6/8/2012 1 SHARED DECISION MAKING FOR PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING 15 TH ANNUAL MASSACHUSETTS PROSTATE CANCER SYMPOSIUM Michael J. Barry, MD Foundation President Clinical Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School • The Foundation has a licensing agreement THE FOUNDATION AND HEALTH DIALOG with Health Dialog • Provides royalties and contract funding to develop and maintain decision support materials • Strict conflict‐of‐interest policy S ff dM di l Edi hibi df • Staff andMedical Editors are prohibitedfrom financial support from the drug and device industries
14
Embed
SHARED DECISION MAKING FOR PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
6/8/2012
1
SHARED DECISION MAKING FOR PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING
1 5 T H A N NU A L MA S S A C H U S E T T S P R O S TAT E C A N C E R S YM PO S I UM
Michael J. Barry, MDFoundation President
Clinical Professor of MedicineHarvard Medical School
• The Foundation has a licensing agreement
THE FOUNDATION AND HEALTH DIALOG
g gwith Health Dialog
• Provides royalties and contract funding to develop and maintain decision support materials
• Strict conflict‐of‐interest policyS ff d M di l Edi hibi d f • Staff and Medical Editors are prohibited from financial support from the drug and device industries
6/8/2012
2
• A 50 year old man
CLINICAL CASE
5 ypresents for a primary care visit soon after his birthday
• No other risk factors for prostate cancer
• Maybe he asks about Maybe he asks about prostate cancer screening…
• And maybe he doesn’t!
3
CLINICAL CASE
• How should the visit f ld? Sh ld h unfold? Should the
option of screening be raised by the clinician if the patient doesn’t?
I PSA i • Is PSA screening a choice? Is a DRE a choice?
4
6/8/2012
3
250
US PROSTATE CANCER MORTALITY & INCIDENCE (1987‐ 2008)
100
150
200
Incidence
Rat
e pe
r 10
0,00
0
0
50
1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008
SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975‐2008
Mortality
5
WHAT’S THE LATEST EVIDENCE?
• US PLCO Trial (Update 13 yr)• For men 55‐74 (N=76,685, annual PSA/DRE)
• No difference in overall mortality
• Diagnosis of PCa increased from 9.9% to 11.1% with screening
• Risk of getting PCa increased12% (95% CI 7%, 17%)
• Risk of PCa death similar at 0.4% in both groups
• RR PCa death 9% higher with screening (95% CI 13% +36%)• RR PCa death 9% higher with screening (95% CI, 13%, +36%)
• Problem with the PLCO trial
• “Contamination” of the control group with “usual care” PSA tests may have obscured a small benefit
Andriole, et al. JNCI 2012;104:125 6
6/8/2012
4
WHAT’S THE LATEST EVIDENCE?
• ERSPC Trial (Update 11 yr F/U NEJM 2012;366:981)• For men 55‐69 (N=162,388, PSA~q 4 yrs, no DRE)
• Diagnosis of PCa increased from 6.0% to 9.6% with screening
• Risk of getting PSA increased 63% (95% CI 57%, 67%)
• Risk of prostate cancer death decreased from 0.5% to 0.4%
• Risk of PCa death decreased 21% (95% CI 32%, 9%)
• Problem with the ERSPC trialM i h i d i diff l • Men in the screening group were treated in different places than men in the control group when they were diagnosed with prostate cancer
Schroder et al. NEJM 2012;366:981) 7
EFFECTIVENESS OF THERAPY
• Scandinavian RCT of RP vs. watchful waiting, l li d localized cancer
• <10% of PCa detected through screening• Reduced PCa specific mortality from 21% in the WW group to 15% in RP group compared to WW at 15 years (P=0.01, NNT=15)
• Overall mortality reduced 53% to 46% at 15 years (P=.007, NNT=15)
• Benefit confined to men under 65 (NNT=7)
Bill‐Axelson et al. NEJM 2011;364:1708 8
6/8/2012
5
BREAST VS. PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING
• Per 10,000 screened for 10 years:
Breast Cancer(age 40‐69)
Prostate Cancer(age 55‐69)
# biopsies 800 2,400
# extra CA diagnosed 50 350
# lives saved 5 7
Gotzsche et al. Cochrane Database. 2006.Elmore et al. NEJM. 1998;338:1089Schroder et al. NEJM. 2009;360:1320 9
# screened/life saved 2,000 1,400
# treated/life saved 10 50
MORBIDITY OF XRT OR RP AT 5 YEARS
Complication XRT RPComplication XRT RP
Incontinence (requiring pads)
4% 29%
Erections insufficient for intercourse
64% 79%
Bothered by bowels 4% 5%
Potosky et al. JNCI. 2000;92:1582. 10
Additional treatment (w/in 2‐4 years)
24% 25%
6/8/2012
6
2008 MEDICARE RP OUTCOMES STUDY
800 RP pts from Medicare
3 found ineligible
685 / 797 surveys returned (86%)
38 not sure/no 427 confirmed 220 surgery was
not lap answer surgery was lap
not lap, assumed open
406 confirmed robot assisted
9 not robot assist
12 not sure about robot
assist
11
SIDE EFFECTS BOTHER BY SURGICAL TYPE
• Continence, moderate b blor big problem:
• 27% open group vs. 34% robotic group (P=0.087)
• Sexual function, moderate or big problem:problem:
• 89% open group vs. 88% robotic group (P=0.57)
Barry et al. JCO. 2012;364:1708. 12
6/8/2012
7
NEW DATA ON EFFECTIVENESS OF THERAPY
• U.S. PIVOT RCT of RP vs. observation, localized observation, localized cancer (N=731)
• Most PCa detected through screening
• Reduced overall mortality by 3 fewer per 100 men treated in RP group compared to OBS at 12 compared to OBS at 12 years (P=NS, NNT=33)• Significant interaction for baseline PSA <10 ng/mL vs. >10 ng/mL
Wilt et al. 2011. AUA presentation: http://webcasts.prous.com/AUA2011/html/1-en/template.aspx?section=7&p=7,18082.
