Prostate Cancer

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study of nearly 250,000 veterans.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said, in an interview.

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he commented.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study of nearly 250,000 veterans.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said, in an interview.

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he commented.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study of nearly 250,000 veterans.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said, in an interview.

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he commented.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background

Many Veterans with cancer experience substantial side effects related to their chemotherapy treatments resulting in impaired quality of life. Prompt management of such symptoms can improve adherence to therapy and potentially clinical outcomes. Previous studies in cancer patients have shown that mobile apps can improve symptom management and quality of life, though there are limited studies using oncology-focused apps in the VA population. The VA Annie App is an optimal platform for Veterans since it relies primarily on SMS-based texting and not on internet capabilities. This would address several well-known barriers to Veterans’ care access (limited internet connectivity, transportation) and enhance symptom reporting between infrequent provider visits. Providers can securely collect app responses within the VA system and there is already considerable VA developer experience with designing complex protocols. The OCTAGON project (Optimizing Cancer Care with Telehealth Assessment for Goal-Oriented Needs) will have the following goals: 1) To develop Annie App protocols to assist in management of cancer and/or chemotherapy-related symptoms (OCTAGON intervention), 2) To examine initial acceptability, feasibility, and Veteran-reported outcomes, 3) To explore short term effects on the utilization of VA encounters.

Methods

All patients who are primarily being managed at the VA Ann Arbor for their cancer therapy and are receiving one of the following therapies are considered eligible: EGFR inhibitors (lung cancer), antiandrogen therapies (prostate cancer), BTK inhibitors (lymphoma).

Discussion

Drug-specific protocols will be developed in conjunction with clinical pharmacists with experience in outpatient oral chemotherapy toxicity monitoring. Questions will have either a Yes/No, or numerical response. Interventions will be administered weekly for the first 3 months after enrollment, then decrease to monthly for a total of 6 months on protocol. Patients will be directed to contact their providers with any significant changes in tolerability. Planned data collected will include intervention question responses, adverse events, demographics, diagnosis, disease response, hospitalizations, treatment dose reductions or interruptions, provider and staff utilization. Survey responses to assess treatment acceptability (Treatment Acceptability/Adherence Scale), usability (System Usability Scale), general health (PROMIS-GH), and patient satisfaction will also be collected. Funding: VA Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE).

Background

Many Veterans with cancer experience substantial side effects related to their chemotherapy treatments resulting in impaired quality of life. Prompt management of such symptoms can improve adherence to therapy and potentially clinical outcomes. Previous studies in cancer patients have shown that mobile apps can improve symptom management and quality of life, though there are limited studies using oncology-focused apps in the VA population. The VA Annie App is an optimal platform for Veterans since it relies primarily on SMS-based texting and not on internet capabilities. This would address several well-known barriers to Veterans’ care access (limited internet connectivity, transportation) and enhance symptom reporting between infrequent provider visits. Providers can securely collect app responses within the VA system and there is already considerable VA developer experience with designing complex protocols. The OCTAGON project (Optimizing Cancer Care with Telehealth Assessment for Goal-Oriented Needs) will have the following goals: 1) To develop Annie App protocols to assist in management of cancer and/or chemotherapy-related symptoms (OCTAGON intervention), 2) To examine initial acceptability, feasibility, and Veteran-reported outcomes, 3) To explore short term effects on the utilization of VA encounters.

Methods

All patients who are primarily being managed at the VA Ann Arbor for their cancer therapy and are receiving one of the following therapies are considered eligible: EGFR inhibitors (lung cancer), antiandrogen therapies (prostate cancer), BTK inhibitors (lymphoma).

Discussion

Drug-specific protocols will be developed in conjunction with clinical pharmacists with experience in outpatient oral chemotherapy toxicity monitoring. Questions will have either a Yes/No, or numerical response. Interventions will be administered weekly for the first 3 months after enrollment, then decrease to monthly for a total of 6 months on protocol. Patients will be directed to contact their providers with any significant changes in tolerability. Planned data collected will include intervention question responses, adverse events, demographics, diagnosis, disease response, hospitalizations, treatment dose reductions or interruptions, provider and staff utilization. Survey responses to assess treatment acceptability (Treatment Acceptability/Adherence Scale), usability (System Usability Scale), general health (PROMIS-GH), and patient satisfaction will also be collected. Funding: VA Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE).

Background

Many Veterans with cancer experience substantial side effects related to their chemotherapy treatments resulting in impaired quality of life. Prompt management of such symptoms can improve adherence to therapy and potentially clinical outcomes. Previous studies in cancer patients have shown that mobile apps can improve symptom management and quality of life, though there are limited studies using oncology-focused apps in the VA population. The VA Annie App is an optimal platform for Veterans since it relies primarily on SMS-based texting and not on internet capabilities. This would address several well-known barriers to Veterans’ care access (limited internet connectivity, transportation) and enhance symptom reporting between infrequent provider visits. Providers can securely collect app responses within the VA system and there is already considerable VA developer experience with designing complex protocols. The OCTAGON project (Optimizing Cancer Care with Telehealth Assessment for Goal-Oriented Needs) will have the following goals: 1) To develop Annie App protocols to assist in management of cancer and/or chemotherapy-related symptoms (OCTAGON intervention), 2) To examine initial acceptability, feasibility, and Veteran-reported outcomes, 3) To explore short term effects on the utilization of VA encounters.

