Impact of health literacy on shared decision making for prostate-specific antigen screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines endorse shared decision making (SDM) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. The relationship between a patient\u27s health literacy (HL) and SDM remains unclear. In the current study, the authors sought to identify the impact of HL on the rates of PSA screening and on the relationship between HL and SDM following the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against PSA screening. METHODS: Using data from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the authors examined PSA screening in the 13 states that administered the optional Health Literacy module. Men aged ≥50 years were examined. Complex samples multivariable logistic regression models were computed to assess the odds of undergoing PSA screening. The interactions between HL and SDM were also examined. RESULTS: A weighted sample of 12.249 million men with a rate of PSA screening of 33.4% were identified. Approximately one-third self-identified as having optimal HL. Rates of PSA screening were found to be highest amongst the highest HL group (42.2%). Being in this group was a significant predictor of undergoing PSA screening (odds ratio, 1.214; 95% confidence interval, 1.051-1.403). There was a significant interaction observed between HL and SDM (P for interaction, CONCLUSIONS: In the uncertain environment of multiple contradictory screening guidelines, men who reported higher levels of HL were found to have higher levels of screening. The authors demonstrated that increased HL may reduce the screening-promoting effect of SDM. These findings highlight the dynamic interplay between HL and SDM that should inform the creation and promulgation of SDM guidelines, specifically when considering patients with low HL

Prostate cancer navigation: initial experience and association with time to care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors associated with use of patient navigation in a prostate cancer population and identify whether navigation is associated with prolonged time to care. Cancer patient navigation has been shown to improve access to cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment, but little is known about patient navigation in prostate cancer care. METHODS: All men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015 were abstracted from the MaineHealth multi-specialty tumor registry. Regression analyses controlling for patient-, disease-, and system-level factors evaluated characteristics associated with navigation utilization. The association between navigation utilization, barriers to care, and longer time to treatment was assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Of the patient population (n = 1587), 85% of men were navigated. Navigation use was associated with earlier year of diagnosis, treatment by a high-volume urologist, and lower risk disease (p \u3c 0.05). Treatment delay was associated with low-risk disease (vs: intermediate OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.85 and high OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.1-0.25) and receipt of navigation services (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12-2.45) but not distance to care, insurance, or treatment choice. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that patients with low-risk prostate cancer were more likely to utilize navigation, but traditional barriers to care were not associated with utilization. Navigation was associated with longer time to treatment, which likely reflects clinically appropriate delays associated with greater shared decision making. Time to treatment may not be the ideal metric for evaluating navigation in prostate cancer; shared decision making, patient satisfaction, and psychosocial outcomes may be more appropriate

Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer: Translating Biology into Population Health

PurposeGleason 6 (3+3) is the most commonly diagnosed prostate cancer among men with prostate specific antigen screening, the most histologically well differentiated and is associated with the most favorable prognosis. Despite its prevalence, considerable debate exists regarding the genetic features, clinical significance, natural history, metastatic potential and optimal management.Materials and methodsMembers of the Young Urologic Oncologists in the Society of Urologic Oncology cooperated in a comprehensive search of the peer reviewed English medical literature on Gleason 6 prostate cancer, specifically focusing on the history of the Gleason scoring system, histological features, clinical characteristics, practice patterns and outcomes.ResultsThe Gleason scoring system was devised in the early 1960s, widely adopted by 1987 and revised in 2005 with a more restrictive definition of Gleason 6 disease. There is near consensus that Gleason 6 meets pathological definitions of cancer, but controversy about whether it meets commonly accepted molecular and genetic criteria of cancer. Multiple clinical series suggest that the metastatic potential of contemporary Gleason 6 disease is negligible but not zero. Population based studies in the U.S. suggest that more than 90% of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer undergo treatment and are exposed to the risk of morbidity for a cancer unlikely to cause symptoms or decrease life expectancy. Efforts have been proposed to minimize the number of men diagnosed with or treated for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. These include modifications to prostate specific antigen based screening strategies such as targeting high risk populations, decreasing the frequency of screening, recommending screening cessation, incorporating remaining life expectancy estimates, using shared decision making and novel biomarkers, and eliminating prostate specific antigen screening entirely. Large nonrandomized and randomized studies have shown that active surveillance is an effective management strategy for men with Gleason 6 disease. Active surveillance dramatically reduces the number of men undergoing treatment without apparent compromise of cancer related outcomes.ConclusionsThe definition and clinical relevance of Gleason 6 prostate cancer have changed substantially since its introduction nearly 50 years ago. A high proportion of screen detected cancers are Gleason 6 and the metastatic potential is negligible. Dramatically reducing the diagnosis and treatment of Gleason 6 disease is likely to have a favorable impact on the net benefit of prostate cancer screening