Archana Radhakrishnan1, Lauren P Wallner2,3, Ted A Skolarus4,5, Paul H Abrahamse2, Adam S Kollipara2, Steven J Katz2,6, Sarah T Hawley2,5,6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. arra@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care provider's (PCP) role in cancer care is expanding and may include supporting patients in their treatment decisions. However, the degree to which PCPs engage in this role for low-risk prostate cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Characterize PCP perceptions regarding their role in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, national survey. MAIN MEASURES: For men with low-risk prostate cancer, PCP reports of (1) confidence in treatment decision-making (high vs. low); (2) intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making (more vs. less). KEY RESULTS: A total of 347 from 741 eligible PCPs responded (adjusted response rate 56%). Half of respondent PCPs (50.3%) reported high confidence about engaging in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. The odds of PCPs reporting high confidence were greater among those in solo practice (vs working with > 1 PCP) (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.14-4.17) and with higher volume of prostate cancer patients (> 15 vs. 6-10 in past year) (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.02-4.61). PCP report of their intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making varied: discussing worry (62.4%), reviewing benefits (48.5%) and risks (41.8%), and reviewing all treatment options (34.2%). PCPs who reported high confidence had increased odds of more participation in all aspects of active surveillance decision-making: reviewing all treatment options (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.82-5.32), discussing worry (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.28-3.51), and reviewing benefits (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.89-5.16) and risks (OR 3.20; 95% CI 1.91-5.36). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PCPs were confident about engaging with patients in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making, though their intended participation varied widely across four key aspects of active surveillance care. With active surveillance being considered for other low-risk cancers (such as breast and thyroid), understanding factors influencing PCP involvement will be instrumental to supporting team-based cancer care.
BACKGROUND: Primary care provider's (PCP) role in cancer care is expanding and may include supporting patients in their treatment decisions. However, the degree to which PCPs engage in this role for low-risk prostate cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Characterize PCP perceptions regarding their role in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, national survey. MAIN MEASURES: For men with low-risk prostate cancer, PCP reports of (1) confidence in treatment decision-making (high vs. low); (2) intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making (more vs. less). KEY RESULTS: A total of 347 from 741 eligible PCPs responded (adjusted response rate 56%). Half of respondent PCPs (50.3%) reported high confidence about engaging in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. The odds of PCPs reporting high confidence were greater among those in solo practice (vs working with > 1 PCP) (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.14-4.17) and with higher volume of prostate cancer patients (> 15 vs. 6-10 in past year) (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.02-4.61). PCP report of their intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making varied: discussing worry (62.4%), reviewing benefits (48.5%) and risks (41.8%), and reviewing all treatment options (34.2%). PCPs who reported high confidence had increased odds of more participation in all aspects of active surveillance decision-making: reviewing all treatment options (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.82-5.32), discussing worry (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.28-3.51), and reviewing benefits (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.89-5.16) and risks (OR 3.20; 95% CI 1.91-5.36). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PCPs were confident about engaging with patients in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making, though their intended participation varied widely across four key aspects of active surveillance care. With active surveillance being considered for other low-risk cancers (such as breast and thyroid), understanding factors influencing PCP involvement will be instrumental to supporting team-based cancer care.
Authors: Mary S McCabe; Smita Bhatia; Kevin C Oeffinger; Gregory H Reaman; Courtney Tyne; Dana S Wollins; Melissa M Hudson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Katherine S Virgo; Catherine C Lerro; Carrie N Klabunde; Craig Earle; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Lauren P Wallner; Paul Abrahamse; Jaspreet K Uppal; Christopher R Friese; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Emily M Mader; Hsin H Li; Kathleen D Lyons; Christopher P Morley; Margaret K Formica; Scott D Perrapato; Brian H Irwin; John D Seigne; Elias S Hyams; Terry Mosher; Mark T Hegel; Telisa M Stewart Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: E Shelley Hwang; Terry Hyslop; Thomas Lynch; Elizabeth Frank; Donna Pinto; Desiree Basila; Deborah Collyar; Antonia Bennett; Celia Kaplan; Shoshana Rosenberg; Alastair Thompson; Anna Weiss; Ann Partridge Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Archana Radhakrishnan; Lauren P Wallner; Ted A Skolarus; Arvin K George; Bradley H Rosenberg; Paul Abrahamse; Sarah T Hawley Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 7.600