Methods

All patients who are primarily being managed at the VA Ann Arbor for their cancer therapy and are receiving one of the following therapies are considered eligible: EGFR inhibitors (lung cancer), antiandrogen therapies (prostate cancer), BTK inhibitors (lymphoma).

Discussion

Drug-specific protocols will be developed in conjunction with clinical pharmacists with experience in outpatient oral chemotherapy toxicity monitoring. Questions will have either a Yes/No, or numerical response. Interventions will be administered weekly for the first 3 months after enrollment, then decrease to monthly for a total of 6 months on protocol. Patients will be directed to contact their providers with any significant changes in tolerability. Planned data collected will include intervention question responses, adverse events, demographics, diagnosis, disease response, hospitalizations, treatment dose reductions or interruptions, provider and staff utilization. Survey responses to assess treatment acceptability (Treatment Acceptability/Adherence Scale), usability (System Usability Scale), general health (PROMIS-GH), and patient satisfaction will also be collected. Funding: VA Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE).

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

VA Whole Health (WH) is an approach that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being. In 2020, 18 WH Flagship sites demonstrated reduced opiate use and smaller increases in pharmacy costs as well as favorable veteran self-reported measures. VA mandated WH integration into mental health and primary care. Purose: To incorporate WH within Dayton VA cancer care, using the Personal Health Inventory (PHI) as an intake tool, a tumor-agnostic WH oncology clinic was established.

Methods

Led by an oncologist, a referral-based clinic opened in 2021. Pre-work included EHR items (stop codes/templates), staff training and leverage of mental health integration. VA’s generic PHI was utilized until an oncology-specific PHI was developed by leaders in the field.(3-5) Clinic data was tracked.

Results

170 visits offered (June 2021-May 2024). 32 referrals received (one without cancer; deaths: two pre-intake/five post-intake); 70 appointments occurred among 30 veterans (30 intake/40 follow-up) for 41% fill rate (up 5% from 1st six months). 96% PHI completion rate. Referral sources: fellows (43%), attendings (17%), PCP (3%), Survivorship Clinic (3%), self-referral (33%)--40% of these from cancer support group members. Cancer types (one dual-diagnosis; total >100%): 24% breast, 17% prostate, 17% NSCLC, 10% NHL, 10% pancreatic, 7% Head/Neck, 7% SCLC, 3% each colon/esophageal/kidney. Cancer Stages represented: I (10%), II (20%), III (23%) and IV (47%). Participant info: Age range (36-85); 69% male and 31% female with 86% on active cancer therapy (hormonal, immune-, chemo- or chemoradiation). Supplements were discussed at 26% of visits and referrals ordered at 27% (4-massage therapy, 1-acupuncture, 1-chiropractic, 2-health coaching, 1-cardiology, 1-lymphedema therapy, 1-social work, 1-survivorship clinic, 1-yoga, 1-diabetes education, 1-ENT, 1-nutrition, 1-pathology, 1-pulmonary, 1-prosthetics).

Conclusions

WH within cancer care is feasible for veterans on active treatment (all types/stages) and at a non-Flagship/unfunded site. Veterans gain introduction to WH through the PHI and Complementary-Integrative Health referrals (VA Directive 1137). Cancer support group attendance prompts WH clinic self-referrals. Next steps at DVAMC are to offer mind-body approaches such as virtual reality experiences in the infusion room and VA CALM sessions via asynchronous online delivery; funding would support WH evolution in oncology.

Background

VA Whole Health (WH) is an approach that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being. In 2020, 18 WH Flagship sites demonstrated reduced opiate use and smaller increases in pharmacy costs as well as favorable veteran self-reported measures. VA mandated WH integration into mental health and primary care. Purose: To incorporate WH within Dayton VA cancer care, using the Personal Health Inventory (PHI) as an intake tool, a tumor-agnostic WH oncology clinic was established.

Methods

Led by an oncologist, a referral-based clinic opened in 2021. Pre-work included EHR items (stop codes/templates), staff training and leverage of mental health integration. VA’s generic PHI was utilized until an oncology-specific PHI was developed by leaders in the field.(3-5) Clinic data was tracked.

