Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background: Patient-provider communication (PPC) is critical in treatment decisions for cancer care, and it is unknown if improved communication may mitigate disparities in prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes by race and rurality. We examined associations between PPC and treatment receipt among Black and White patients diagnosed with incident PCa in the North Carolina Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project. Methods: Near-equal numbers of Black (n=1130) and White (n=1128) participants were recruited by rapid case ascertainment from 2004-2009. PPC was assessed from the baseline survey, where participants rated their cancer provider using three subscales adapted from the Primary Care Assessment Survey for contextual knowledge of the patient (CK: knowledge of patient’s medical history, home/work responsibilities, their worries, and the patient as a person), and communication content (CMN: doctor’s thoroughness of questions, attention, explanations of health problems, instructions about symptoms, and advice/help in making care decisions), and interpersonal treatment (IT: amount of time spent, patience, friendliness, caring, concern, and respect for patient). First-course treatment was ascertained from medical records and defined as definitive (surgery or radiation) compared to non-definitive treatment (all other). We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for receipt of definitive treatment with logistic regression, adjusted for age at diagnosis, cancer aggressiveness, educational attainment, and marital status. Results: Black participants were diagnosed at younger ages (mean 62 vs. 64 years) with more aggressive disease (21% vs. 15%) and received surgery or radiation less often than White participants (73% vs. 77%). Median PPC subscales differed between Black and White participants (CK: 16 vs 15; CMN: 23 vs 24; IT: 22 vs 23), and between rural and urban participants (CK: 16 vs 16; CMN: 22 vs 24; IT: 21 vs 23). The odds of receiving definitive treatment was associated with positive communication content (1.12, 1.06-1.18), and interpersonal treatment (1.08, 1.02-1.14) among Black and White participants. Among urban participants, communication content (1.09, 1.05-1.15), and interpersonal treatment (1.09, 1.04-1.14) were associated with higher odds of definitive treatment. Among rural participants, higher communication content was associated with increased odds of receiving definitive treatment (OR 1.15, 95%CI: 1.04-1.28). We did not observe associations for contextual knowledge with the odds of receipt for definitive treatment subgroups. Conclusions: Positive patient-provider communication was associated with higher odds of receiving surgery/radiation in a historical cohort of PCa patients diagnosed between 2004-2009. Higher communication content and interpersonal treatment could promote uptake of contemporary guideline-based treatment recommendations for PCa. Future research will assess the validity and reliability of the communication subscales via annual follow-up questionnaires and associations with cancer-specific survival. Citation Format: Jeanny H Wang, Bria Carmichael, Shaun Jones, Hung-Jiu Tan, Deshira D. Wallace, Jennifer L. Lund, Lixin Song, Jeannette T. Bensen, Eboneé N. Butler. Patient-provider communication and receipt of definitive prostate cancer treatment by race and rurality abstract. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl):Abstract nr C074.
Wang et al. (Sat,) studied this question.