Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Studies have demonstrated that Black men may undergo definitive prostate cancer (CaP) treatment less often than men of other races, but it is unclear whether they are avoiding overtreatment of low-risk disease or experiencing a reduction in appropriate care. The authors' aim was to assess the role of race as it relates to treatment benefit in access to CaP treatment in a single-payer population. METHODS:The authors used the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse to perform a retrospective cohort study of veterans diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk CaP between 2011 and 2017. RESULTS:The authors identified 35,427 men with incident low- or intermediate-risk CaP. When they controlled for covariates, Black men had 1.05 times the odds of receiving treatment in comparison with non-Black men (P < .001), and high-treatment-benefit men had 1.4 times the odds of receiving treatment in comparison with those in the low-treatment-benefit group (P < .001). The interaction of race and treatment benefit was significant, with Black men in the high-treatment-benefit category less likely to receive treatment than non-Black men in the same treatment category (odds ratio, 0.89; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Although race does appear to influence the receipt of definitive treatment in the VHA, this relationship varies in the context of the patient's treatment benefit, with Black men receiving less definitive treatment in high-benefit situations. The influence of patient race at high treatment benefit levels invites further investigation into the driving forces behind this persistent disparity in this consequential group.

BACKGROUND:The authors sought to study the risk factors associated with severe outcomes in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with cancer. METHODS:The authors queried the New York University Langone Medical Center's records for hospitalized patients who were polymerase chain reaction-positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) and performed chart reviews on patients with cancer diagnoses to identify patients with active cancer and patients with a history of cancer. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine associations between clinical, demographic, and laboratory characteristics with outcomes, including death and admission to the intensive care unit. RESULTS:A total of 4184 hospitalized SARS CoV-2+ patients, including 233 with active cancer, were identified. Patients with active cancer were more likely to die than those with a history of cancer and those without any cancer history (34.3% vs 27.6% vs 20%, respectively; P < .01). In multivariable regression among all patients, active cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; CI, 1.34-2.67; P < .01), older age (OR, 1.06; CI, 1.05-1.06; P < .01), male sex (OR for female vs male, 0.70; CI, 0.58-0.84; P < .01), diabetes (OR, 1.26; CI, 1.04-1.53; P = .02), morbidly obese body mass index (OR, 1.87; CI, 1.24-2.81; P < .01), and elevated D-dimer (OR, 6.41 for value >2300; CI, 4.75-8.66; P < .01) were associated with increased mortality. Recent cancer-directed medical therapy was not associated with death in multivariable analysis. Among patients with active cancer, those with a hematologic malignancy had the highest mortality rate in comparison with other cancer types (47.83% vs 28.66%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS:The authors found that patients with an active cancer diagnosis were more likely to die from COVID-19. Those with hematologic malignancies were at the highest risk of death. Patients receiving cancer-directed therapy within 3 months before hospitalization had no overall increased risk of death. LAY SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:Our investigators found that hospitalized patients with active cancer were more likely to die from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than those with a history of cancer and those without any cancer history. Patients with hematologic cancers were the most likely among patients with cancer to die from COVID-19. Patients who received cancer therapy within 3 months before hospitalization did not have an increased risk of death.