Results

170 visits offered (June 2021-May 2024). 32 referrals received (one without cancer; deaths: two pre-intake/five post-intake); 70 appointments occurred among 30 veterans (30 intake/40 follow-up) for 41% fill rate (up 5% from 1st six months). 96% PHI completion rate. Referral sources: fellows (43%), attendings (17%), PCP (3%), Survivorship Clinic (3%), self-referral (33%)--40% of these from cancer support group members. Cancer types (one dual-diagnosis; total >100%): 24% breast, 17% prostate, 17% NSCLC, 10% NHL, 10% pancreatic, 7% Head/Neck, 7% SCLC, 3% each colon/esophageal/kidney. Cancer Stages represented: I (10%), II (20%), III (23%) and IV (47%). Participant info: Age range (36-85); 69% male and 31% female with 86% on active cancer therapy (hormonal, immune-, chemo- or chemoradiation). Supplements were discussed at 26% of visits and referrals ordered at 27% (4-massage therapy, 1-acupuncture, 1-chiropractic, 2-health coaching, 1-cardiology, 1-lymphedema therapy, 1-social work, 1-survivorship clinic, 1-yoga, 1-diabetes education, 1-ENT, 1-nutrition, 1-pathology, 1-pulmonary, 1-prosthetics).

Conclusions

WH within cancer care is feasible for veterans on active treatment (all types/stages) and at a non-Flagship/unfunded site. Veterans gain introduction to WH through the PHI and Complementary-Integrative Health referrals (VA Directive 1137). Cancer support group attendance prompts WH clinic self-referrals. Next steps at DVAMC are to offer mind-body approaches such as virtual reality experiences in the infusion room and VA CALM sessions via asynchronous online delivery; funding would support WH evolution in oncology.

Background

VA Whole Health (WH) is an approach that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being. In 2020, 18 WH Flagship sites demonstrated reduced opiate use and smaller increases in pharmacy costs as well as favorable veteran self-reported measures. VA mandated WH integration into mental health and primary care. Purose: To incorporate WH within Dayton VA cancer care, using the Personal Health Inventory (PHI) as an intake tool, a tumor-agnostic WH oncology clinic was established.

Methods

Led by an oncologist, a referral-based clinic opened in 2021. Pre-work included EHR items (stop codes/templates), staff training and leverage of mental health integration. VA’s generic PHI was utilized until an oncology-specific PHI was developed by leaders in the field.(3-5) Clinic data was tracked.

Results

170 visits offered (June 2021-May 2024). 32 referrals received (one without cancer; deaths: two pre-intake/five post-intake); 70 appointments occurred among 30 veterans (30 intake/40 follow-up) for 41% fill rate (up 5% from 1st six months). 96% PHI completion rate. Referral sources: fellows (43%), attendings (17%), PCP (3%), Survivorship Clinic (3%), self-referral (33%)--40% of these from cancer support group members. Cancer types (one dual-diagnosis; total >100%): 24% breast, 17% prostate, 17% NSCLC, 10% NHL, 10% pancreatic, 7% Head/Neck, 7% SCLC, 3% each colon/esophageal/kidney. Cancer Stages represented: I (10%), II (20%), III (23%) and IV (47%). Participant info: Age range (36-85); 69% male and 31% female with 86% on active cancer therapy (hormonal, immune-, chemo- or chemoradiation). Supplements were discussed at 26% of visits and referrals ordered at 27% (4-massage therapy, 1-acupuncture, 1-chiropractic, 2-health coaching, 1-cardiology, 1-lymphedema therapy, 1-social work, 1-survivorship clinic, 1-yoga, 1-diabetes education, 1-ENT, 1-nutrition, 1-pathology, 1-pulmonary, 1-prosthetics).

Conclusions

WH within cancer care is feasible for veterans on active treatment (all types/stages) and at a non-Flagship/unfunded site. Veterans gain introduction to WH through the PHI and Complementary-Integrative Health referrals (VA Directive 1137). Cancer support group attendance prompts WH clinic self-referrals. Next steps at DVAMC are to offer mind-body approaches such as virtual reality experiences in the infusion room and VA CALM sessions via asynchronous online delivery; funding would support WH evolution in oncology.

Background

The adoption of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer has allowed treatment to be completed in less than 2 weeks, but has predominantly been given to the prostate only. Currently, very few prospective studies have compared delivery of SBRT versus hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFX) when giving concurrent pelvic radiation. The aim of the study is to evaluate the tolerance and efficacy of pelvic node radiotherapy and SIB to the prostate in prostate patients requiring nodal irradiation.

Methods

A total of 58 patients were irradiated with SBRT and initiated ADT therapy between 2014 and 2023. 57 patients were treated with 7.5 Gy to the prostate and 1 to 7.25 Gy. All patients were treated with 5 Gy x 5 fraction to the pelvis. This group was compared to a preselected historical cohort of 65 HFX patients with 57 of these patients treated with 67.5/50 Gy in 25 fractions, 1 with patient 67.5/45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 6 patients with 60/44-46 Gy in 20 fractions. Patients were evaluated for GU and GI toxicities according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Toxicity criteria at one year post radiation therapy.

Results

There were 31 grade 0 (53.4%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), 25 grade 2 (43.1%), 1 grade 3 (1.7%) events in the SBRT group and 29 GU grade 0 (44.6%), 3 grade 1 (4.6%), and 33 grade 2 (50.8%) GU toxicities in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.464). There were 55 grade 0 (94.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), and 2 grade 2 (3.4%) GI toxicities in the SBRT group and 59 grade 0 (90.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.5%), and 5 grade 2 (7.7%) events in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.381).

