Behfar Ehdaie1, Melissa Assel2, Nicole Benfante2, Deepak Malhotra3, Andrew Vickers2. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: ehdaieb@mskcc.org. 2. Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Negotiation, Organizations, and Markets Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians report difficulty convincing patients with prostate cancer about the merits of active surveillance (AS); as a result, a majority of patients unnecessarily choose to undergo radical treatment. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a systematic approach for physicians to counsel patients with low-risk prostate cancer to increase acceptance of AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A systematic counseling approach was developed and piloted in one clinic. Then five surgeons participated in a 1-h training session in which they learned about the approach. A total of 1003 patients with Gleason 3+3 prostate cancer were included in the study. We compared AS rates for 761 patients who were counseled over a 24-mo period before the training intervention with AS rates for 242 patients who were counseled over a 12-mo period afterwards, controlling for temporal trends and case mix. INTERVENTION: A systematic approach for communicating the merits of AS using appropriate framing techniques derived from principles studied by negotiation scholars. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The rate of AS acceptance by patients for management of low-risk prostate cancer. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the pilot phase, 81 of 86 patients (94%) accepted AS after counseling by the physician who developed the counseling approach. In the subsequent study, the cohort for the training intervention comprised 1003 consecutive patients, 80% of whom met the Epstein criteria for very low-risk disease. The proportion of patients who selected AS increased from 69% before the training intervention to 81% afterwards. After adjusting for time trends and case mix, the rate of AS after the intervention was 9.1% higher (95% confidence interval -0.4% to 19.4%) than expected, a relative reduction of approximately 30% in the risk of unnecessary curative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic approach to counseling can be taught to physicians in a 1-h lecture. We found evidence that even this minimal intervention can decrease overtreatment. Our novel approach offers a framework to help address cancer screening-related overtreatment that occurs across medicine. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we evaluated the impact of teaching physicians how to better communicate the benefits and risks of prostate cancer treatments on the willingness of patients to choose active surveillance. Decisions related to cancer are often guided by emotions and biases that lead most patients to seek radical treatment; however, we demonstrated that if discussions are framed differently, these biases can be overcome and more patients will choose active surveillance.
BACKGROUND: Physicians report difficulty convincing patients with prostate cancer about the merits of active surveillance (AS); as a result, a majority of patients unnecessarily choose to undergo radical treatment. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a systematic approach for physicians to counsel patients with low-risk prostate cancer to increase acceptance of AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A systematic counseling approach was developed and piloted in one clinic. Then five surgeons participated in a 1-h training session in which they learned about the approach. A total of 1003 patients with Gleason 3+3 prostate cancer were included in the study. We compared AS rates for 761 patients who were counseled over a 24-mo period before the training intervention with AS rates for 242 patients who were counseled over a 12-mo period afterwards, controlling for temporal trends and case mix. INTERVENTION: A systematic approach for communicating the merits of AS using appropriate framing techniques derived from principles studied by negotiation scholars. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The rate of AS acceptance by patients for management of low-risk prostate cancer. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the pilot phase, 81 of 86 patients (94%) accepted AS after counseling by the physician who developed the counseling approach. In the subsequent study, the cohort for the training intervention comprised 1003 consecutive patients, 80% of whom met the Epstein criteria for very low-risk disease. The proportion of patients who selected AS increased from 69% before the training intervention to 81% afterwards. After adjusting for time trends and case mix, the rate of AS after the intervention was 9.1% higher (95% confidence interval -0.4% to 19.4%) than expected, a relative reduction of approximately 30% in the risk of unnecessary curative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic approach to counseling can be taught to physicians in a 1-h lecture. We found evidence that even this minimal intervention can decrease overtreatment. Our novel approach offers a framework to help address cancer screening-related overtreatment that occurs across medicine. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we evaluated the impact of teaching physicians how to better communicate the benefits and risks of prostate cancer treatments on the willingness of patients to choose active surveillance. Decisions related to cancer are often guided by emotions and biases that lead most patients to seek radical treatment; however, we demonstrated that if discussions are framed differently, these biases can be overcome and more patients will choose active surveillance.
Authors: Simon P Kim; Cary P Gross; Paul L Nguyen; Marc C Smaldone; Nilay D Shah; R Jeffrey Karnes; R Houston Thompson; Leona C Han; James B Yu; Quoc D Trinh; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Maxine Sun; Jon C Tilburt Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: David W Kissane; Carma L Bylund; Smita C Banerjee; Philip A Bialer; Tomer T Levin; Erin K Maloney; Thomas A D'Agostino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ruth Etzioni; David F Penson; Julie M Legler; Dante di Tommaso; Rob Boer; Peter H Gann; Eric J Feuer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-07-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ronald C Chen; R Bryan Rumble; D Andrew Loblaw; Antonio Finelli; Behfar Ehdaie; Matthew R Cooperberg; Scott C Morgan; Scott Tyldesley; John J Haluschak; Winston Tan; Stewart Justman; Suneil Jain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jinping Xu; Anne Victoria Neale; Rhonda K Dailey; Susan Eggly; Kendra L Schwartz Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Mark V Mishra; Michele Bennett; Armon Vincent; Olivia T Lee; Costas D Lallas; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Adam P Dicker; Timothy N Showalter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthew B Clements; Xin Lin; Caroline Gmelich; Emily A Vertosick; Andrew J Vickers; Michael K Manasia; Natalie C Wolchasty; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone; Karim A Touijer; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2021-09-01
Authors: Douglas Cheung; Jed Frankel; Pavinder Tut; Maria Komisarenko; Lisa Martin; Michael Jewett; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Kittie Pang; Margaret Fitch; Veronique Ouellet; Simone Chevalier; Darrel E Drachenberg; Antonio Finelli; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Alan So; Simon Sutcliffe; Simon Tanguay; Fred Saad; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lars Björnebo; Henrik Olsson; Tobias Nordström; Fredrik Jäderling; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund; Anna Lantz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 4.226