OBJECTIVE:To describe attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs related to smoking and smoking cessation among survivors of genitourinary cancers using a theory-based framework. METHODS:We performed a cross-sectional analysis of Wave III of the PATH study, a prospective cohort survey study assessing tobacco-use patterns and attitudes among a representative population-based sample of US adults. All adult current smokers with a history of urologic cancer were included. Primary outcomes were mapped to components of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and included: attempts to quit, readiness to quit, plan to quit, being told to quit, peers views toward smoking, regret about smoking, the perceived relationship between smoking and cancer/overall health. Secondary outcomes include: time to first cigarette, utilization of smoking cessation aids. Population weighted percentages with 95% confidence intervals were estimated. RESULTS:Our cohort represents a population estimate of 461,182 adult current smokers with a history of genitourinary cancer. The majority of respondents (90%) perceived smoking to be harmful to one's health and 83% were regretful about having started smoking. An equal proportion of respondents indicated that they were "very ready to quit," "somewhat ready to quit," or "not ready to quit." Among all respondents, 73% had been told by a physician to quit in the past year but only 7% indicated that they had used prescription medication and only 21% had used nicotine replacement therapy to help with smoking cessation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is significant variation in attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions related to smoking and smoking cessation among survivors of genitourinary malignancy. Patient-level smoking cessation interventions may need to be highly personalized for optimal success.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Tobacco-use is a causative or exacerbating risk factor for benign and malignant urologic disease. However, it is not well known how often urologists screen for tobacco use and provide tobacco cessation treatment at the population level. Therefore, we sought to evaluate how often urologists see patients for tobacco-related diagnoses in the outpatient setting and how often these visits include tobacco-use screening and treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We used the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) public use files for the years 2014-2016 to identify all outpatient urology visits with adults 18 years and older. Clinic visit reasons were categorized according to diagnoses associated with the encounter: all urologic diagnoses, a tobacco-related urologic condition, or a urologic cancer. Our primary outcome was the percentage of visits during which tobacco screening was reported. Secondary outcomes included reported delivery of cessation counseling and provision of cessation pharmacotherapy. RESULTS:We identified 4,625 unique urologic outpatient encounters, representing a population-weighted estimate of 63.9 million visits over three years. Approximately a third of all urology visits were for a tobacco-related urologic diagnoses and 15% were for urologic cancers. An estimated 1.1 million visits over three years were with patients who identified as current tobacco users. Of all visits, 70% included tobacco screening. However, only 7% of visits with current smokers included counseling and only 3% were prescribed medications. No differences in screening and treatment were observed between visit types. CONCLUSIONS:Urologists regularly see patients for tobacco-related conditions and frequently, though not universally, screen patients for tobacco. However, urologists rarely offer counseling or cessation treatment. These findings may represent missed opportunities to decrease the morbidity associated with tobacco use.

BACKGROUND:Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer, the most common non-cutaneous malignancy among men in the USA. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) encourages prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing decisions to be based on shared decision-making (SDM) clinician professional judgment, and patient preferences. However, evidence suggests that SDM is underutilized in clinical practice, especially among the most vulnerable patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a community health worker (CHW)-led decision-coaching program to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening among Black men in the primary care setting, with the ultimate aim of improving/optimizing decision quality. METHODS:We proposed a CHW-led decision-coaching program to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening discussions in Black men at a primary care FQHC. This study enrolled Black men who were patients at the participating clinical site and up to 15 providers who cared for them. We estimated to recruit 228 participants, ages 40-69 to be randomized to either (1) a decision aid along with decision coaching on PSA screening from a CHW or (2) receiving a decision aid along with CHW-led interaction on modifying dietary and lifestyle to serve as an attention control. The independent randomization process was implemented within each provider and we controlled for age by dividing patients into two strata: 40-54 years and 55-69 years. This sample size sufficiently powered the detection differences in the primary study outcomes: knowledge, indicative of decision quality, and differences in PSA screening rates. Primary outcome measures for patients will be decision quality and decision regarding whether to undergo PSA screening. Primary outcome measures for providers will be acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. We will examine how decision coaching about prostate cancer screening impact patient-provider communication. These outcomes will be analyzed quantitatively through objective, validated scales and qualitatively through semi-structured, in-depth interviews, and thematic analysis of clinical encounters. Through a conceptual model combining elements of the Preventative Health Care Model (PHM) and Informed Decision-Making Model, we hypothesize that the prostate cancer screening decision coaching intervention will result in a preference-congruent decision and decisional satisfaction. We also hypothesize that this intervention will improve physician satisfaction with counseling patients about prostate cancer screening. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Decision coaching is an evidence-based approach to improve decision quality in many clinical contexts, but its efficacy is incompletely explored for PSA screening among Black men in primary care. Our proposal to evaluate a CHW-led decision-coaching program for PSA screening has high potential for scalability and public health impact. Our results will determine the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of a CHW intervention in a community clinic setting in order to inform subsequent widespread dissemination, a critical research area highlighted by USPSTF. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:The trial was registered prospectively with the National Institute of Health registry ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ), registration number NCT03726320 , on October 31, 2018.