Conclusions

This prospective study provides data to support the use of concurrent pelvic radiation with SBRT to the prostate. Our findings suggest there is no difference in toxicity between HFX and 25 Gy pelvic radiation (5 Gy/5 fractions) concurrent with SBRT to the prostate, therefore it appears to be a safe and convenient option for veterans with prostate cancer.

Background

The adoption of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer has allowed treatment to be completed in less than 2 weeks, but has predominantly been given to the prostate only. Currently, very few prospective studies have compared delivery of SBRT versus hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFX) when giving concurrent pelvic radiation. The aim of the study is to evaluate the tolerance and efficacy of pelvic node radiotherapy and SIB to the prostate in prostate patients requiring nodal irradiation.

Methods

A total of 58 patients were irradiated with SBRT and initiated ADT therapy between 2014 and 2023. 57 patients were treated with 7.5 Gy to the prostate and 1 to 7.25 Gy. All patients were treated with 5 Gy x 5 fraction to the pelvis. This group was compared to a preselected historical cohort of 65 HFX patients with 57 of these patients treated with 67.5/50 Gy in 25 fractions, 1 with patient 67.5/45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 6 patients with 60/44-46 Gy in 20 fractions. Patients were evaluated for GU and GI toxicities according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Toxicity criteria at one year post radiation therapy.

Results

There were 31 grade 0 (53.4%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), 25 grade 2 (43.1%), 1 grade 3 (1.7%) events in the SBRT group and 29 GU grade 0 (44.6%), 3 grade 1 (4.6%), and 33 grade 2 (50.8%) GU toxicities in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.464). There were 55 grade 0 (94.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), and 2 grade 2 (3.4%) GI toxicities in the SBRT group and 59 grade 0 (90.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.5%), and 5 grade 2 (7.7%) events in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.381).

Conclusions

This prospective study provides data to support the use of concurrent pelvic radiation with SBRT to the prostate. Our findings suggest there is no difference in toxicity between HFX and 25 Gy pelvic radiation (5 Gy/5 fractions) concurrent with SBRT to the prostate, therefore it appears to be a safe and convenient option for veterans with prostate cancer.

Background

The adoption of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer has allowed treatment to be completed in less than 2 weeks, but has predominantly been given to the prostate only. Currently, very few prospective studies have compared delivery of SBRT versus hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFX) when giving concurrent pelvic radiation. The aim of the study is to evaluate the tolerance and efficacy of pelvic node radiotherapy and SIB to the prostate in prostate patients requiring nodal irradiation.

Methods

A total of 58 patients were irradiated with SBRT and initiated ADT therapy between 2014 and 2023. 57 patients were treated with 7.5 Gy to the prostate and 1 to 7.25 Gy. All patients were treated with 5 Gy x 5 fraction to the pelvis. This group was compared to a preselected historical cohort of 65 HFX patients with 57 of these patients treated with 67.5/50 Gy in 25 fractions, 1 with patient 67.5/45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 6 patients with 60/44-46 Gy in 20 fractions. Patients were evaluated for GU and GI toxicities according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Toxicity criteria at one year post radiation therapy.

Results

There were 31 grade 0 (53.4%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), 25 grade 2 (43.1%), 1 grade 3 (1.7%) events in the SBRT group and 29 GU grade 0 (44.6%), 3 grade 1 (4.6%), and 33 grade 2 (50.8%) GU toxicities in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.464). There were 55 grade 0 (94.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.7%), and 2 grade 2 (3.4%) GI toxicities in the SBRT group and 59 grade 0 (90.8%), 1 grade 1 (1.5%), and 5 grade 2 (7.7%) events in the HFX group with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.381).

Conclusions

This prospective study provides data to support the use of concurrent pelvic radiation with SBRT to the prostate. Our findings suggest there is no difference in toxicity between HFX and 25 Gy pelvic radiation (5 Gy/5 fractions) concurrent with SBRT to the prostate, therefore it appears to be a safe and convenient option for veterans with prostate cancer.

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the VHA. Telehealth use has increased and has the potential to improve access for patients. We examined patterns of care for VHA patients with prostate cancer, including whether visits were in person, by telephone or by video.

Methods

Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, we extracted data on all incident cases of prostate cancer from 1/1/2016-1/31/2023 with sufficient information (Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and tumor stage) to categorize into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk strata. We excluded patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis and those with no evidence of PSA testing, prostate biopsy or treatment within 2 years. We categorized all outpatient visits related to a person’s Urology- and Medical Oncology based care – including the visit modality – based on administrative visit stop codes. We defined ‘during COVID’ as visits after 3/11/2020. We calculated the percent of visits performed by modality in each year after diagnosis.

Results

Among the 60,381 men with prostate cancer, 61% were White, 33% Black; 5% Hispanic; 32% rural. For NCCN category, 30% had high risk prostate cancer, which increased with age, 50% had intermediate risk and 20% had low risk. Prior to COVID, for visits to Urology within the first year after diagnosis, 79% were in person, 20% were by telephone and 0.1% were by video. Visits to Oncology within the first year after diagnosis were similar—82% in person, 16% by phone and 0.3% by video.

