Optimizing the Effectiveness of Routine Post-treatment Surveillance in Prostate Cancer Survivors

We seek to identify the benefits (improved survival) and harms (more procedures, more treatment, side effects, and quality-of-life impact) from different surveillance frequencies--every three vs. six vs. 12 months. We hypothesize that patients with a low risk of recurrence may experience more harm than benefit, while patients with a high risk of recurrence may have improved survival from frequent surveillance. Specific aims: The specific aims are 1) compare survival, procedures/tests, treatments, and side effects in prostate cancer survivors who are followed with alternative surveillance frequencies; and 2) compare quality-of-life outcomes. Methods: Aim 1 will use the National Cancer Database, which includes 70 percent of cancer patients across the United States, and will provide results representative of outcomes of prostate cancer survivors. We will compare the effectiveness of the three most common surveillance frequencies (PSA testing every 3 months vs. 6 months vs. 12 months) stratified by risk of recurrence (low-risk, intermediate-risk, high-risk; as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)) and initial treatment (surgery or radiation). The objective of this aim is to quantify the potential benefits (survival) and harms (procedures/tests, treatments, morbidity consequences) of different PSA surveillance frequencies in the 6 patient groups. The objective of Aim 2 is to quantify the impact of different surveillance frequencies from the patient's perspective. This aim will use quality-of-life data from the North Carolina Prostate cancer Comparative Effectiveness \& Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS), PI Ronald Chen, a prospective population-based cohort of \>1,000 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, enrolled from January 2011 through June 2013. Comparison groups are the same as Aim 1. PSA frequency will be similarly defined using medical record abstraction. Patient and stakeholder engagement: Through a five-year process, patients have worked with the PI in all phases of this research, including 1) identifying the highest priority research topic, 2) defining the study population/comparators, and 3) identifying outcomes of highest relevance to patients. Patients and other stakeholders will continue to 4) monitor study conduct and progress and 5) design dissemination activities.