Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Despite evidence of clinical benefits and guidelines recommending first-line treatment intensification (TI) for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), the majority of patients do not receive it. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To identify barriers to and facilitators of first-line TI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:The IMPLEMENT study (December 2022 to August 2024) comprised 3 phases and used a mixed-methods, qualitative and quantitative approach. US-based urologists and oncologists who were primary treaters for 1 or more patients with mCSPC in the past 6 months, had been practicing for 2 to 35 years, spent 50% or more of their time in direct patient care, and were able to provide informed consent were included. EXPOSURE/UNASSIGNED:Phase 1 consisted of semistructured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Phase 2 consisted of a discrete choice experiment to identify priority barriers and helpful resources. Phase 3 consisted of cocreation sessions to ideate potential solutions to underutilization based on the findings of the previous phases. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome in phase 1 was barriers to and facilitators of first-line TI, as identified through thematic analysis. The primary outcome of phase 2 was perceived helpfulness of potential resources for first-line TI decisions, measured with a coefficient of helpfulness [CoH] for each resource. The primary outcome of phase 3 was potential solutions to increase TI uptake, as cocreated and ranked by urologists and oncologists. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:In total, 352 participants were included in IMPLEMENT, with 36 in phase 1 (33 men [92%]; mean [range] years in practice, 19 [5-34]), 302 in phase 2 (253 men [84%]; mean [range] years in practice, 18 [4-35]), and 14 in phase 3 (12 men [86%]; mean [range], years in practice, 20 [8-35]). In each phase, one-half of participants were oncologists and one-half were urologists (18 urologists and 18 oncologists in phase 1, 151 urologists and 151 oncologists in phase 2, and 7 urologists and 7 oncologists in phase 3). In phase 1, 5 domains had the greatest perceived influence on intensification: memory, attention, and decision processes; environmental context and resources; knowledge; beliefs about consequences; and social or professional role. Urologists more commonly reported barriers to intensification, while oncologists more commonly reported facilitators. In phase 2, urologists found decision-support tools most helpful (CoH, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.90-3.65), while oncologists preferred databases of posttreatment options (CoH, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.29-2.89) and clinical trial summaries (CoH, 2.41; 95% CI, 2.14-2.69). In phase 3, cross-specialty tumor boards were ranked by both specialties as the best solution to address TI underutilization. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:This study using a mixed-methods approach with quantitative and qualitative components found that the issues underlying TI underutilization were numerous and multifactorial; the barriers encountered by physicians and the resources to help address them varied by specialty. These findings offer insights into physician-supported strategies that could help improve rates of first-line TI for mCSPC in the US.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Prostate cancer (PCA) germline testing (GT) informs precision therapy, cancer screening, and hereditary cancer risk for patients and families. To support patient-centered PCA GT, studying patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is essential. METHODS:PROGRESS was a national patient-driven registry (January 2021-April 2022) for English-speaking males older than 18 years with previous/current PCA GT and Internet access. Surveys collected demographics, PCA history, family cancer history, mode of genetics care delivery, satisfaction with genetic counseling, decisional conflict, cancer genetics knowledge, and attitudes toward GT. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to estimate and draw inferences (α = .05) on strength of relationships between participant characteristics and PROs. RESULTS:Analyses focused on 414 participants: White (88%), Black (3%), Asian (6%), and mixed/other (3%). Most participants were non-Hispanic (95.2%) and 46.9% had PCA. Genetic results were positive (pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants; mutations) in 27.9%. The three most common modes of genetics care were meeting with genetics professional (in-person or remotely; 30.9%), discussing with doctor (21.1%), and using website (20.8%). In covariate-adjusted models, satisfaction scores were highest with pretest counseling by phone (β = 1.31; 95% CI, 0.26 to 2.36) or discussion with doctor (β = 1.25; 95% CI, 0.38 to 2.12). Lower decisional conflict scores were reported for pretest counseling by phone (β = -3.76; 95% CI, -7.28 to -0.24). Males with mutations reported higher GT benefit scores (β = .30; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.59) and importance of GT (β = .34; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.61). Asian Americans reported lower GT satisfaction (β = -2.91; 95% CI, -4.34 to -1.48) and higher decisional conflict (β = 8.93; 95% CI, 4.36 to 13.51). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:PROGRESS Registry informs the first comprehensive report of PROs among males undergoing PCA GT, providing insights into opportunities to improve patient experience and leverage the benefit of GT.