Discussion

During the COVID period, video visits increased significantly but remained a small proportion, accounting for only 2% of visits for both Urology and Oncology. Video visits increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but remained rare. Across many diseases and conditions, the quality of care for video visits has been at least as good as for in-person care.

Conclusions

There is a missed opportunity to provide care by video within VHA for patients with prostate cancer, particularly given that about 1/3 of patients are from rural areas. Future analyses will examine barriers to video telehealth and the impact of video visits on quality and equity of prostate cancer care.

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the VHA. Telehealth use has increased and has the potential to improve access for patients. We examined patterns of care for VHA patients with prostate cancer, including whether visits were in person, by telephone or by video.

Methods

Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, we extracted data on all incident cases of prostate cancer from 1/1/2016-1/31/2023 with sufficient information (Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and tumor stage) to categorize into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk strata. We excluded patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis and those with no evidence of PSA testing, prostate biopsy or treatment within 2 years. We categorized all outpatient visits related to a person’s Urology- and Medical Oncology based care – including the visit modality – based on administrative visit stop codes. We defined ‘during COVID’ as visits after 3/11/2020. We calculated the percent of visits performed by modality in each year after diagnosis.

Results

Among the 60,381 men with prostate cancer, 61% were White, 33% Black; 5% Hispanic; 32% rural. For NCCN category, 30% had high risk prostate cancer, which increased with age, 50% had intermediate risk and 20% had low risk. Prior to COVID, for visits to Urology within the first year after diagnosis, 79% were in person, 20% were by telephone and 0.1% were by video. Visits to Oncology within the first year after diagnosis were similar—82% in person, 16% by phone and 0.3% by video.

Discussion

During the COVID period, video visits increased significantly but remained a small proportion, accounting for only 2% of visits for both Urology and Oncology. Video visits increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but remained rare. Across many diseases and conditions, the quality of care for video visits has been at least as good as for in-person care.

Conclusions

There is a missed opportunity to provide care by video within VHA for patients with prostate cancer, particularly given that about 1/3 of patients are from rural areas. Future analyses will examine barriers to video telehealth and the impact of video visits on quality and equity of prostate cancer care.

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the VHA. Telehealth use has increased and has the potential to improve access for patients. We examined patterns of care for VHA patients with prostate cancer, including whether visits were in person, by telephone or by video.

Methods

Using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, we extracted data on all incident cases of prostate cancer from 1/1/2016-1/31/2023 with sufficient information (Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and tumor stage) to categorize into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk strata. We excluded patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis and those with no evidence of PSA testing, prostate biopsy or treatment within 2 years. We categorized all outpatient visits related to a person’s Urology- and Medical Oncology based care – including the visit modality – based on administrative visit stop codes. We defined ‘during COVID’ as visits after 3/11/2020. We calculated the percent of visits performed by modality in each year after diagnosis.

Results

Among the 60,381 men with prostate cancer, 61% were White, 33% Black; 5% Hispanic; 32% rural. For NCCN category, 30% had high risk prostate cancer, which increased with age, 50% had intermediate risk and 20% had low risk. Prior to COVID, for visits to Urology within the first year after diagnosis, 79% were in person, 20% were by telephone and 0.1% were by video. Visits to Oncology within the first year after diagnosis were similar—82% in person, 16% by phone and 0.3% by video.

Discussion

During the COVID period, video visits increased significantly but remained a small proportion, accounting for only 2% of visits for both Urology and Oncology. Video visits increased during the COVID-19 pandemic but remained rare. Across many diseases and conditions, the quality of care for video visits has been at least as good as for in-person care.

Conclusions

There is a missed opportunity to provide care by video within VHA for patients with prostate cancer, particularly given that about 1/3 of patients are from rural areas. Future analyses will examine barriers to video telehealth and the impact of video visits on quality and equity of prostate cancer care.

Background

Metastatic prostate cancer typically manifests with metastases to the lungs, bones, and adrenal glands. Here, we report a unique case where the initial presentation involved pleural nodules, subsequently leading to the discovery of pleural and pericardial metastases. 

Case Presentation

Our patient, a 73-year-old male with a history of active tobacco use disorder, COPD, and right shoulder melanoma (2004), initially presented to his primary care physician for a routine visit. Following a Low Dose Chest CT scan (LDCT), numerous new pleural nodules were identified. Physical examination revealed small nevi and skin tags, but no malignant characteristics. Initial concerns centered on the potential recurrence of malignant melanoma with pleural metastases or an inflammatory condition. Subsequent PET scan results raised significant suspicion of malignancy. PSA was 2.41. Pleuroscopy biopsies revealed invasive nonsmall cell carcinoma, positive for NKX31 and MOC31, but negative for S100, PSA, and synaptophysin. This pattern strongly suggests metastatic prostate cancer despite the absence of PSA staining. (Stage IV B: cTxcN1cM1c). A subsequent PSMA PET highlighted extensive metastatic involvement in the pericardium, posterior and mediastinal pleura, mediastinum, and ribs. Treatment commenced with Degarelix followed by the standard regimen of Docetaxel, Abiraterone, and prednisone. Genetic counseling and palliative care services were additionally recommended.

