Clint Cary1,2, Laura Militello3, Paige DeChant2, Richard Frankel2, Michael O Koch1, Michael Weiner2,4. 1. Indiana University Department of Urology, Veterans Health Administration, Center for Health Information and Communication, U.S. 2. Regenstreif Institute, Inc, Veterans Health Administration, Center for Health Information and Communication, U.S. 3. Applied Decision Science, Veterans Health Administration, Center for Health Information and Communication, U.S. 4. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The intravesical instillation of mitomycin C immediately following surgery for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer has been shown to be efficacious in reducing cancer recurrence. As a result, the American Urological Association adopted guidelines for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer care to support its use in low to intermediate risk patients. Despite this, urologists' use of this drug following transurethral resection of a bladder tumor (TURBT) has been reported as low as 5% or less. Our study objective was to better understand the barriers urologists experience in using mitomycin C. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 practicing urologists at 4 geographically distinct practice locations throughout Indiana between 2017 and 2018. Cognitive task analysis was used to explore factors that influenced their clinician decision-making about Mitomycin C use following TURBT in specific patient cases. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using immersion/crystallization to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: The median age of the urologists interviewed was 44 (IQR 40-48). Eighty-five percent were male. Approximately 30% had completed urologic fellowship training; 62% were in private practice. Three major themes related to the use of mitomycin C emerged: cumbersome workflow processes, urologists' fears of side effects, and issues of identifying patients most likely to benefit. CONCLUSION: Workflow, fear, and value are key factors and also represent complexities of translating efficacy into effectiveness for a drug with known benefits to patients. Areas of potential intervention development to improve the use of mitomycin C to reduce recurrence of bladder cancer are suggested. Alternatives such as gemcitabine may also help overcome these barriers.
INTRODUCTION: The intravesical instillation of mitomycin C immediately following surgery for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer has been shown to be efficacious in reducing cancer recurrence. As a result, the American Urological Association adopted guidelines for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer care to support its use in low to intermediate risk patients. Despite this, urologists' use of this drug following transurethral resection of a bladder tumor (TURBT) has been reported as low as 5% or less. Our study objective was to better understand the barriers urologists experience in using mitomycin C. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 practicing urologists at 4 geographically distinct practice locations throughout Indiana between 2017 and 2018. Cognitive task analysis was used to explore factors that influenced their clinician decision-making about Mitomycin C use following TURBT in specific patient cases. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using immersion/crystallization to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: The median age of the urologists interviewed was 44 (IQR 40-48). Eighty-five percent were male. Approximately 30% had completed urologic fellowship training; 62% were in private practice. Three major themes related to the use of mitomycin C emerged: cumbersome workflow processes, urologists' fears of side effects, and issues of identifying patients most likely to benefit. CONCLUSION: Workflow, fear, and value are key factors and also represent complexities of translating efficacy into effectiveness for a drug with known benefits to patients. Areas of potential intervention development to improve the use of mitomycin C to reduce recurrence of bladder cancer are suggested. Alternatives such as gemcitabine may also help overcome these barriers.
Authors: D A Tolley; M K Parmar; K M Grigor; G Lallemand; L L Benyon; J Fellows; L S Freedman; K M Grigor; R R Hall; T B Hargreave; K Munson; D W Newling; B Richards; M R Robinson; M B Rose; P H Smith; J L Williams; P Whelan Journal: J Urol Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alissa L Russ; Laura G Militello; Peter A Glassman; Karen J Arthur; Alan J Zillich; Michael Weiner Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.844
Authors: Michael S Cookson; Sam S Chang; Michael G Oefelein; Jack R Gallagher; Brent Schwartz; Kylee Heap Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nathan Perlis; Alexandre R Zlotta; Joseph Beyene; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner; Girish S Kulkarni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Karim Chamie; Christopher S Saigal; Julie Lai; Jan M Hanley; Claude M Setodji; Badrinath R Konety; Mark S Litwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Karim Chamie; Christopher S Saigal; Julie Lai; Jan M Hanley; Claude M Setodji; Badrinath R Konety; Mark S Litwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Clint Cary; Yan Tong; Susan Linsell; Khurshid Ghani; David C Miller; Michael Weiner; Michael O Koch; Susan M Perkins; Gregory Zimet Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 7.450