Archana Radhakrishnan1, Lauren P Wallner1,2, Ted A Skolarus3,4, Vahakn B Shahinian3,5, Paul H Abrahamse6, Michael D Fetters7, Sarah T Hawley1,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Department of Nephrology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
Introduction: Primary care providers can collaborate with urologists to ensure men with low risk prostate cancer on active surveillance receive followup testing and adhere to the management strategy, yet primary care provider attitudes about active surveillance and their roles remain unknown. Methods: We surveyed 1,000 primary care providers (347/741 eligible primary care providers responded). We assessed primary care provider support for and beliefs about active surveillance, and attitudes about and preferences for their role in various aspects of low risk prostate cancer management. We then examined associations between 1) primary care provider support for and primary care provider beliefs about active surveillance; and 2) primary care provider attitudes and preferences for their role. Results: Nearly 50% of primary care providers strongly supported active surveillance for all low risk men, and 81% strongly agreed that active surveillance allows men to avoid side effects, while 57% strongly agreed it caused worry. Primary care providers who strongly supported active surveillance were less likely to strongly agree that active surveillance contributes to worry (50.3% vs 63.7% respectively, p=0.01). Half of the primary care providers strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care (50.5%), and the majority preferred a shared care model to ordering prostate specific antigen tests (60.1%). Primary care providers who strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care were more likely to prefer a primary care provider-led (79.3% vs 20.7%) or shared care (53.9% vs 46.1%) model vs urologist-led for ordering prostate specific antigen tests (p <0.01). Conclusions: While many primary care providers supported active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer, primary care providers still had concerns with it as the primary management strategy. Understanding primary care providers perspectives on low risk prostate cancer management can inform strategies to improve high quality active surveillance care.
Introduction: Primary care providers can collaborate with urologists to ensure men with low risk prostate cancer on active surveillance receive followup testing and adhere to the management strategy, yet primary care provider attitudes about active surveillance and their roles remain unknown. Methods: We surveyed 1,000 primary care providers (347/741 eligible primary care providers responded). We assessed primary care provider support for and beliefs about active surveillance, and attitudes about and preferences for their role in various aspects of low risk prostate cancer management. We then examined associations between 1) primary care provider support for and primary care provider beliefs about active surveillance; and 2) primary care provider attitudes and preferences for their role. Results: Nearly 50% of primary care providers strongly supported active surveillance for all low risk men, and 81% strongly agreed that active surveillance allows men to avoid side effects, while 57% strongly agreed it caused worry. Primary care providers who strongly supported active surveillance were less likely to strongly agree that active surveillance contributes to worry (50.3% vs 63.7% respectively, p=0.01). Half of the primary care providers strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care (50.5%), and the majority preferred a shared care model to ordering prostate specific antigen tests (60.1%). Primary care providers who strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care were more likely to prefer a primary care provider-led (79.3% vs 20.7%) or shared care (53.9% vs 46.1%) model vs urologist-led for ordering prostate specific antigen tests (p <0.01). Conclusions: While many primary care providers supported active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer, primary care providers still had concerns with it as the primary management strategy. Understanding primary care providers perspectives on low risk prostate cancer management can inform strategies to improve high quality active surveillance care.
Authors: Greg Rubin; Annette Berendsen; S Michael Crawford; Rachel Dommett; Craig Earle; Jon Emery; Tom Fahey; Luigi Grassi; Eva Grunfeld; Sumit Gupta; Willie Hamilton; Sara Hiom; David Hunter; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Una Macleod; Robert Mason; Geoffrey Mitchell; Richard D Neal; Michael Peake; Martin Roland; Bohumil Seifert; Jeff Sisler; Jonathan Sussman; Stephen Taplin; Peter Vedsted; Teja Voruganti; Fiona Walter; Jane Wardle; Eila Watson; David Weller; Richard Wender; Jeremy Whelan; James Whitlock; Clare Wilkinson; Niek de Wit; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Michael P Kosty; Amy Hanley; Veronica Chollette; Suanna S Bruinooge; Steven H Taplin Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Lauren P Wallner; Yun Li; Allison K C Furgal; Christopher R Friese; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Reshma Jagsi; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Ted A Skolarus; Andrew M D Wolf; Nicole L Erb; Durado D Brooks; Brian M Rivers; Willie Underwood; Andrew L Salner; Michael J Zelefsky; Jeanny B Aragon-Ching; Susan F Slovin; Daniela A Wittmann; Michael A Hoyt; Victoria J Sinibaldi; Gerald Chodak; Mandi L Pratt-Chapman; Rebecca L Cowens-Alvarado Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Karen A Scherr; Angela Fagerlin; Timothy Hofer; Laura D Scherer; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Lillie D Williamson; Valerie C Kahn; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Kirsten L Greene; Biqi Zhang; Peter A Ubel Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.583
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: Lauren P Wallner; Yun Li; M Chandler McLeod; Joan Gargaro; Allison W Kurian; Reshma Jagsi; Archana Radhakrishnan; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Sarah T Hawley; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 6.921