimated the odds of the outcome of interest.
RESULTS
This study identified 295 men in the cohort: 113 (38%) had low-risk disease, 119 (40%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 63 (21%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Among low-risk patients, more men pursued active surveillance after using P3P whether they were given unrestricted (62% vs 54% with usual care; P = .54) or restricted options (71% vs 59% with usual care; P = .34). After adjustments, only Black race (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.89) and restricted options (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.65) had an inverse association with the receipt of surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. An impact associated with P3P versus usual care (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.36-2.20) was not observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Among men in a trial assessing a decision support tool, Black race and restricted treatment options were associated with less use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Although the P3P instrument ameliorates decisional conflict, its use was not associated with more appropriate alignment of treatment with disease risk.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
203-208Subventions
Organisme : NINR NIH HHS
ID : R01 NR009692
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Cancer Society.
Références
Scherr KA, Fagerlin A, Hofer T, et al. Physician recommendations trump patient preferences in prostate cancer treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2017;37:56-69. doi:10.1177/0272989X16662841
Hoffman RM, Van Den Eeden SK, Davis KM, et al. Decision-making processes among men with low-risk prostate cancer: a survey study. Psychooncology. 2018;27:325-332. doi:10.1002/pon.4469
Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199:683-690. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095
Berry DL, Hong F, Blonquist TM, et al. Decision support with the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate: a multicenter randomized trial. J Urol. 2018;199:89-97. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.076
Berry DL, Halpenny B, Hong F, et al. The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate decision support for men with localized prostate cancer: a multi-center randomized trial. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:1012-1021. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.10.004
Berry DL, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, et al. Development and evaluation of the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), a web-based decision support system for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12:e67. doi:10.2196/jmir.1576
Butler SS, Mahal BA, Lamba N, et al. Use and early mortality outcomes of active surveillance in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Cancer. 2019;125:3164-3171. doi:10.1002/cncr.32202
Loppenberg B, Friedlander DF, Krasnova A, et al. Variation in the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Cancer. 2018;124:55-64. doi:10.1002/cncr.30983
Aizer AA, Paly JJ, Zietman AL, et al. Multidisciplinary care and pursuit of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3071-3076. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.42.8466
Trinh QD, Hong F, Halpenny B, Epstein M, Berry DL. Racial/ethnicity differences in endorsing influential factors for prostate cancer treatment choice: an analysis of data from the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) I and II trials. Urol Oncol. 2020;38:78.e7-78.e13. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.10.015
Sundi D, Faisal FA, Trock BJ, et al. Reclassification rates are higher among African American men than Caucasians on active surveillance. Urology. 2015;85:155-160. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.014
Dinizo M, Shih W, Kwon YS, et al. Multi-institution analysis of racial disparity among African-American men eligible for prostate cancer active surveillance. Oncotarget. 2018;9:21359-21365. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.25103
Leapman MS, Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, et al. Pathological and biochemical outcomes among African-American and Caucasian men with low risk prostate cancer in the SEARCH database: implications for active surveillance candidacy. J Urol. 2016;196:1408-1414. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.086
Schenk JM, Newcomb LF, Zheng Y, et al. African American race is not associated with risk of reclassification during active surveillance: results from the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study. J Urol. 2020;203:727-733. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000621
Leapman MS, Cowan JE, Nguyen HG, et al. Active surveillance in younger men with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1898-1904. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.68.0058
Kim SP, Gross CP, Shah ND, et al. Perceptions of barriers towards active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: results from a National Survey of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:660-668. doi:10.1245/s10434-018-6863-1
Kim SP, Gross CP, Nguyen PL, et al. Specialty bias in treatment recommendations and quality of life among radiation oncologists and urologists for localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17:163-169. doi:10.1038/pcan.2014.3
Orom H, Homish DL, Homish GG, Underwood W. Quality of physician-patient relationships is associated with the influence of physician treatment recommendations among patients with prostate cancer who chose active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:396-402. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.09.018