Expert consensus document: Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer — results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure

Active surveillance (AS) is broadly described as a management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, but semantic heterogeneity exists in both the literature and in guidelines. To address this issue, a panel of leading prostate cancer specialists in the field of AS participated in a consensus-forming project using a modified Delphi method to reach international consensus on definitions of terms related to this management option. An iterative three-round sequence of online questionnaires designed to address 61 individual items was completed by each panel member. Consensus was considered to be reached if ≥70% of the experts agreed on a definition. To facilitate a common understanding among all experts involved and resolve potential ambiguities, a face-to-face consensus meeting was held between Delphi survey rounds two and three. Convenience sampling was used to construct the panel of experts. In total, 12 experts from Australia, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Canada and the USA participated. By the end of the Delphi process, formal consensus was achieved for 100% (n = 61) of the terms and a glossary was then developed. Agreement between international experts has been reached on relevant terms and subsequent definitions regarding AS for patients with localized prostate cancer. This standard terminology could support multidisciplinary communication, reduce the extent of variations in clinical practice and optimize clinical decision making

Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer - results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure

Active surveillance (AS) is broadly described as a management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, but semantic heterogeneity exists in both the literature and in guidelines. To address this issue, a panel of leading prostate cancer specialists in the field of AS participated in a consensus-forming project using a modified Delphi method to reach international consensus on definitions of terms related to this management option. An iterative three-round sequence of online questionnaires designed to address 61 individual items was completed by each panel member. Consensus was considered to be reached if >= 70% of the experts agreed on a definition. To facilitate a common understanding among all experts involved and resolve potential ambiguities, a face-to-face consensus meeting was held between Delphi survey rounds two and three. Convenience sampling was used to construct the panel of experts. In total, 12 experts from Australia, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Canada and the USA participated. By the end of the Delphi process, formal consensus was achieved for 100% (n = 61) of the terms and a glossary was then developed. Agreement between international experts has been reached on relevant terms and subsequent definitions regarding AS for patients with localized prostate cancer. This standard terminology could support multidisciplinary communication, reduce the extent of variations in clinical practice and optimize clinical decision making.Peer reviewe

Disparities in time to prostate cancer treatment initiation before and after the Affordable Care Act

Abstract Background Delayed access to care may contribute to disparities in prostate cancer (PCa). The Affordable Care Act (ACA) aimed at increasing access and reducing healthcare disparities, but its impact on timely treatment initiation for PCa men is unknown. Methods Men with intermediate‐ and high‐risk PCa diagnosed 2010–2016 and treated with curative surgery or radiotherapy were identified in the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic regression modeled the effect of race and insurance type on treatment delay >180 days after diagnosis. Cochran–Armitage test measured annual trends in delays, and joinpoint regression assessed if 2014, the year the ACA became fully operationalized, was significant for inflection in crude rates of major delays. Results Of 422,506 eligible men, 18,720 (4.4%) experienced >180‐day delay in treatment initiation. Compared to White patients, Black (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.72–1.87, p < 0.001) and Hispanic (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.28–1.48, p < 0.001) patients had higher odds of delay. Compared to uninsured, those with Medicaid had no difference in odds of delay (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84–1.06, p = 0.31), while those with private insurance (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.52–0.63, p < 0.001) or Medicare (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.58–0.70, p < 0.001) had lower odds of delay. Mean time to treatment significantly increased from 2010 to 2016 across all racial/ethnic groups (trend p < 0.001); 2014 was associated with a significant inflection for increase in rates of major delays. Conclusions Non‐White and Medicaid‐insured men with localized PCa are at risk of treatment delays in the United States. Treatment delays have been consistently rising, particularly after implementation of the ACA

The Relationship between Intolerance of Uncertainty and Anxiety in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

