Background

In the context of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by the multiple alternative treatment strategies, comparative effectiveness analysis is essential for informed decision-making. We analyzed the comparative effectiveness of PCa treatments through systematic review and meta-analysis with a focus on outcomes that matter most to newly diagnosed localized PCa patients.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of literature published in English from 1995 to October 2016. A search strategy was employed using terms "prostate cancer," "localized," "outcomes," "mortality," "health related quality of life," and "complications" to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospective studies. For observational studies, only those adjusting for selection bias using propensity-score or instrumental-variables approaches were included. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio was used to assess all-cause and disease-specific mortality. Funnel plots were used to assess the level of bias.

Results

Our search strategy yielded 58 articles, of which 29 were RCTs, 6 were prospective studies, and 23 were retrospective studies. The studies provided moderate data for the patient-centered outcome of mortality. Radical prostatectomy demonstrated mortality benefit compared to watchful waiting (all-cause HR = 0.63 CI = 0.45, 0.87; disease-specific HR = 0.48 CI = 0.40, 0.58), and radiation therapy (all-cause HR = 0.65 CI = 0.57, 0.74; disease-specific HR = 0.51 CI = 0.40, 0.65). However, we had minimal comparative information about tradeoffs between and within treatment for other patient-centered outcomes in the short and long-term.

Conclusion

Lack of patient-centered outcomes in comparative effectiveness research in localized PCa is a major hurdle to informed and shared decision-making. More rigorous studies that can integrate patient-centered and intermediate outcomes in addition to mortality are needed.

Background: Care teams are increasingly expected to attend to the needs of patient's personal caregivers (e.g., family members). Improving communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers might enhance caregivers' experiences of end-of-life (EoL) cancer care and bereavement outcomes. Objective: To explore the effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care intervention on caregivers' experiences of EoL care and bereavement outcomes. Design: We developed a brief behavioral intervention to improve communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers. The intervention was designed to help patients/caregivers ask questions, express concerns, and help oncologists respond effectively. We randomly assigned oncologists (and their patients/caregivers) to the intervention or usual care. Setting/Subjects: Medical oncologists in NY and CA; patients/personal caregivers with advanced cancer. Measurements: Two months after the patient's death, caregivers completed three instruments assessing their experiences of EoL care. Seven months after the patient's death, caregivers completed the Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 (PG-13; primary prespecified outcome), the Purpose-in-Life scale, and scales assessing mental health function, depression, and anxiety. Results: The intervention did not significantly improve caregivers' scores on the PG-13 (p = 0.21), mental health function, depression, or anxiety, but it did improve purpose-in-life scores (p = 0.018). Cohen's d (95% confidence interval) for all three experiences of EoL care outcomes were promising, ranging from 0.22 (-0.19 to 0.63) to 0.39 (-0.07 to 0.86) although none was statistically significant. Conclusion: Preliminary findings show promise that scalable interventions in cancer care settings may improve caregiver experiences with cancer care and some bereavement outcomes.