Citations

Introduction: Testing healthcare delivery interventions in rigorous clinical trials is a critical step in improving patient care, but conducting multisite randomized clinical trials to test the effect of care delivery interventions has unique challenges and requires foresight and planning. Methods: We conducted the first care delivery trial (A191402CD) in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base, which tested the effectiveness of two different decision aids for supporting shared decision-making about prostate cancer treatment. Our experience illustrates the kind of challenges that confront care delivery researchers as they seek to test interventions to improve the experiences of patients. Results: Lessons learned include the following: cluster-randomized designs introduce complexity; workflow disruption can discourage site participation; evidence-based methods may not always be sufficient. Conclusion: We conclude with the following recommendations: assessing feasibility requires special rigor; relationships and interpersonal dynamics must be leveraged. Our experiences may inform future care delivery research.

BackgroundDecision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within‐visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled.MethodsThe interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12‐item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation.ResultsFour sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within‐visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within‐visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within‐visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within‐visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual‐care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within‐visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively).ConclusionsDAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

151 Background: Decision aids (DAs) for prostate cancer treatment can improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict, but the relative effect of pre-visit and within-visit DAs is not known, and effect sizes for minority populations has not been estimated. Methods: We conducted a 3-arm, patient-level-RCT in specialty urology and radiation oncology practices in Ohio, South Dakota, and Alaska, test the effect of pre-consultation and with-in consultation decision aids on patient knowledge immediately after specialty consultation compared to usual care. We used linear regression to estimate effects of each intervention arm, including the respective standard error, two-sided 95% confidence interval, and two-sided P value for testing the study’s hypotheses. Results: 103 patients were recruited and randomized to receive either the pre-visit decision aid, within-visit decision aid, or neither decision aids (usual care). In 2017 and 20018, we accrued similar numbers of men to pre-consultation aid (n = 37), during-consultation aid (n = 33) and usual care arms, respectively (n = 33). The median (range) age in years was 64 [49, 81]; 67.6% were White, 15.7% were Black or African American, 16.7% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1% were not reported. 47.6%, 45.6%, and 6.8% had a baseline clinical stage of T1, T2, and T3, respectively. The median [range] prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 8.0 [2.4, 53.7]. There were no clinically notable imbalances. We obtained usable data on 102 of the 103 patient-participants. The pre-visit decision aid arm showed a mean knowledge effect of 0.694 (0.636, 0.753). The within-visit decision arm showed a very similar mean knowledge effect of 0.686 (0.625, 0.748). The usual care arm showed a mean knowledge effect of 0.644 (0.582,0.705). The linear regression model showed, that, compared with usual care, neither intervention effect achieved statistical significance in the primary analysis (p = 0.24, 0.330, for pre-visit and within-visit, respectively). Conclusions: Modest knowledge gains of pre-visit and during-visit decision aids for prostate cancer treatment were not statistically significant. Clinical trial information: NCT03182998 .

e24176 Background: Decision aids for prostate cancer treatment can improve knowledge, but the relative effect of pre-consultation and within-consultation DAs is not known. Methods: We conducted a parallel design, 2-by-2 factorial, 4-arm, cluster-RCT in urology practices affiliated with the NCI’s Alliance research base. We compared patient knowledge immediately after consultation (%12-item% correct) intervention arms compared to usual care. We used mixed effects regression modeling to assess effect of interventions on knowledge adjusting for site-clustering, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White; Other), age (years), clinical stage (T1-3), PSA, and Gleason score. Results: 15 of 21 randomized centers accrued 158 pts from Nov 2017 to June 2019. The arm delivering both DAs (n = 3 sites) recruited 25 pts. The pre-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 39 pts. The within-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 44 pts. The no DA arm (n = 4 sites) accrued 50 pts. Overall, mean age was 64; 54% were AA; 73% had T1 stage; median Gleason = 7; and median PSA = 7. The combined DAs group, followed by pre-consultation reported higher median knowledge (75% and 67%, respectively). The within-consultation and no DA arms both reported median knowledge scores (58%). Within arm, inter-site standard deviations in mean knowledge scores ranged from 0.164 in in the pre-consultation arm to 0.232 in the usual care arm. Neither pre-consultation nor within-consultation DAs had statistically significant effects (p = .15 and p = .99, respectively). Pre-specified adjusted difference [97.5% CIs], comparing the pre-consultation DA and the within-consultation DA with the control was 9.4% [-7.3%, 26.2%] and -0.4% [-16.9%, 16.1%], respectively. Intra-cluster correlation (ICC) coefficient was high (.24). No interaction effects were identified (p = .98). A post-hoc analysis comparing any DA vs usual care found a mean adjusted difference [95% CI] of 5.6% [-8.5%, 19.8%] (p = 0.40), 63.9% for any DA and 58.3% for usual care. Conclusions: Possible knowledge gains associated with some DAs for early prostate cancer were obscured by larger-than-expected intra-cluster correlation effects associated with the primary outcome. How interventions were used was not measured. Support:UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; R01 MD008934-06. Clinical trial information: NCT03103321 .