13
WHAT WE (PROBABLY) KNOW FOR SURE:
• Prostate cancer screening doesn’t “save lives” in f d i ll li b i terms of reducing overall mortality…but it may
reduce the risk of dying of prostate cancer
• Most of the prostate cancer deaths in the trial populations have yet to be counted (70% deaths >age 75)
U lik l i ld d lif ti i k • Unlikely screening would decrease lifetime risk by more than 3% to 2% (not a 1% shot at immortality…)
14
6/8/2012
8
WHAT WE (PROBABLY) KNOW FOR SURE:
• Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are major bl h l i l lproblems at the population level
• But it’s very hard to tell who has been overdiagnosed or overtreated at the individual level
• Need strategies to reduce overdiagnosis and/or l di i f t t tuncouple overdiagnosis from overtreatment
• Higher biopsy threshold?• Active surveillance/watchful waiting?
15
PCA SCREENING GUIDELINES (2012)
• ACS: Offer prostate cancer screening at 50, at h k f f h h k f45 with risk factors (40 for very high risk) if
>10 yr LE
• USPSTF: New recommendation against routine PSA screening men of for all ages
• ACP: Guidance statement pending after p gPLCO/ERSPC
• AUA: Start screening at 40! (of 23,587 PCadeaths among white men, 265 before age 55)
16
6/8/2012
9
BACK TO THE CASE! OPTIONS:
• Clinician could just check the PSA box on the lab slip, no discussion
• Don’t ask, don’t tell…
• If asked, discourage testing based on USPSTF draft “D” recommendation
• “Come back when you’re 55!”• Come back when you re 55!
• Shared decision making: “Have you heard about the PSA test for prostate cancer screening?”
17
A NEJM PERSPECTIVE PIECE
• Perspective: One Man at a Time – Resolving the PSA ControversyMary F. McNaughton‐Collins, MD, MPHMichael J. Barry, MDNEJM 2011;365:1951‐3.
18
6/8/2012
10
THE 6 STEPS OF SHARED DECISION MAKING
• Invite patient to participate
• Present options• Present options
• Provide information on benefits and harms
• Assist patient in evaluating options based on their goals and concerns
• Facilitate deliberation and Facilitate deliberation and decision making
• Assist with implementation
19
WHAT FACTS SHOULD BE COVERED IN AN SDM DISCUSSION ABOUT PSA?
• According to ACS guideline:PC i i t t h lth bl ( % lif ti i k • PCa is an important health problem (3% lifetime risk, 5% for men with risk factors)
• Screening with PSA+DRE can detect PCa at earlier stage
• Screening may be associated with lower risk of dying of prostate cancer (evidence is conflicting)
• Unclear which men detected by screening will benefitUnclear which men detected by screening will benefit• Treatment can lead to urinary, bowel, sexual and other health problems
• False positives and negatives possible
Wolf et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:70. 20
6/8/2012
11
WHAT FACTS SHOULD BE COVERED IN AN SDM DISCUSSION ABOUT PSA?
• Contd. from ACS guidelines:• Abnormal screening results require biopsies which can lead to complications and may miss significant cancer
• Not all men with PCa detected by screening need treatment, but do need close monitoring
• I’d add:• Men who choose regular PSA testing will substantially Men who choose regular PSA testing will substantially increase their risk of eventually getting prostate cancer, probably from around 8 in 100 without screening to 16 in 100 with screening
Wolf et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:70. 21
WHAT VALUES SHOULD BE COVERED IN AN SDM DISCUSSION ABOUT PSA?
• What matters to you?• Doing everything possible to g y g pavoid dying of prostate cancer, even if we’re not sure PSA can do that?
• Only doing things of proven benefit?
• Avoiding a prostate biopsy?• Keeping your sexual and urinary function?
A d d id ?• Are you ready to decide?• How about: “What would you do if you were me, doc?”
22
6/8/2012
12
CAN DECISION AIDS HELP?
• In 86+ trials in 6 countries of 34 different decisions, decision aid use has led to:
• Greater knowledge
• More accurate risk perceptions
• Lower decision conflict
• Greater participation in decision making• Greater participation in decision‐making
• Fewer people remaining undecided
• 15% fewer men choosing PSA tests
Stacey et al. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2011;10.CD001431.
23
• Ottawa Health Research Institute Inventory of patient decision aids:
OHRI DECISION AID INVENTORY
of patient decision aids:• Access information for over 500 decision aids
• Includes IPDAS ratings
http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/index.html
6/8/2012
13
WHAT ABOUT MALPRACTICE RISK?
• Percentage of mock jurors who felt the standard of care had been met when a PSA test was not done and the patient later presents with metastatic prostate cancer:• 17% when there is no note in the
chart• 72% when a note in the chart
reads, “Risks and benefits of PSA test discussed, patient PSA test discussed, patient declines.”
• 94% when a note in the chart reads, “Patient viewed PSA decision aid, questions answered, declines test.”
Barry et al. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36:396. 25
TEACHING POINTS
• PSA screening is a “preference sensitive” preference‐sensitive decision…reasonable, informed men can make different choices
• Six steps of shared decision making
• Decision aids can help • Decision aids can help make SDM practical