Advertisement
Platinum Priority – Prostate Cancer Editorial by Ardalan E. Ahmad and Antonio Finelli on pp. 872–873 of this issue| Volume 71, ISSUE 6, P866-871, June 01, 2017

A Systematic Approach to Discussing Active Surveillance with Patients with Low-risk Prostate Cancer

  • Behfar Ehdaie
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 353 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA. Tel. +1 646 4224406.
    Affiliations
    Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Melissa Assel
    Affiliations
    Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Nicole Benfante
    Affiliations
    Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Deepak Malhotra
    Affiliations
    Negotiation, Organizations, and Markets Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Andrew Vickers
    Affiliations
    Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
    Search for articles by this author
Published:January 24, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.026

      Abstract

      Background

      Physicians report difficulty convincing patients with prostate cancer about the merits of active surveillance (AS); as a result, a majority of patients unnecessarily choose to undergo radical treatment.

      Objective

      To develop and evaluate a systematic approach for physicians to counsel patients with low-risk prostate cancer to increase acceptance of AS.

      Design, setting, and participants

      A systematic counseling approach was developed and piloted in one clinic. Then five surgeons participated in a 1-h training session in which they learned about the approach. A total of 1003 patients with Gleason 3 + 3 prostate cancer were included in the study. We compared AS rates for 761 patients who were counseled over a 24-mo period before the training intervention with AS rates for 242 patients who were counseled over a 12-mo period afterwards, controlling for temporal trends and case mix.

      Intervention

      A systematic approach for communicating the merits of AS using appropriate framing techniques derived from principles studied by negotiation scholars.

      Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

      The rate of AS acceptance by patients for management of low-risk prostate cancer.

      Results and limitations

      In the pilot phase, 81 of 86 patients ( 94%) accepted AS after counseling by the physician who developed the counseling approach. In the subsequent study, the cohort for the training intervention comprised 1003 consecutive patients, 80% of whom met the Epstein criteria for very low-risk disease. The proportion of patients who selected AS increased from 69% before the training intervention to 81% afterwards. After adjusting for time trends and case mix, the rate of AS after the intervention was 9.1% higher (95% confidence interval −0.4% to 19.4%) than expected, a relative reduction of approximately 30% in the risk of unnecessary curative treatment.

      Conclusions

      A systematic approach to counseling can be taught to physicians in a 1-h lecture. We found evidence that even this minimal intervention can decrease overtreatment. Our novel approach offers a framework to help address cancer screening–related overtreatment that occurs across medicine.

