Michael L Cher1, Apoorv Dhir2, Gregory B Auffenberg2, Susan Linsell2, Yuqing Gao2, Bradley Rosenberg3, S Mohammad Jafri3, Laurence Klotz4, David C Miller2, Khurshid R Ghani2, Steven J Bernstein5, James E Montie2, Brian R Lane6. 1. Department of Urology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Electronic address: mcher@med.wayne.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Comprehensive Urology, Royal Oak, Michigan. 4. Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Division of Urology, Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The adoption of active surveillance varies widely across urological communities, which suggests a need for more consistency in the counseling of patients. To address this need we used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop appropriateness criteria and counseling statements for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panelists were recruited from MUSIC urology practices. Combinations of parameters thought to influence decision making were used to create and score 160 theoretical clinical scenarios for appropriateness of active surveillance. Recent rates of active surveillance among real patients across the state were assessed using the MUSIC registry. RESULTS: Low volume Gleason 6 was deemed highly appropriate for active surveillance whereas high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4 were deemed appropriate to uncertain. No scenario was deemed inappropriate or highly inappropriate. Prostate specific antigen density, race and life expectancy impacted scores for intermediate and high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4. The greatest degree of score dispersion (disagreement) occurred in scenarios with long life expectancy, high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4. Recent rates of active surveillance use among real patients ranged from 0% to 100% at the provider level for low or intermediate biopsy volume Gleason 6, demonstrating a clear opportunity for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: By virtue of this work urologists have the opportunity to present specific recommendations from the panel to their individual patients. Community-wide efforts aimed at increasing rates of active surveillance and reducing practice and physician level variation in the choice of active surveillance vs treatment are warranted. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: The adoption of active surveillance varies widely across urological communities, which suggests a need for more consistency in the counseling of patients. To address this need we used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop appropriateness criteria and counseling statements for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panelists were recruited from MUSIC urology practices. Combinations of parameters thought to influence decision making were used to create and score 160 theoretical clinical scenarios for appropriateness of active surveillance. Recent rates of active surveillance among real patients across the state were assessed using the MUSIC registry. RESULTS: Low volume Gleason 6 was deemed highly appropriate for active surveillance whereas high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4 were deemed appropriate to uncertain. No scenario was deemed inappropriate or highly inappropriate. Prostate specific antigen density, race and life expectancy impacted scores for intermediate and high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4. The greatest degree of score dispersion (disagreement) occurred in scenarios with long life expectancy, high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4. Recent rates of active surveillance use among real patients ranged from 0% to 100% at the provider level for low or intermediate biopsy volume Gleason 6, demonstrating a clear opportunity for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: By virtue of this work urologists have the opportunity to present specific recommendations from the panel to their individual patients. Community-wide efforts aimed at increasing rates of active surveillance and reducing practice and physician level variation in the choice of active surveillance vs treatment are warranted. Copyright Â
Authors: Izak Faiena; Stuart Holden; Mathew R Cooperberg; Stuart Holden; Howard R Soule; Jonathan W Simons; Todd M Morgan; David F Penson; Alicia K Morgans; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gregory B Auffenberg; Khurshid R Ghani; Shreyas Ramani; Etiowo Usoro; Brian Denton; Craig Rogers; Benjamin Stockton; David C Miller; Karandeep Singh Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Spencer C Hiller; Stephanie Daignault-Newton; Ivan Rakic; Susan Linsell; Bronson Conrado; S Mohammad Jafri; Ronald Rubenstein; Mazen Abdelhady; C Peter Fischer; Elena Gimenez; Richard Sarle; William W Roberts; Conrad Maitland; Rafid Yousif; Robert Elgin; Laris Galejs; Jeremy Konheim; David Leavitt; Eric Stockall; J Rene Fontera; J Stuart Wolf; John M Hollingsworth; Casey A Dauw; Khurshid R Ghani Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2022-03-03
Authors: Amit K Patel; Craig G Rogers; Anna Johnson; Sabrina L Noyes; Ji Qi; David Miller; Edward Shervish; Benjamin Stockton; Brian R Lane Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2020-12-04