Archana Radhakrishnan1, David Grande2, Nandita Mitra3, Craig Evan Pollack4. 1. Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: arra@med.umich.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Scott D Ramsey; David F Penson; Ingrid J Hall; Donatus U Ekwueme; Leonard Stroud; Judith W Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: John Z Ayanian; Alan M Zaslavsky; Neeraj K Arora; Katherine L Kahn; Jennifer L Malin; Patricia A Ganz; Michelle van Ryn; Mark C Hornbrook; Catarina I Kiefe; Yulei He; Julie M Urmie; Jane C Weeks; David P Harrington Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Caitlin Curnyn; Angela Fagerlin; Ronald Scott Braithwaite; Mark D Schwartz; Herbert Lepor; Herbert Ballentine Carter; Erica Sedlander Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-10-02 Impact factor: 5.588
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