Purpose: We implemented an advanced practice provider (APP)-led clinic to aid in managing the growing population of men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. Our objective was to evaluate the quality and safety of an established APP-led AS clinic by comparing outcomes with urologist-led biopsies, defined in terms of adherence to scheduled visits and biopsy complications. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 2341 consecutive patients treated in an AS clinic at a high-volume referral center between 2000-2019. We examined the rate of no-show or same-day cancellation of visits for APPs versus urologists and compared the risk of biopsy complications between these providers. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for repeated visits and biopsies. Results: There were significantly more no-shows at APP visits (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-1.70, p <0.001); however, this only amounted to one no-show every 41 visits. There was no evidence of increased biopsy complications with APPs (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.05-2.49, p =0.3). Patients were not prospectively assigned to APP or urologist management; therefore, unmeasured patient differences could bias our results. Conclusions: We demonstrated that in an established APP-led AS clinic at a high-volume center, APPs achieved acceptable patient adherence to scheduled visits and biopsy complications. Because patients were not continuously managed by one type of provider, further prospective studies are needed to establish equivalent pathologic outcomes in APP-managed AS.
Purpose: We implemented an advanced practice provider (APP)-led clinic to aid in managing the growing population of men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. Our objective was to evaluate the quality and safety of an established APP-led AS clinic by comparing outcomes with urologist-led biopsies, defined in terms of adherence to scheduled visits and biopsy complications. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 2341 consecutive patients treated in an AS clinic at a high-volume referral center between 2000-2019. We examined the rate of no-show or same-day cancellation of visits for APPs versus urologists and compared the risk of biopsy complications between these providers. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for repeated visits and biopsies. Results: There were significantly more no-shows at APP visits (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-1.70, p <0.001); however, this only amounted to one no-show every 41 visits. There was no evidence of increased biopsy complications with APPs (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.05-2.49, p =0.3). Patients were not prospectively assigned to APP or urologist management; therefore, unmeasured patient differences could bias our results. Conclusions: We demonstrated that in an established APP-led AS clinic at a high-volume center, APPs achieved acceptable patient adherence to scheduled visits and biopsy complications. Because patients were not continuously managed by one type of provider, further prospective studies are needed to establish equivalent pathologic outcomes in APP-managed AS.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active surveillance; Advanced Practice Providers; Nurse practitioner; Physician assistant; Prostate cancer
Authors: Joshua P Langston; Richard Duszak; Venetia L Orcutt; Heather Schultz; Brad Hornberger; Lawrence C Jenkins; Jennifer Hemingway; Danny R Hughes; Raj S Pruthi; Matthew E Nielsen Journal: Urology Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Maxim J McKibben; E Will Kirby; Joshua Langston; Mathew C Raynor; Matthew E Nielsen; Angela B Smith; Eric M Wallen; Michael E Woods; Raj S Pruthi Journal: Urology Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Pedro Recabal; Taehyoung Lee; Emily Vertosick; Michael Manasia; James Eastham; Karim Touijer; Susan K Seo; Massimiliano Spaliviero; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: A Henderson; D E Andrich; M E Pietrasik; D Higgins; B Montgomery; S E M Langley Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2004 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Lawrence Drudge-Coates; Vitra Khati; Randolph Ballesteros; Clarissa Martyn-Hemphill; Christian Brown; James Green; Ben Challacombe; Gordon Muir Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2019-12-18
Authors: Julia Wade; Peter N Holding; Susan Bonnington; Leila Rooshenas; J Athene Lane; C Elizabeth Salter; Kate Tilling; Mark J Speakman; Simon F Brewster; Simon Evans; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 2.692