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer remain the leading causes of mortality in the United States, where poor diet has surpassed smoking as the leading risk factor for death, and life expectancy has hit a plateau as CVD mortality has stagnated over the past decade. Although the pathophysiology of CVD and cancer is complex and multifactorial, lifestyle factors including diet often contribute significantly to their pathogenesis. There is a wealth of observational data as well as emerging trial data supporting the benefits of a predominantly whole-food plant-based diet in the prevention of CVD and cancer. However, there is a need for implementation science to effectuate existing knowledge. Given the shortcomings of the standard American diet, characterized by excessive intake of red meat and ultraprocessed foods, while deficient in fiber and phytonutrients, it will be necessary to shift default patterns of eating to make healthy choices the path of least resistance.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most common cancer and a leading cause of death among males. In this systematic review we evaluated cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the relationship between dietary patterns and PC risk, progression, mortality, and biomarkers. METHODS:A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted through June 2024 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 63 studies (49 cohort studies, 14 RCTs reports) examining dietary patterns and PC outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:Among males without PC at baseline, plant-based and healthy dietary patterns (eg, higher Healthy Eating Index, lower dietary inflammatory and hyperinsulinemic scores) were generally associated with lower total PC risk. Among patients with PC, Mediterranean, plant-based, and low-inflammatory diets were more consistently linked to lower risk of progression and PC-specific mortality. RCTs testing various diet patterns showed mixed effects on prostate-specific antigen or tumor markers. Limitations include variations in diet definitions, outcomes, and follow-up duration, and residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Healthy dietary patterns that support cardiometabolic health may also benefit PC prevention and management. While evidence appears stronger for diet in slowing PC progression after diagnosis, the impact of diet on reducing the risk of other PC outcomes should not be overlooked (eg, risk of developing PC or risk of PC death). Integrated strategies are needed to promote healthy eating, particularly for patients at risk of PC progression, as this population often has higher risk of cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders such as diabetes.

BACKGROUND:Hispanic/Latinx males and those who are non-English proficient are significantly less likely to receive germline genetic evaluation for prostate cancer. Undertesting can impact downstream outcomes, including reduced access to approved targeted therapies, barriers to precision medicine trials, and hereditary cancer assessment for patients and family members. The goal of our study was to explore the knowledge and perceptions of genetic testing among U.S. Hispanic males, with the ultimate goal to identify potentially actionable targets to increase guideline-concordant genetic evaluation. METHODS:We conducted a nationwide online survey including U.S. Hispanic males aged ≥ 40 in English and Spanish using the 9-item Knowledge of Hereditary Prostate Cancer Scale and adapted questions about desire for more information from the Behavioral Beliefs about BRCA Genetic Counseling scale. RESULTS:Among 807 participants, the mean score for genetic knowledge was 5.8 out of 9, with gaps in understanding of incomplete penetrance of genes and maternal genetic inheritance. Medical mistrust and lower health literacy were associated with significantly lower knowledge of prostate cancer genetics. Overall, attitudes toward genetic counseling were favorable, with the majority of participants endorsing that it would help with decision-making, is concordant with cultural beliefs, and that they were interested in more information. Concerns about genetic evaluation included cost and impact for insurance. CONCLUSIONS:Despite generally favorable attitudes toward genetic evaluation among Hispanic males, there are important knowledge gaps, including the importance of both maternal and paternal family history, as well as logistical concerns. Addressing these gaps through culturally targeted outreach may help to promote equitable uptake of germline genetic evaluation.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:The rise in chatbot health advice (CHA) studies is accompanied by heterogeneity in reporting standards, impacting their interpretability. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To provide reporting recommendations for studies evaluating the performance of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots when summarizing clinical evidence and providing health advice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:CHART was developed in several phases after performing a comprehensive systematic review to identify variation in the conduct, reporting, and methodology in CHA studies. Findings from the review were used to develop a draft checklist that was revised through an international, multidisciplinary modified asynchronous Delphi consensus process of 531 stakeholders, 3 synchronous panel consensus meetings of 48 stakeholders, and subsequent pilot testing of the checklist. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:CHART includes 12 items and 39 subitems to promote transparent and comprehensive reporting of CHA studies. These include title (subitem 1a), abstract or summary (subitem 1b), background (subitems 2ab), model identifiers (subitem 3ab), model details (subitems 4abc), prompt engineering (subitems 5ab), query strategy (subitems 6abcd), performance evaluation (subitems 7ab), sample size (subitem 8), data analysis (subitem 9a), results (subitems 10abc), discussion (subitems 11abc), disclosures (subitem 12a), funding (subitem 12b), ethics (subitem 12c), protocol (subitem 12d), and data availability (subitem 12e). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:The CHART checklist and corresponding methodological diagram were designed to support key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, editors, peer reviewers, and readers in reporting, understanding, and interpreting the findings of CHA studies.

