De-implementation of Low Value Castration for Men With Prostate Cancer (DeADT)

August 12, 2024 updated by: Ted Skolarus, University of Michigan
This study will use a theory-based, mixed methods approach to identify, tailor and pilot two different de-implementation strategies that vary widely in delivery, impact, and expected results for reducing low value androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use in preparation for a randomized comparative effectiveness trial comparing two tailored deimplementation strategies to reduce chemical castration as localized prostate cancer treatment and treatment for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence with low PSA levels.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Prostate cancer is the leading cancer among Veterans. One in three Veterans with prostate cancer is chemically castrated at some point with long-acting injectable drugs (i.e., androgen deprivation therapy, or ADT). This impacts the well-being of thousands of Veterans annually. Although some patients benefit in terms of survival and symptom improvement, chemical castration with ADT is also commonly performed when there are little to no health benefits to patients raising questions of low value care. A growing awareness of castration harms (e.g., heart attack, osteoporosis, loss of sexual function) creates patient safety concerns. Despite this, ADT use in low value cases, such as for localized prostate cancer treatment, persists in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with five-fold variation across its facilities. Ineffective and harmful practices such as chemical castration of prostate cancer patients with ADT outside of the evidence base are ideal targets for de-implementation. De-implementation, or stopping low value practices, has the potential to improve patient outcomes and decrease healthcare costs. However, provider preferences regarding de-implementation are not well understood, and possible de-implementation interventions range from blunt formulary restriction policies to informed decision-making. Both intervention strategies need tailoring based on provider input for acceptability and feasibility in clinical practice, including piloting prior to trialing. As many medical practices lack evidence and cause harm, robust, behavioral theory-based methods for incorporating provider preferences into de-implementation strategy development will advance both implementation research and practice.

This study will use a theory-based, mixed methods approach to identify, tailor and pilot two different de-implementation strategies that vary widely in delivery, impact, and expected results for reducing low value ADT use, in preparation for a randomized comparative effectiveness trial.

This innovative mixed-methods research program has three aims, of which Aim 3 is represented in this registration.

Aim 1: To assess preferences and barriers for de-implementation of chemical castration in prostate cancer. Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), urologists and patients from facilities with the highest and lowest castration rates across VHA will be interviewed to identify key preferences and deimplementation barriers for reducing castration as prostate cancer treatment. This qualitative work will inform Aim 2 while gathering rich information for two proposed pilot intervention strategies.

Aim 2: To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a novel barrier prioritization approach, for deimplementation strategy tailoring. The investigators will conduct national surveys of US Government urologists to prioritize key barriers identified in Aim

1 for stopping incident castration as localized prostate cancer treatment using a discrete choice experiment design. These quantitative results will identify the most important barriers to be addressed through tailoring of two pilot deimplementation strategies in preparation for Aim 3 piloting.

Aim 3: To pilot two tailored de-implementation strategies to reduce castration as localized prostate cancer treatment and treatment for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence with low PSA levels. Building on findings from Aims 1 and 2, two de-implementation strategies will be piloted. One strategy will focus on formulary restriction/ order check attestation at the organizational level and the other on physician/ patient informed decision-making at different facilities. Pilot outcomes will include feasibility at the site level, feasibility at the clinic level, reach, and penetration in preparation for an effectiveness trial comparing these two widely varying de-implementation strategies. This innovative approach to de-implementation strategy development will transform how and why castration is performed for localized prostate cancer and nonmetastatic biochemical recurrence with low PSA levels through combining provider and patient preferences and strategy tailoring. This work will advance de-implementation science for low value care and foster participation in a subsequent de-implementation evaluation trial by addressing barriers, facilitators and concerns through pilot tailoring.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

60

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Michigan
      • Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48105
        • VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

- Any provider at participating sites who prescribes ADT for prostate cancer patients

Exclusion Criteria:

- Providers opting out of study

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Allocation: Non-Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: ADT ORDER CHECK ATTESTATION (OR)
Experimental: ADT ORDER CHECK ATTESTATION (OR) Order restrictions (Or) operate as an organizational constraint, widely perceived as a forcing function giving providers little leeway to exercise judgment but have a strong evidence-base for changing provider behavior. Study staff will place a "health factor" structured data element in the EMR of patients whose clinic visits study staff have confirmed to be targets for ADT de-implementation. This health factor combined with a low PSA level will trigger the ADT Order Check Attestation Intervention (Or) when the provider places an order for ADT.
Order restrictions (Or) operate as an organizational constraint, widely perceived as a forcing function giving providers little leeway to exercise judgment but have a strong evidence-base for changing provider behavior.
Experimental: PROVIDER SCRIPT (SC)
Experimental: PROVIDER SCRIPT (SC) The provider script (Sc) is a communication aid to be used and documented as an accountable justification in the electronic medical record. This strategy also has a strong evidence-base for changing provider behavior. Study staff will enter a pre-populated CPRS EMR progress note 1 business day prior to a target clinic visit. The note includes talking points for the provider to help with a discussion. It can be edited and cosigned by the provider, giving a quick and simple way to document the discussion. The progress note template asks providers to indicate whether patient prefers to continue or discontinue low-value ADT. Appropriate documentation of the decision will be tracked for fidelity. We will also have a patient handout entitled: "Living well with prostate cancer: Is hormone therapy still right for you?" as a patient engagement and information resource.
The provider script (Sc) is a communication aid to be used and documented as an accountable justification in the electronic medical record. This strategy also has a strong evidence-base for changing provider behavior.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Feasibility - Site Level: Medical Center Director (MCD) Approval
Time Frame: Within 1 month
The percentage of pilot sites asked to participate that received MCD approval to implement the intervention (Order Check or Progress Note/Patient Handout)
Within 1 month
Feasibility - Site Level: Fully Operationalized Intervention
Time Frame: Within 6 months of approval
The percentage of approved pilot sites with fully operationalized intervention, i.e. intervention successfully programmed into site Electronic Health Records and ready to be implemented. Depending on randomization arm, this includes either health factor placement or script assignment prior to at least one patient visit.
Within 6 months of approval
Feasibility - Clinic Level: Clinics With Intervention Implementation
Time Frame: Within 6 months of intervention implementation
The percentage of clinics at approved pilot sites with at least 1 intervention implemented, i.e. at least 1 health factor assigned and/or at least 1 progress note assigned to a provider. Clinics may include Urology, Medical Oncology, and Radiation Oncology.
Within 6 months of intervention implementation

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Reach
Time Frame: Within 6 months of intervention
The percentage of providers prescribing ADT for prostate cancer sent an information sheet who did not opt out of the study.
Within 6 months of intervention
Penetration - OR
Time Frame: Within 6 months of intervention
Percentage of OR intervention order checks justified.
Within 6 months of intervention
Penetration - Provider Script (SC)
Time Frame: Within 6 months of intervention
Percentage of SC intervention clinic notes assigned to providers that were signed.
Within 6 months of intervention

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Ted Skolarus, MD, University of Michigan/Department of Veterans Affairs

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

August 22, 2018

Primary Completion (Actual)

November 8, 2022

Study Completion (Actual)

April 6, 2023

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 25, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 25, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

July 6, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

September 5, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 12, 2024

Last Verified

August 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

Members of the scientific community who would like a copy of the de-identified final data sets (i.e., data sets underlying any publication) from this study can request a copy by e-mailing Jennifer Burns at jennifer.burns@va.gov. They should state their reason for requesting the data and their plans for analyzing the data. Final data sets will be copied onto an encrypted CD. The CD will be sent to the requestor via FedEx.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

Data will be available once pilot is complete and up to 6 years after the end of the fiscal year in which the project is terminated.

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

Members of the scientific community who would like a copy of the de-identified final data sets (i.e., data sets underlying any publication) from this study can request a copy by e-mailing Jennifer Burns at jennifer.burns@va.gov. They should state their reason for requesting the data and their plans for analyzing the data. Final data sets will be copied onto an encrypted CD. The CD will be sent to the requestor via FedEx.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Cancer of Prostate

Clinical Trials on ADT ORDER CHECK ATTESTATION (OR)

Subscribe