Discussion

Prostate cancer typically spreads to bones, lungs, liver, and adrenal glands. Rarely, it appears in sites like pericardium and pleura. Pleural metastases are usually found postmortem; clinical diagnosis is rare. Pericardial metastases are exceptionally uncommon, with few documented cases. The precise mechanism of metastatic dissemination remains uncertain, with theories suggesting spread through the vertebral-venous plexus or via the vena cava to distant organs. Treatment approaches vary based on symptomatic effusions, ranging from pericardiocentesis, thoracocentesis to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy. Studies have shown systemic docetaxel to be effective in managing pleural and pericardial symptoms. Despite their rarity, healthcare providers should consider these possibilities when encountering pleural thickening or pericardial abnormalities on imaging studies.

Conclusions

Pleural and pericardial metastases represent uncommon occurrences in prostate cancer. Continued research efforts can facilitate early detection of metastatic disease, enabling more effective and precisely targeted management strategies when symptoms manifest.

Background

Metastatic prostate cancer typically manifests with metastases to the lungs, bones, and adrenal glands. Here, we report a unique case where the initial presentation involved pleural nodules, subsequently leading to the discovery of pleural and pericardial metastases. 

Case Presentation

Our patient, a 73-year-old male with a history of active tobacco use disorder, COPD, and right shoulder melanoma (2004), initially presented to his primary care physician for a routine visit. Following a Low Dose Chest CT scan (LDCT), numerous new pleural nodules were identified. Physical examination revealed small nevi and skin tags, but no malignant characteristics. Initial concerns centered on the potential recurrence of malignant melanoma with pleural metastases or an inflammatory condition. Subsequent PET scan results raised significant suspicion of malignancy. PSA was 2.41. Pleuroscopy biopsies revealed invasive nonsmall cell carcinoma, positive for NKX31 and MOC31, but negative for S100, PSA, and synaptophysin. This pattern strongly suggests metastatic prostate cancer despite the absence of PSA staining. (Stage IV B: cTxcN1cM1c). A subsequent PSMA PET highlighted extensive metastatic involvement in the pericardium, posterior and mediastinal pleura, mediastinum, and ribs. Treatment commenced with Degarelix followed by the standard regimen of Docetaxel, Abiraterone, and prednisone. Genetic counseling and palliative care services were additionally recommended.

Discussion

Prostate cancer typically spreads to bones, lungs, liver, and adrenal glands. Rarely, it appears in sites like pericardium and pleura. Pleural metastases are usually found postmortem; clinical diagnosis is rare. Pericardial metastases are exceptionally uncommon, with few documented cases. The precise mechanism of metastatic dissemination remains uncertain, with theories suggesting spread through the vertebral-venous plexus or via the vena cava to distant organs. Treatment approaches vary based on symptomatic effusions, ranging from pericardiocentesis, thoracocentesis to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy. Studies have shown systemic docetaxel to be effective in managing pleural and pericardial symptoms. Despite their rarity, healthcare providers should consider these possibilities when encountering pleural thickening or pericardial abnormalities on imaging studies.

Conclusions

Pleural and pericardial metastases represent uncommon occurrences in prostate cancer. Continued research efforts can facilitate early detection of metastatic disease, enabling more effective and precisely targeted management strategies when symptoms manifest.

Background

Metastatic prostate cancer typically manifests with metastases to the lungs, bones, and adrenal glands. Here, we report a unique case where the initial presentation involved pleural nodules, subsequently leading to the discovery of pleural and pericardial metastases. 

Case Presentation

Our patient, a 73-year-old male with a history of active tobacco use disorder, COPD, and right shoulder melanoma (2004), initially presented to his primary care physician for a routine visit. Following a Low Dose Chest CT scan (LDCT), numerous new pleural nodules were identified. Physical examination revealed small nevi and skin tags, but no malignant characteristics. Initial concerns centered on the potential recurrence of malignant melanoma with pleural metastases or an inflammatory condition. Subsequent PET scan results raised significant suspicion of malignancy. PSA was 2.41. Pleuroscopy biopsies revealed invasive nonsmall cell carcinoma, positive for NKX31 and MOC31, but negative for S100, PSA, and synaptophysin. This pattern strongly suggests metastatic prostate cancer despite the absence of PSA staining. (Stage IV B: cTxcN1cM1c). A subsequent PSMA PET highlighted extensive metastatic involvement in the pericardium, posterior and mediastinal pleura, mediastinum, and ribs. Treatment commenced with Degarelix followed by the standard regimen of Docetaxel, Abiraterone, and prednisone. Genetic counseling and palliative care services were additionally recommended.

