Urologists' treatment preference
Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Anxiety, Prostate
BROWN, PROSTATE CANCER, REGRESSIONS, PROSTATE, REGRESSION, CANCER
The ten urologists that participated in ENACT practiced at academic medical centers classified as safety net hospitals: five urologists were from Cook County Health, two from Jesse Brown VA, and three from University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Their ages ranged from 38 to 76 years old, and seven (70%) practice as urologic oncologists (see Table As seen in Table Association of random assignment to GPS assay with urologists' treatment preference at Visit 2 (primary endpoint).
Abbreviation: GPS: Genomic Prostate Score.Chi‐square tests were performed to compare treatment distributions by study arm.Urologist treatment preference at Visit 1 and Visit 2 stratified by study arm. These pie charts are displaying the distribution of urologists' treatment preference at Visit 1 and 2 from the Control and GPS arms. The changes in treatment preference are shown beneath the arrows along with the number of participants for each treatment change that occurred. The pie chart shows the distribution of urologists' treatment preferences at Visit 1 (left) and at Visit 2 (right) across the three treatment options where active surveillance and watchful waiting are combined. AS, active surveillance/watchful waiting; RP, radical prostatectomy; XRT, radiotherapy.Figure Relationship of GPS to urologists' treatment preference within NCCN risk level: GPS arm only. This is a scatterplot of the GPS scores across the NCCN risk groups with the overlying boxplot showing the median and interquartile range of GPS scores for each risk group. The dots represent the urologists' treatment preferences at Visit 2 which are color coded as blue for active treatment and gray for active surveillance/watchful waiting. The mean GPS for each risk level: very low = 27.4, Low = 27.1, and Favorable intermediate = 32.4. GPS, Genomic Prostate Score; NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network.In an intention‐to‐treat analysis using an unadjusted binary logistic regression, assignment to GPS was associated with 2.55 higher odds for urologists preferring active treatment (95% CI: 1.25–5.43; Minimally‐adjusted (A) and fully‐adjusted (B) regressions for urologists' treatment preference for prostatectomy/radiotherapy at Visit 2 (
The bolded values highlight covariates with associations with urologists' treatment preference with a Abbreviations: CI, Confidence interval; *GPS, Genomic Prostate Score (0–100); MAX‐PC, Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (0–54, >27 is clinically anxious); NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group as a binary variable; ref, reference category; UIC, University of Illinois at Chicago; VA, Veterans Affairs Medical Center.We include the best‐fit multivariable model in Table Breaking randomization, we constructed a third model within the GPS arm (Boxplot of GPS scores by urologists' initial treatment preference stratified by urologist treatment preference at Visit 2 (Finally, a fourth model was constructed within the GPS Intervention group (