6126 Background: Little is known about the actual constraints of doing so in the distinctive geographic context of Alaska. We performed a survey of primary care providers (PCPs) within the Alaska Tribal Health System (ATHS) to learn more about their attitudes and practices surrounding prostate cancer (PC) survivorship care. Methods: We surveyed primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants practicing in the ATHS. We administered surveys to assess attitudes about PSA monitoring, responsibility for long-term surveillance, supporting emotional health and medical needs, their degree of confidence in managing patients on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), as well as their comfort level in managing common side effects of treatment. Results: Of the 221 providers surveyed, 114 responded (52%). Most PCPs indicated a preference for annual PSA monitoring (69%), but several (27%) indicated monitoring every 6 months, and a few (4%) indicated monitoring every 24 months. Most (60%) thought PCPs should manage cancer surveillance, but many (40%) thought a specialist (urologist or medical oncologist) should perform that function. When asked about supporting patients’ emotional needs, PCPs indicated that support groups (63%) followed by survivorship clinics (16%) or on-site specialist visits (14%) were the most appropriate venues to address these concerns. Most respondents thought that medical needs of PC survivors could be addressed locally with appropriate specialty input (71%) or potentially through dedicated survivorship clinics (14%). Only 46% indicated being "moderately" or "very" confident managing ADT. Most PCPs indicated being moderately or very comfortable monitoring for recurrence (59%), managing erectile dysfunction (66%), addressing urinary incontinence (63%), and addressing emotional needs (61%). Conclusions: PCPs practicing in the ATHS express comfort with monitoring for PC recurrence, but express some concerns about the full range of issues in PC survivorship. Constructing cancer survivor care models in geographically dispersed and resource-limited contexts for Alaska Natives is an ongoing clinical and policy challenge.

4657 Background: While active surveillance (AS) is well recognized as an acceptable treatment strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (PC), the extent to which radiation oncologists and urologists perceive AS as effective and routinely recommend it to patients is unknown. Therefore, we sought to assess the attitudes and treatment recommendations for low-risk PC from a national survey of PC specialists. Methods: A mail survey was sent to a population-based sample of 1,439 physicians in the U.S. from late 2011 and early 2012. Physicians were queried about their attitudes regarding AS and treatment recommendations for patients diagnosed with low-risk PC (PSA<10 ng/dl; T1c; Gleason 6 in one of twelve cores). Pearson Chi-square and multivariate logistic regression were used to test for differences in attitudes and treatment recommendations by physician demographics, compensation structure, primary place of employment, and specialty. Results: Overall, 321 radiation oncologists and 322 urologists completed the survey for a 45% response rate. Most physicians reported that AS is effective for low-risk PC (71%) and stated that they were comfortable routinely recommending AS (67%). Urologists were more likely to agree that AS is effective (77% vs. 67%; p=0.005) and were comfortable recommending AS (74% vs. 61%; p=0.001) compared with radiation oncologists. Most physicians recommended radical prostatectomy (47%) or radiation therapy (32%), but fewer endorsed AS (21%) for low-risk disease. After adjusting for physician covariates, radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend radiation therapy (OR: 10.97; p<0.001), while urologists were more likely to recommend surgery (OR: 4.69; p<0.001) and AS (OR: 2.18; p=0.001) for low-risk PC. Conclusions: Although AS is widely viewed as effective by both radiation oncologists and urologists, most urologists continue to recommend surgery, while most radiation oncologists recommend radiation therapy. Our results may explain in part the relatively low contemporary use of AS in the U.S.