Discussion

Prostate cancer typically spreads to bones, lungs, liver, and adrenal glands. Rarely, it appears in sites like pericardium and pleura. Pleural metastases are usually found postmortem; clinical diagnosis is rare. Pericardial metastases are exceptionally uncommon, with few documented cases. The precise mechanism of metastatic dissemination remains uncertain, with theories suggesting spread through the vertebral-venous plexus or via the vena cava to distant organs. Treatment approaches vary based on symptomatic effusions, ranging from pericardiocentesis, thoracocentesis to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy. Studies have shown systemic docetaxel to be effective in managing pleural and pericardial symptoms. Despite their rarity, healthcare providers should consider these possibilities when encountering pleural thickening or pericardial abnormalities on imaging studies.

Conclusions

Pleural and pericardial metastases represent uncommon occurrences in prostate cancer. Continued research efforts can facilitate early detection of metastatic disease, enabling more effective and precisely targeted management strategies when symptoms manifest.

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy diagnosis within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Prostate Cancer Clinical Pathways (PCCP) were developed to enable providers to treat all Veterans with prostate cancer at subject matter expert level.

Discussion

The PCCP was launched in February 2021; however, provider documentation of PCCP is variable across the VA healthcare system and within the PCCP, specific flow maps have differential use. For example, the Very Low Risk flow map has seven unique Veterans entered, whereas the Molecular Testing flow map has over 3,900 unique Veterans entered. One clear reason for this disparity in pathway documentation use is that local prostate cancer is managed by urology and their documentation of the PCCP is not as widespread as the medical oncologists. The National Oncology Program developed clinical note templates to document PCCP that medical oncologist use which has increased utilization. To increase urology specific flow map use, a collaboration between the National Surgery Office and National Oncology Program was established to develop a Urology Prostate Cancer Note (UPCN). The UPCN was designed by urologists with assistance from a medical oncologist and a clinical applications coordinator. The UPCN will function as a working clinical note for urologists and has the PCCPs embedded into reminder dialog templates, which when completed generate health factors. The health factors that are generated from the UPCN are data mined to record PCCP use and to perform data analytics. The UPCN is in the testing phase at three pilot test sites and is scheduled to be deployed summer 2024. The collaborative effort is aligned with the VHA directives outlined in the Cleland Dole Act.

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy diagnosis within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Prostate Cancer Clinical Pathways (PCCP) were developed to enable providers to treat all Veterans with prostate cancer at subject matter expert level.

Discussion

The PCCP was launched in February 2021; however, provider documentation of PCCP is variable across the VA healthcare system and within the PCCP, specific flow maps have differential use. For example, the Very Low Risk flow map has seven unique Veterans entered, whereas the Molecular Testing flow map has over 3,900 unique Veterans entered. One clear reason for this disparity in pathway documentation use is that local prostate cancer is managed by urology and their documentation of the PCCP is not as widespread as the medical oncologists. The National Oncology Program developed clinical note templates to document PCCP that medical oncologist use which has increased utilization. To increase urology specific flow map use, a collaboration between the National Surgery Office and National Oncology Program was established to develop a Urology Prostate Cancer Note (UPCN). The UPCN was designed by urologists with assistance from a medical oncologist and a clinical applications coordinator. The UPCN will function as a working clinical note for urologists and has the PCCPs embedded into reminder dialog templates, which when completed generate health factors. The health factors that are generated from the UPCN are data mined to record PCCP use and to perform data analytics. The UPCN is in the testing phase at three pilot test sites and is scheduled to be deployed summer 2024. The collaborative effort is aligned with the VHA directives outlined in the Cleland Dole Act.

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy diagnosis within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Prostate Cancer Clinical Pathways (PCCP) were developed to enable providers to treat all Veterans with prostate cancer at subject matter expert level.

Discussion

The PCCP was launched in February 2021; however, provider documentation of PCCP is variable across the VA healthcare system and within the PCCP, specific flow maps have differential use. For example, the Very Low Risk flow map has seven unique Veterans entered, whereas the Molecular Testing flow map has over 3,900 unique Veterans entered. One clear reason for this disparity in pathway documentation use is that local prostate cancer is managed by urology and their documentation of the PCCP is not as widespread as the medical oncologists. The National Oncology Program developed clinical note templates to document PCCP that medical oncologist use which has increased utilization. To increase urology specific flow map use, a collaboration between the National Surgery Office and National Oncology Program was established to develop a Urology Prostate Cancer Note (UPCN). The UPCN was designed by urologists with assistance from a medical oncologist and a clinical applications coordinator. The UPCN will function as a working clinical note for urologists and has the PCCPs embedded into reminder dialog templates, which when completed generate health factors. The health factors that are generated from the UPCN are data mined to record PCCP use and to perform data analytics. The UPCN is in the testing phase at three pilot test sites and is scheduled to be deployed summer 2024. The collaborative effort is aligned with the VHA directives outlined in the Cleland Dole Act.

Background

Given the poor prognosis of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), interventions aimed at increasing adherence to oral treatments have the potential to improve patient outcomes. This study evaluates the impact of a patient stewardship assistance pilot program (stewardship program) on the adherence and persistence to oral treatments among patients with mCRPC at VA medical centers (VAMCs).

