Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To identify and explore barriers to, and enablers of, active surveillance (AS) in men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPCa), as perceived by PCa clinicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Urologists and radiation oncologists in Australia and New Zealand were purposively sampled for a cross-section on gender and practice setting (metropolitan/regional; public/private). Using a grounded theory approach, semi-structed interviews were conducted with participants. Interviews were coded independently by two researchers using open, axial, and selective coding. A constant comparative approach was used to analyse data as it was collected. Thematic saturation was reached after 18 interviews, and a detailed model of barriers to, and enablers of, AS for LRPCa, as perceived by clinicians was developed. RESULTS:A model explaining what affects clinician decision making regarding AS in LRPCa emerged. It was underpinned by three broad themes: (i) clinician perception of patients' barriers and enablers; (ii) clinician perception of their own barriers and enablers; and (iii) engagement with healthcare team and resource availability. CONCLUSIONS:Clinicians unanimously agree that AS is an evidence-based approach for managing LRPCa. Despite this many men do not undergo AS for LRPCa, which is due to the interplay of patient and clinician factors, and their interaction with the wider healthcare system. This study identifies strategies to mitigate barriers and enhance enablers, which could increase access to AS by patients with LRPCa.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize unmet sexual health resource needs and preferences for interventions to address unmet needs among female partners of patients with prostate cancer (PCa), given the significant negative impact of PCa on the sexual health of partners. METHODS:We conducted an exploratory sequential mixed methods study of female partners recruited from multiple U.S. clinical locations, websites, and support groups for caregivers. We first conducted semistructured in-depth interviews. Qualitative results informed development of a cross-sectional survey, which was administered to a larger sample of partners. RESULTS:Overall, 12 and 200 female partners participated in the qualitative and quantitative portions of the study. Major emergent themes from interviews were the benefits and drawbacks of technology-based interventions, the importance of sexual health resources throughout the PCa journey, and a desire for sexual health support groups that include partners. In the survey, the most common sexual health topics that partners wanted more information about were male libido problems (30.0%), erectile dysfunction (26.5%), and female libido and arousal problems (24.5%). Additionally, 41.5% wanted more information about sexual health websites, 35.0% about partners-only support groups, 29.5% about support groups for couples, and 23.5% about sexual medicine specialists. CONCLUSIONS:To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date on female partners' unmet sexual health resource needs and preferences for sexual health interventions. Partners prefer technology-based interventions, desire sexual health-focused support groups, and want more information about a variety of sexual issues and specialists who treat them.

BACKGROUND:Germline testing is important in prostate cancer and evaluation can be complex. METHODS:We instituted a monthly multi-disciplinary virtual genetics tumor board (7/2021-3/2022). Participants and panelists were surveyed on usefulness and acceptability. RESULTS:101 participants attended a session, and 77 follow-up surveys were completed. Over 90% participants and 100% panelists endorsed usefulness of the case discussions and usability of the technology. The majority felt it provided new information they will use. CONCLUSIONS:A multidisciplinary genetics board was successfully developed to address complexity in prostate cancer genetics. The virtual platform may enhance dissemination of expertise where there are regional gaps.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are becoming a popular source of information but there are limited data on the quality of information on urological malignancies that they provide. Our objective was to characterize the quality of information and detect misinformation about prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancers from four AI chatbots: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Chat Sonic, and Microsoft Bing AI. We used the top five search queries related to prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancers according to Google Trends from January 2021 to January 2023 and input them into the AI chatbots. Responses were evaluated for quality, understandability, actionability, misinformation, and readability using published instruments. AI chatbot responses had moderate to high information quality (median DISCERN score 4 out of 5, range 2-5) and lacked misinformation. Understandability was moderate (median Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Printable Materials [PEMAT-P] understandability 66.7%, range 44.4-90.9%) and actionability was moderate to poor (median PEMAT-P actionability 40%, range 0-40%The responses were written at a fairly difficult reading level. AI chatbots produce information that is generally accurate and of moderate to high quality in response to the top urological malignancy-related search queries, but the responses lack clear, actionable instructions and exceed the reading level recommended for consumer health information. PATIENT SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence chatbots produce information that is generally accurate and of moderately high quality in response to popular Google searches about urological cancers. However, their responses are fairly difficult to read, are moderately hard to understand, and lack clear instructions for users to act on.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

The Veterans Health Administration is chartered "to serve as the primary backup for any health care services needed…in the event of war or national emergency" according to a 1982 Congressional Act. This mission was invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to divert clinical and research resources. We used an electronic mixed-methods questionnaire constructed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation (COM-B) model for behavior change to study the effects of the pandemic on VHA researchers. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to 118 cancer researchers participating in national VHA collaborations. The questionnaire received 42 responses (36%). Only 36% did not feel that their research focus changed during the pandemic. Only 26% reported prior experience with infectious disease research, and 74% agreed that they gained new research skills. When asked to describe helpful support structures, 29% mentioned local supervisors, mentors, and research staff, 15% cited larger VHA organizations and 18% mentioned remote work. Lack of timely communication and remote work, particularly for individuals with caregiving responsibilities, were limiting factors. Fewer than half felt professionally rewarded for pursuing research related to COVID. This study demonstrated the tremendous effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities of VHA investigators. We identified perceptions of insufficient recognition and lack of professional advancement related to pandemic-era research, yet most reported gaining new research skills. Individualizing the structure of remote work and ensuring clear and timely team communication represent high yield areas for improvement.

Social media is widely used globally by patients, families of patients, health professionals, scientists, and other stakeholders who seek and share information related to cancer. Despite many benefits of social media for cancer care and research, there is also a substantial risk of exposure to misinformation, or inaccurate information about cancer. Types of misinformation vary from inaccurate information about cancer risk factors or unproven treatment options to conspiracy theories and public relations articles or advertisements appearing as reliable medical content. Many characteristics of social media networks-such as their extensive use and the relative ease it allows to share information quickly-facilitate the spread of misinformation. Research shows that inaccurate and misleading health-related posts on social media often get more views and engagement (e.g., likes, shares) from users compared with accurate information. Exposure to misinformation can have downstream implications for health-related attitudes and behaviors. However, combatting misinformation is a complex process that requires engagement from media platforms, scientific and health experts, governmental organizations, and the general public. Cancer experts, for example, should actively combat misinformation in real time and should disseminate evidence-based content on social media. Health professionals should give information prescriptions to patients and families and support health literacy. Patients and families should vet the quality of cancer information before acting upon it (e.g., by using publicly available checklists) and seek recommended resources from health care providers and trusted organizations. Future multidisciplinary research is needed to identify optimal ways of building resilience and combating misinformation across social media.