      Patient summary

      In this study, we evaluated the impact of teaching physicians how to better communicate the benefits and risks of prostate cancer treatments on the willingness of patients to choose active surveillance. Decisions related to cancer are often guided by emotions and biases that lead most patients to seek radical treatment; however, we demonstrated that if discussions are framed differently, these biases can be overcome and more patients will choose active surveillance.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Etzioni R.
        • Penson D.F.
        • Legler J.M.
        • et al.
        Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94: 981-990
        • Cooperberg M.R.
        • Carroll P.R.
        Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013.
        JAMA. 2015; 314: 80-82
        • Jacobs B.L.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Skolarus T.A.
        • Hollenbeck B.K.
        Growth of high-cost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer raises concerns about overuse.
        Health Affairs. 2012; 31: 750-759
        • Kim S.P.
        • Gross C.P.
        • Nguyen P.L.
        • et al.
        Perceptions of active surveillance and treatment recommendations for low-risk prostate cancer: results from a national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists.
        Med Care. 2014; 52: 579-585
        • van den Bergh R.C.
        • Essink-Bot M.L.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • et al.
        Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer.
        Cancer. 2009; 115: 3868-3878
        • Xu J.
        • Dailey R.K.
        • Eggly S.
        • Neale A.V.
        • Schwartz K.L.
        Men's perspectives on selecting their prostate cancer treatment.
        J Natl Med Assoc. 2011; 103: 468-478
        • Hayes J.H.
        • Ollendorf D.A.
        • Pearson S.D.
        • et al.
        Observation versus initial treatment for men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158: 853-860
        • Malhotra D.
        • Bazerman M.H.
        Investigative negotiation.
        Harv Bus Rev. 2007; 85: 72-76
        • Fisher R.
        • Ury W.
        Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in.
        ed. 2. Penguin Books, New York, NY1991: 15-81
        • Tversky A.
        • Kahneman D.
        The framing of decisions and psychology of choice.
        Science. 1981; 211: 453-458
        • Kahneman D.
        • Tversky A.
        Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.
        Econometrica. 1979; 47: 263-291
        • Cialdini R.B.
        • Goldstein N.J.
        Social influence: compliance and conformity.
        Annu Rev Psychol. 2004; 55: 591-621
        • McNeil B.J.
        • Pauker S.G.
        • Sox Jr., H.C.
        • Tversky A.
        On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies.
        N Engl J Med. 1982; 306: 1259-1262
        • Kalichman S.C.
        • Coley B.
        Context framing to enhance HIV-antibody-testing messages targeted to African American women.
        Health Psychol. 1995; 14: 247-254
        • Xu J.
        • Neale A.V.
        • Dailey R.K.
        • Eggly S.
        • Schwartz K.L.
        Patient perspective on watchful waiting/active surveillance for localized prostate cancer.
        J Am Board Fam Med. 2012; 25: 763-770
        • Mishra M.V.
        • Bennett M.
        • Vincent A.
        • et al.
        Identifying barriers to patient acceptance of active surveillance: content analysis of online patient communications.
        PLoS One. 2013; 8: e68563
        • Penson D.F.
        Factors influencing patients’ acceptance and adherence to active surveillance.
        J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012; 45: 207-212
        • Pickles T.
        • Ruether J.D.
        • Weir L.
        • Carlson L.
        • Jakulj F.
        • SCRN Communication Team
        Psychosocial barriers to active surveillance for the management of early prostate cancer and a strategy for increased acceptance.
        BJU Int. 2007; 100: 544-551
        • Srirangam S.J.
        • Pearson E.
        • Grose C.
        • Brown S.C.
        • Collins G.N.
        • O’Reilly P.H.
        Partner's influence on patient preference for treatment in early prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2003; 92: 365-369
        • Vickers A.J.
        • Cronin A.M.
        • Masterson T.A.
        • Eastham J.A.
        How do you tell whether a change in surgical technique leads to a change in outcome?.
        J Urol. 2010; 183: 1510-1514
        • Holmes-Rovner M.
        • Montgomery J.S.
        • Rovner D.R.
        • et al.
        Informed decision making: assessment of the quality of physician communication about prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment.
        Med Decision Making. 2015; 35: 999-1009
        • Zikmund-Fisher B.J.
        • Couper M.P.
        • Singer E.
        • et al.
        Deficits and variations in patients’ experience with making 9 common medical decisions: the DECISIONS survey.
        Med Decision Making. 2010; 30: 85S-95S
        • Fagerlin A.
        • Zikmund-Fisher B.J.
        • Ubel P.A.
        Cure me even if it kills me: preferences for invasive cancer treatment.
        Med Decision Making. 2005; 25: 614-619
        • Denberg T.D.
        • Melhado T.V.
        • Steiner J.F.
        Patient treatment preferences in localized prostate carcinoma: the influence of emotion, misconception, and anecdote.
        Cancer. 2006; 107: 620-630
        • Blumenthal-Barby J.S.
        • Lee D.
        • Volk R.J.
        Toward ethically responsible choice architecture in prostate cancer treatment decision-making.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65: 257-260
        • Chen R.C.
        • Rumble R.B.
        • Loblaw D.A.
        • et al.
        Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline endorsement.
        J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 2182-2190
        • Kissane D.W.
        • Bylund C.L.
        • Banerjee S.C.
        • et al.
        Communication skills training for oncology professionals.
        J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 1242-1247