Methods

A non-randomized controlled study design and data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse were used. The study included patients treated with an oral mCRPC therapy (i.e., abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide) between 08/2018 and 12/2019. Patients participating in the stewardship program formed the intervention arm and patients not participating the controls. Control patients were selected and matched 1:3 based on age, race and index year. The index date was the date of initiation of abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. Outcomes included persistence (no gap >60 days of supply) and adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥80%) to oral mCRPC treatment post-index. Persistence and adherence were compared between the two arms using a Cox proportional hazard model and logistic regression model, respectively, adjusted for baseline characteristics.

Results

The study included 108 intervention patients (mean age: 74.6, 19.4% Black or African American, 44.4% from South, mean Quan-CCI: 6.7) and 324 control patients (mean age: 74.6, 19.4% Black or African American, 31.5% from South, mean Quan-CCI: 6.2). There was no statistically significant difference in persistence between the intervention and control arms (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.84 [0.66-1.10], p-value: 0.211), with respective median times to discontinuation of 18 and 19 months. Over the first 12 months post-index, the proportion of adherent patients was not significantly different between the intervention arm and the control arm (50.6% vs. 50.9%; odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.05 [0.80-1.38], p-value: 0.729).

Conclusions

In this racially diverse study of patients treated at VAMCs, high levels of persistence and adherence to oral mCRPC therapy were observed. The absence of any significant difference in adherence and persistence from the study intervention suggests that a stewardship assistance program aimed at improving adherence and persistence of patients with mCRPC may not be required at VAMCs.

Background

Given the poor prognosis of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), interventions aimed at increasing adherence to oral treatments have the potential to improve patient outcomes. This study evaluates the impact of a patient stewardship assistance pilot program (stewardship program) on the adherence and persistence to oral treatments among patients with mCRPC at VA medical centers (VAMCs).

Methods

A non-randomized controlled study design and data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse were used. The study included patients treated with an oral mCRPC therapy (i.e., abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide) between 08/2018 and 12/2019. Patients participating in the stewardship program formed the intervention arm and patients not participating the controls. Control patients were selected and matched 1:3 based on age, race and index year. The index date was the date of initiation of abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. Outcomes included persistence (no gap >60 days of supply) and adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥80%) to oral mCRPC treatment post-index. Persistence and adherence were compared between the two arms using a Cox proportional hazard model and logistic regression model, respectively, adjusted for baseline characteristics.

Results

The study included 108 intervention patients (mean age: 74.6, 19.4% Black or African American, 44.4% from South, mean Quan-CCI: 6.7) and 324 control patients (mean age: 74.6, 19.4% Black or African American, 31.5% from South, mean Quan-CCI: 6.2). There was no statistically significant difference in persistence between the intervention and control arms (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.84 [0.66-1.10], p-value: 0.211), with respective median times to discontinuation of 18 and 19 months. Over the first 12 months post-index, the proportion of adherent patients was not significantly different between the intervention arm and the control arm (50.6% vs. 50.9%; odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.05 [0.80-1.38], p-value: 0.729).

Conclusions

In this racially diverse study of patients treated at VAMCs, high levels of persistence and adherence to oral mCRPC therapy were observed. The absence of any significant difference in adherence and persistence from the study intervention suggests that a stewardship assistance program aimed at improving adherence and persistence of patients with mCRPC may not be required at VAMCs.

Background

Given the poor prognosis of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), interventions aimed at increasing adherence to oral treatments have the potential to improve patient outcomes. This study evaluates the impact of a patient stewardship assistance pilot program (stewardship program) on the adherence and persistence to oral treatments among patients with mCRPC at VA medical centers (VAMCs).

Methods

A non-randomized controlled study design and data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse were used. The study included patients treated with an oral mCRPC therapy (i.e., abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide) between 08/2018 and 12/2019. Patients participating in the stewardship program formed the intervention arm and patients not participating the controls. Control patients were selected and matched 1:3 based on age, race and index year. The index date was the date of initiation of abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. Outcomes included persistence (no gap >60 days of supply) and adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥80%) to oral mCRPC treatment post-index. Persistence and adherence were compared between the two arms using a Cox proportional hazard model and logistic regression model, respectively, adjusted for baseline characteristics.

Results

The study included 108 intervention patients (mean age: 74.6, 19.4% Black or African American, 44.4% from South, mean Quan-CCI: 6.7) and 324 control patients (mean age: 74.6, 19.4% Black or African American, 31.5% from South, mean Quan-CCI: 6.2). There was no statistically significant difference in persistence between the intervention and control arms (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.84 [0.66-1.10], p-value: 0.211), with respective median times to discontinuation of 18 and 19 months. Over the first 12 months post-index, the proportion of adherent patients was not significantly different between the intervention arm and the control arm (50.6% vs. 50.9%; odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.05 [0.80-1.38], p-value: 0.729).

Conclusions

In this racially diverse study of patients treated at VAMCs, high levels of persistence and adherence to oral mCRPC therapy were observed. The absence of any significant difference in adherence and persistence from the study intervention suggests that a stewardship assistance program aimed at improving adherence and persistence of patients with mCRPC may not be required at VAMCs.