PurposeAnxiety may serve as a major barrier to participation in active surveillance. Intolerance of uncertainty, that is the tendency to perceive the potential for negative events as threatening, has been linked to cancer related worry. Accordingly we explored prospectively the relationship of intolerance of uncertainty with anxiety along with other clinical factors among men treated with active surveillance for prostate cancer.Materials and methodsA total of 119 men with D'Amico low risk prostate cancer participating in active surveillance completed the HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), MAX-PC (Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer), IUS (Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale) and I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) surveys from 2011 to 2014. We evaluated the relationship between anxiety and IUS score after adjusting for patient characteristics, cancer information and I-PSS using bivariable and multivariable analyses.ResultsOf the men 18 (15.1%) and 17 (14.3%) reported clinically significant anxiety on the generalized and prostate cancer specific scales, respectively. On bivariable analysis men with moderate/severe urinary symptoms and higher IUS scores reported more generalized and prostate cancer specific anxiety than men with mild urinary symptoms and lower IUS scores, respectively (p ≤0.008). Men&nbsp;with depressive symptoms (p = 0.024) or a family history of prostate cancer (p = 0.006) experienced greater generalized anxiety. On multivariable analysis IUS score was significantly associated with generalized and prostate cancer specific anxiety (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.38 and OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.13-1.49, respectively) while moderate/severe urinary symptoms were associated with prostate cancer specific anxiety (OR 6.89, 95% CI 1.33-35.68).ConclusionsIntolerance of uncertainty and urinary symptoms may promote anxiety in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Patient education, management of lower urinary tract symptoms and behavioral interventions may lessen anxiety related to uncertainty intolerance and help maintain patient engagement in active surveillance

The Relationship between Intolerance of Uncertainty and Anxiety in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

PurposeAnxiety may serve as a major barrier to participation in active surveillance. Intolerance of uncertainty, that is the tendency to perceive the potential for negative events as threatening, has been linked to cancer related worry. Accordingly we explored prospectively the relationship of intolerance of uncertainty with anxiety along with other clinical factors among men treated with active surveillance for prostate cancer.Materials and methodsA total of 119 men with D'Amico low risk prostate cancer participating in active surveillance completed the HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), MAX-PC (Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer), IUS (Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale) and I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) surveys from 2011 to 2014. We evaluated the relationship between anxiety and IUS score after adjusting for patient characteristics, cancer information and I-PSS using bivariable and multivariable analyses.ResultsOf the men 18 (15.1%) and 17 (14.3%) reported clinically significant anxiety on the generalized and prostate cancer specific scales, respectively. On bivariable analysis men with moderate/severe urinary symptoms and higher IUS scores reported more generalized and prostate cancer specific anxiety than men with mild urinary symptoms and lower IUS scores, respectively (p ≤0.008). Men&nbsp;with depressive symptoms (p = 0.024) or a family history of prostate cancer (p = 0.006) experienced greater generalized anxiety. On multivariable analysis IUS score was significantly associated with generalized and prostate cancer specific anxiety (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.38 and OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.13-1.49, respectively) while moderate/severe urinary symptoms were associated with prostate cancer specific anxiety (OR 6.89, 95% CI 1.33-35.68).ConclusionsIntolerance of uncertainty and urinary symptoms may promote anxiety in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Patient education, management of lower urinary tract symptoms and behavioral interventions may lessen anxiety related to uncertainty intolerance and help maintain patient engagement in active surveillance

Initial experience with electronic tracking of specific tumor sites in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer

ObjectivesTargeted biopsy, using magnetic resonance (MR)-ultrasound (US) fusion, may allow tracking of specific cancer sites in the prostate. We aimed to evaluate the initial use of the technique to follow tumor sites in men on active surveillance of prostate cancer.Methods and materialsA total of 53 men with prostate cancer (all T1c category) underwent rebiopsy of 74 positive biopsy sites, which were tracked and targeted using the Artemis MR-US fusion device (Eigen, Grass Valley, CA) from March 2010 through January 2013. The initial biopsy included 12 cores from a standard template (mapped by software) and directed biopsies from regions of interest seen on MR imaging (MRI). In the repeat biopsy, samples were taken from sites containing cancer at the initial biopsy. Outcomes of interest at second MR-US biopsy included (a) presence of any cancer and (b) presence of clinically significant cancer.ResultsAll cancers on initial biopsy had either Gleason score 3+3 = 6 (n = 63) or 3+4 = 7 (n = 11). At initial biopsy, 23 cancers were within an MRI target, and 51 were found on systematic biopsy. Cancer detection rate on repeat biopsy (29/74, 39%) was independent of Gleason score on initial biopsy (P = not significant) but directly related to initial cancer core length (P&lt;0.02). Repeat sampling of cancerous sites within MRI targets was more likely to show cancer than resampling of tumorous systematic sites (61% vs. 29%, P = 0.005). When initial cancer core length was≥4 mm within an MRI target, more than 80% (5/6) of follow-up tracking biopsies were positive. An increase of Gleason score was uncommon (9/74, 12%).ConclusionsMonitoring of specific prostate cancer-containing sites may be achieved in some men using an electronic tracking system. The chances of finding tumor on repeat specific-site sampling was directly related to the length of tumor in the initial biopsy core and presence of tumor within an MRI target; upgrading of Gleason score was uncommon. Further research is required to evaluate the potential utility of site-specific biopsy tracking for patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance