Development and pilot testing of a decision support intervention for men with prostate cancer.

Authors

null

June M. Chan

University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

June M. Chan , Matthew R. Cooperberg , John Neuhaus , Mark Bridge , Lauren Stupar , Tia Weinberg , Jeanette M Broering , Imelda Tenggara , Emil Lavaki , Janet E. Cowan , Stan Rosenfeld , Stacey A. Kenfield , Erin Van Blarigan , Jeff Simko , John Witte , Peter Carroll , Jeffrey Belkora

Organizations

University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, University of California San Francisco, Fairfax, CA

Research Funding

Other

Background: We evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of a decision support intervention designed to help men with low-risk prostate cancer consider active surveillance and standard treatments. The intervention incorporated a decision aid with coaching and question-listing. Our decision aid is the first to include data on long-term survival and side effects from men with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance, surgery, and radiation. Methods: To develop the intervention, we conducted focus groups using the Nominal Group Technique. We used a survey instrument from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards to measure the stakeholder endorsement of our intervention. To test the intervention, we administered it to newly diagnosed men with low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason sum < = 3+4, stage < = T2N0M0, PSA < = 10 ng/ml) seen at UCSF. Before and after the intervention, we administered a survey with questions from the Decision Quality Instrument for Prostate Cancer. Our primary outcome was change in knowledge as assessed by two multiple-choice items: How many men diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer will eventually die of prostate cancer? How much would waiting 3 months to make a treatment decision affect chances of survival? Correct answers were: “Most will die of something else” and “A little or not at all.”Results: The development phase involved 6 patients, 1 family member, 2 physicians, and 5 other health care providers and four iterations of the intervention until consensus endorsement was reached. In the pilot test, 57 men consented, and 44 received the decision support intervention and completed surveys at both timepoints. Before the intervention, 30/44 (68%) got both questions right, compared to 36/44 (82%) after the intervention. 82% maintained or achieved perfect scores; 16% answered 1 or more incorrectly both before and after the intervention; and 2% answered both items correctly before, but 1 wrong after. Conclusions: This novel decision support intervention was feasible, and appeared to improve knowledge and informed decision-making. Data will guide the development of a larger scale randomized clinical trial to improve decision quality in men with prostate cancer, in the community. Clinical trial information: NCT02451345

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2018 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session A: Prostate Cancer

Track

Prostate Cancer,Prostate Cancer

Sub Track

Prostate Cancer - Localized Disease

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02451345

Citation

J Clin Oncol 36, 2018 (suppl 6S; abstr 132)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2018.36.6_suppl.132

Abstract #

132

Poster Bd #

G8

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

Abstract

2022 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Disease progression and competing mortality for men undergoing active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

First Author: Kripa Guram

Abstract

2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Patient opinions on controversies: In regard to low-risk prostate cancer, is Gleason 6 the old Gleason 5?

First Author: Howard Wolinsky

First Author: Nita Mukand

First Author: Juan Javier-Desloges