Knowledge and practice regarding prostate cancer germline testing among urologists: Gaps to address for optimal implementation

BACKGROUND: Germline testing is recommended for all men with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), and for some with localized PCa meeting specific histologic or family history criteria. Germline genetic evaluation has important implications for PCa prognosis and management, as well as implications for family members and cancer screening. Despite the importance of germline evaluation, its utilization in urologic practice is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 32-item survey of U.S. urologists to examine knowledge of germline testing guidelines and practice patterns. It was shared through email to 6 American Urological Association sections, the Veterans Affairs Urology Mailgroup, and social media. RESULTS: Among 132 total respondents from diverse practice settings across the U.S., 12% perform germline testing, 44% refer to a genetic counselor, 11% do both, and 33% do not test/refer. Only 4% had formal education in genetics. While 98% ask about PCa family history, only 76% and 52% ask about breast and ovarian cancer. When presented with hypothetical case scenarios where germline testing is indicated, many respondents indicated they would not offer genetic counseling or testing. Younger age (p = 0,03), academic practice (p = 0.04), and specializing in PCa/oncology (p = 0.007) were significantly associated with performing or referring for germline testing. Specializing in PCa/oncology was significantly associated with recommending germline testing for all case scenarios involving metastatic PCa (p = 0.0009) CONCLUSION: Our results suggest significant gaps in knowledge of germline testing and alignment of practice with national guidelines among urologists. Germline testing education and facilitation of genetic evaluation in urologic practice is warranted

The implications of baseline bone‐health assessment at initiation of androgen‐deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142891/1/bju14075.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142891/2/bju14075_am.pd

De-implementation of low value castration for men with prostate cancer: protocol for a theory-based, mixed methods approach to minimizing low value androgen deprivation therapy (DeADT)

Abstract Background Men with prostate cancer are often castrated with long-acting injectable drugs termed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Although many benefit, ADT is also used in patients with little or nothing to gain. The best ways to stop this practice are unknown, and range from blunt pharmacy restrictions to informed decision-making. This study will refine and pilot two different de-implementation strategies for reducing ADT use among those unlikely to benefit in preparation for a comparative effectiveness trial. Methods/design This innovative mixed methods research program has three aims. Aim 1: To assess preferences and barriers for de-implementation of chemical castration in prostate cancer. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), urologists and patients from facilities with the highest and lowest castration rates across the VA will be interviewed to identify key preferences and de-implementation barriers for reducing castration as prostate cancer treatment. This qualitative work will inform Aim 2 while gathering rich information for two proposed pilot intervention strategies. Aim 2: To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a novel barrier prioritization approach, for de-implementation strategy tailoring. The investigators will conduct national surveys of urologists to prioritize key barriers identified in Aim 1 for stopping incident castration as localized prostate cancer treatment using a DCE experiment design. These quantitative results will identify the most important barriers to be addressed through tailoring of two pilot de-implementation strategies in preparation for Aim 3 piloting. Aim 3: To pilot two tailored de-implementation strategies to reduce castration as localized prostate cancer treatment. Building on findings from Aims 1 and 2, two de-implementation strategies will be piloted. One strategy will focus on formulary restriction at the organizational level and the other on physician/patient informed decision-making at different facilities. Outcomes will include acceptability, feasibility, and scalability in preparation for an effectiveness trial comparing these two widely varying de-implementation strategies. Discussion Our innovative approach to de-implementation strategy development is directly aligned with state-of-the-art complex implementation intervention development and implementation science. This work will broadly advance de-implementation science for low value cancer care, and foster participation in our de-implementation evaluation trial by addressing barriers, facilitators, and concerns through pilot tailoring. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03579680 , First Posted July 6, 2018.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146541/1/13012_2018_Article_833.pd