Factors impacting decision by African American and underserved populations to choose active surveillance in early-stage prostate cancer.

Genitourinary (Prostate) Cancer
Session Type and Session Title: 
General Poster Session, Genitourinary (Prostate) Cancer
Abstract Number: 
J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 5067)
Theresa Wicklin Gillespie, John Petros, Michael Goodman, Joseph Lipscomb, Laura Britan, Jessica Lauren Rowell, Lindsey Allison Herrel, Katharina V Echt; Emory University, Depts of Surgery and Hematology & Medical Oncology, Atlanta, GA; Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Rollins School of Public Health; Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, GA; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Emory University Department of Medicine, Atlanta, GA

Abstracts that were granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Conflict of Interest Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^).

Abstract Disclosures


Background: African-American (AA) men have the highest rates of prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality in the U.S. Screening for PCa with prostate specific antigen (PSA) has allowed detection of early stage disease, but side effects of radical prostatectomy and radiation raise concerns about unfavorable risk:benefit ratios of PSA screening and subsequent therapy. Active surveillance (AS) is an option for early-stage PCa (ESPC), but only 10% of men eligible for AS choose this approach. The 2011 NIH State-of-the-Science Conference promoted the need to enhance decision-making (DM) about AS. In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, while encouraging patient DM. Our study examined DM needs by men (N=204; 68% AA; screening PSA within normal limits) and their significant others (SO) (N=181; 65% AA) regarding AS and other ESPC options. Methods: This multi-center, mixed methods study (N=402; 51% rural) included 5 sites nationwide. Subjects completed quantitative questionnaires prior to focus groups (FG); 54 FG were held, with separate groups for men and SO. Results: After adjusting for education, comorbidities, insurance, age, health literacy, distance to treatment center, willingness to travel, income and numeracy score, AA men were significantly more likely to be influenced by convenience (OR: 2.84, 95% CI: 1.42-5.65) compared to Caucasians. Rural residence, however, did not affect DM. In qualitative analysis, numerous themes were identified relevant to choice of AS: physician treatment discussions being limited to their own specialty; confusion due to conflicting sources of information; convenience; worry about untreated cancer remaining and treatment toxicities; and lack of awareness of AS as an option. SO tended to value cure over avoiding side effects. Conclusions: While the impact of new PCa screening guidelines is uncertain, for AS to become a viable treatment option, providers will need to discuss along with other therapeutic alternatives. SO are influential in DM and may be less enthusiastic about AS than men. For AA men, AS may be a particularly attractive option given the relative influence of convenience in DM.