BACKGROUND:The Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) is a reporting guideline developed to provide reporting recommendations for studies evaluating the performance of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots when summarizing clinical evidence and providing health advice, referred to as Chatbot Health Advice (CHA) studies. METHODS:CHART was developed in several phases after performing a comprehensive systematic review to identify variation in the conduct, reporting, and methodology in CHA studies. Findings from the review were used to develop a draft checklist that was revised through an international, multidisciplinary modified asynchronous Delphi consensus process of 531 stakeholders, three synchronous panel consensus meetings of 48 stakeholders, and subsequent pilot testing of the checklist. RESULTS:CHART includes 12 items and 39 subitems to promote transparent and comprehensive reporting of CHA studies. These include Title (subitem 1a), Abstract/Summary (subitem 1b), Background (subitems 2ab), Model Identifiers (subitems 3ab), Model Details (subitems 4abc), Prompt Engineering (subitems 5ab), Query Strategy (subitems 6abcd), Performance Evaluation (subitems 7ab), Sample Size (subitem 8), Data Analysis (subitem 9a), Results (subitems 10abc), Discussion (subitems 11abc), Disclosures (subitem 12a), Funding (subitem 12b), Ethics (subitem 12c), Protocol (subitem 12d), and Data Availability (subitem 12e). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The CHART checklist and corresponding methodological diagram were designed to support key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, editors, peer reviewers, and readers in reporting, understanding, and interpreting the findings of CHA studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:The health care sector is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and assessments of the environmental impacts of health services are essential. We aimed to evaluate the environmental impact of a highly common but controversial urology-specific blood test: the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. METHODS:e). The secondary outcome was the health impact attributed to the environmental harm of the test. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:e, equivalent to driving 14.5 million miles, with a resulting human health impact of 6.6 disability-adjusted life years annually. This study focused on the PSA test itself, and not on emissions from staff, patient, or sample transportation; building infrastructure; or cleaning. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Although the carbon footprint of a single PSA test is small, the cumulative impact of the estimated total of 30 million PSA tests performed annually in the USA is substantial, especially when considering that a notable proportion of these tests may be performed on men who are unlikely to benefit.

The Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) is a reporting guideline developed to provide reporting recommendations for studies evaluating the performance of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots when summarizing clinical evidence and providing health advice, referred to as Chatbot Health Advice (CHA) studies. CHART was developed in several phases after performing a comprehensive systematic review to identify variation in the conduct, reporting and methodology in CHA studies. Findings from the review were used to develop a draft checklist that was revised through an international, multidisciplinary modified asynchronous Delphi consensus process of 531 stakeholders, three synchronous panel consensus meetings of 48 stakeholders, and subsequent pilot testing of the checklist. CHART includes 12 items and 39 subitems to promote transparent and comprehensive reporting of CHA studies. These include Title (subitem 1a), Abstract/Summary (subitem 1b), Background (subitems 2ab), Model Identifiers (subitem 3ab), Model Details (subitems 4abc), Prompt Engineering (subitems 5ab), Query Strategy (subitems 6abcd), Performance Evaluation (subitems 7ab), Sample Size (subitem 8), Data Analysis (subitem 9a), Results (subitems 10abc), Discussion (subitems 11abc), Disclosures (subitem 12a), Funding (subitem 12b), Ethics (subitem 12c), Protocol (subitem 12d), and Data Availability (subitem 12e). The CHART checklist and corresponding methodological diagram were designed to support key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, editors, peer reviewers, and readers in reporting, understanding, and interpreting the findings of CHA studies.