Use of Persuasive Language in Communication of Risk during Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations.

BACKGROUND: Physician treatment preference may influence how risks are communicated in prostate cancer consultations. We identified persuasive language used when describing cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects in relation to a physician's recommendation for aggressive (surgery/radiation) or nonaggressive (active surveillance/watchful waiting) treatment. METHODS: A qualitative analysis was performed on transcribed treatment consultations of 40 men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer across 10 multidisciplinary providers. Quotes pertaining to cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects were randomized. Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations from isolated blinded quotes. Testing characteristics of consensus predictions against the physician's treatment recommendation were reported. Coders then identified persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment for each quote. Frequencies of persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment were reported. Logistic regression quantified associations between persuasive strategies and physician treatment recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 496 quotes about cancer prognosis (n = 127), life expectancy (n = 51), and side effects (n = 318) were identified. The accuracy of predicting treatment recommendation based on individual quotes containing persuasive language (n = 256/496, 52%) was 91%. When favoring aggressive treatment, persuasive language downplayed side effect risks and amplified cancer risk (recurrence, progression, or mortality). Significant predictors (P < 0.05) of aggressive treatment recommendation included favorable side effect interpretation, downplaying side effects, and long time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. When favoring nonaggressive treatment, persuasive language amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. Significant predictors of nonaggressive treatment recommendation included unfavorable side effect interpretation, favorable interpretation of cancer risk, and short time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians use persuasive language favoring their preferred treatment, regardless of whether their recommendation is appropriate. IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should quantify risk so patients can judge potential harm without solely relying on persuasive language. HIGHLIGHTS: Physicians use persuasive language favoring their treatment recommendation when communicating risks of prostate cancer treatment, which may influence a patient's treatment choice.Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations based on isolated, randomized quotes about cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects with 91% accuracy.Qualitative analysis revealed that when favoring nonaggressive treatment, physicians used persuasive language that amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. When favoring aggressive treatment, physicians did the opposite.Providers should be cognizant of using persuasive strategies and aim to provide quantified assessments of risk that are jointly interpreted with the patient so that patients can make evidence-based conclusions regarding risks without solely relying on persuasive language.

The impact of life expectancy on cost-effectiveness of treatment options for clinically localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Life expectancy (LE) impacts effectiveness and morbidity of prostate cancer (CaP) treatment, but its impact on cost-effectiveness is unknown. We sought to evaluate the impact of LE on the cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT), and active surveillance (AS) for clinically localized disease. METHODS: We created a Markov model to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for RP, RT, and AS over a 20-year time horizon from a Medicare payer perspective for low- and intermediate-risk CaP. Mortality outcomes varied by tumor risk and PCCI score, a validated proxy for LE. We performed 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations with 1-way sensitivity analyses of PCCI within each tumor risk subgroup to compare cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between treatments. RESULTS: AS dominated RP and RT for low- and intermediate-risk disease in men with LE ≤10 years (PCCI ≥7 and ≥9, respectively). However, AS failed to dominate RP and RT for men with longer LE. For men with low-risk cancer and LE>10 years (PCCI 0-6), AS had the greatest effectiveness, but failed to dominate due to higher cost relative to RP. For men with intermediate-risk cancer with LE>10 years, AS failed to dominate due to higher cost relative to RP (PCCI 0-8) and lower effectiveness relative to RT (PCCI 0-3). The range of QALYs between RP, RT, and AS varied <13% (range: 0%-12.9%) while costs varied up to 521% (range 0.5%-521%) across PCCI scores. CONCLUSIONS: LE strongly modulates the cost of CaP treatments. This results in AS dominating RP and RT in men with LE ≤10 years. However, in men with longer LE, AS fails to dominate primarily due to its high cumulative costs, underscoring the need for risk-adjusted AS protocols.

Trends in management of ureteral urothelial carcinoma and effects on survival: a hospital-based registry study.

BACKGROUND: High-risk ureteral tumors represent an understudied subset of upper tract urothelial carcinoma, whose surgical management can range from a radical nephroureterectomy (NU) to segmental ureterectomy (SU). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate contemporary trends in the management of high-risk ureteral tumors, the utilization of lymphadenectomy and peri-operative chemotherapy, and their impact on overall survival (OS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients in the National Cancer Database from years 2006 to 2013 with clinically localized high-risk ureteral tumors treated with NU or SU. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Chi-squared tests were utilized to assess differences in clinicodemographic features and peri-operative treatment delivery between SU and NU cohorts. Cochran-Armitage tests and linear regressions were performed to evaluate temporal trends in treatment utilization. Multivariable logistic regression models were employed to assess predictors of treatment delivery. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models evaluated associations with OS. RESULTS: Of the 1,962 patients included, NU was more commonly performed than SU (72.4%, 1,421/1,962 vs. 27.6%, 541/1,962). Only 22.7% (446/1,962) of the population underwent lymphadenectomy, and 24.8% (271/1,092) of those with advanced pathology (≥pT2 or pN+) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Lymphadenectomy was associated with improved OS in NU patients when more than 3 nodes were removed (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.89). Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced pathology had no impact OS in both the NU (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.84-1.44) and SU (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61-1.46) cohorts. Performance of SU was not associated with poorer OS on multivariable analysis (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.21, P = 0.83). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that SU may be an appropriate alternative to NU for the management of high-risk ureteral tumors. Further, lymphadenectomy may play an important role at the time of NU, and adjuvant chemotherapy is infrequently utilized in patients with advanced pathology.

An engineered dimeric fragment of hepatocyte growth factor is a potent c-MET agonist.

Hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), through activation of the c-MET receptor, mediates biological processes critical for tissue regeneration; however, its clinical application is limited by protein instability and poor recombinant expression. We previously engineered an HGF fragment (eNK1) that possesses increased stability and expression yield and developed a c-MET agonist by coupling eNK1 through an introduced cysteine residue. Here, we further characterize this eNK1 dimer and show it elicits significantly greater c-MET activation, cell migration, and proliferation than the eNK1 monomer. The efficacy of the eNK1 dimer was similar to HGF, suggesting its promise as a c-MET agonist.