BACKGROUND:In 2012, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) formally recommended against all Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. Our goal was to characterize PSA screening trends in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) before and after the USPSTF recommendation, and to determine if PSA screening was more likely to be ordered based on a Veteran's race or age. METHODS:Using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we created 10 annual groups of PSA-eligible men covering 2009-2018. We identified all PSA tests performed in the VA to determine yearly rates of PSA screening. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS:The overall rate of PSA testing in the VA decreased from 63.3% in 2009 to 51.2% in 2018 (p<.001). PSA screening rates varied markedly by age group during our study period, with men aged 70-80 having the highest initial rate and greatest decline (70.6% in 2009 to 48.4% in 2018, p<.001). Men aged 55-69 saw a smaller decline (65.2% in 2009 to 58.9% in 2018, p<.001) while the youngest men, aged 40-54, had an increase in PSA screening (26.2% in 2009 to 37.8 in 2018, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS:In this analysis of PSA screening rates among veterans before and after the 2012 USPSTF recommendation against screening, we found that overall PSA screening decreased only modestly, continuing for more than half of the men in our study. Veterans of different races had similar screening rates, suggesting that VA care may minimize racial disparities. Veterans of varying age experienced significantly different trends in PSA screening.

BACKGROUND:Germline testing is recommended for all men with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), and for some with localized PCa meeting specific histologic or family history criteria. Germline genetic evaluation has important implications for PCa prognosis and management, as well as implications for family members and cancer screening. Despite the importance of germline evaluation, its utilization in urologic practice is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We conducted a 32-item survey of U.S. urologists to examine knowledge of germline testing guidelines and practice patterns. It was shared through email to 6 American Urological Association sections, the Veterans Affairs Urology Mailgroup, and social media. RESULTS:Among 132 total respondents from diverse practice settings across the U.S., 12% perform germline testing, 44% refer to a genetic counselor, 11% do both, and 33% do not test/refer. Only 4% had formal education in genetics. While 98% ask about PCa family history, only 76% and 52% ask about breast and ovarian cancer. When presented with hypothetical case scenarios where germline testing is indicated, many respondents indicated they would not offer genetic counseling or testing. Younger age (p = 0,03), academic practice (p = 0.04), and specializing in PCa/oncology (p = 0.007) were significantly associated with performing or referring for germline testing. Specializing in PCa/oncology was significantly associated with recommending germline testing for all case scenarios involving metastatic PCa (p = 0.0009) CONCLUSION: Our results suggest significant gaps in knowledge of germline testing and alignment of practice with national guidelines among urologists. Germline testing education and facilitation of genetic evaluation in urologic practice is warranted.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Many patients living with bladder cancer do not undergo surveillance that is aligned with their risk for recurrence or progression, which exposes them to unnecessary risk and burden of procedures. To implement risk-aligned surveillance as recommended by multiple guidelines, we need to understand patient-, provider-, and system-level factors contributing to the delivery of risk-aligned surveillance. In this study, we sought to systematically assess patient-level factors. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:not aligned with cancer risk). Interview transcripts were analyzed using a priori codes from the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated by cross-tabulating determinants across risk and surveillance categories. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Participants included seven low-risk and 15 high-risk patients; 10 underwent risk-aligned surveillance and 12 did not. In mixed-methods analyses, perception of risk appropriately differed by risk but not by surveillance category. Participants understood the recommended surveillance schedule according to their risk category. Participants emphatically expressed that adhering to providers' recommendations is prudent; intentions to adhere did not vary across risk and surveillance categories. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Participants intended to adhere to providers' recommendations and strongly endorsed the importance of adherence. These findings suggest implementation strategies to improve risk-aligned surveillance may be most effective when targeting provider- and system-level factors rather than patient-level factors.