Barriers to Single-Dose Intravesical Chemotherapy in Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: What's the Problem?

dc.contributor.authorCary, Clint
dc.contributor.authorMilitello, Laura
dc.contributor.authorDeChant, Paige
dc.contributor.authorFrankel, Richard
dc.contributor.authorKoch, Michael O.
dc.contributor.authorWeiner, Michael
dc.contributor.departmentUrology, School of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-02T21:08:56Z
dc.date.available2020-10-02T21:08:56Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The intravesical instillation of mitomycin C immediately following surgery for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer has been shown to be efficacious in reducing cancer recurrence. As a result, the American Urological Association adopted guidelines for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer care to support its use in low to intermediate risk patients. Despite this, urologists' use of this drug following transurethral resection of a bladder tumor (TURBT) has been reported as low as 5% or less. Our study objective was to better understand the barriers urologists experience in using mitomycin C. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 practicing urologists at 4 geographically distinct practice locations throughout Indiana between 2017 and 2018. Cognitive task analysis was used to explore factors that influenced their clinician decision-making about Mitomycin C use following TURBT in specific patient cases. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using immersion/crystallization to identify emergent themes. Results: The median age of the urologists interviewed was 44 (IQR 40-48). Eighty-five percent were male. Approximately 30% had completed urologic fellowship training; 62% were in private practice. Three major themes related to the use of mitomycin C emerged: cumbersome workflow processes, urologists' fears of side effects, and issues of identifying patients most likely to benefit. Conclusion: Workflow, fear, and value are key factors and also represent complexities of translating efficacy into effectiveness for a drug with known benefits to patients. Areas of potential intervention development to improve the use of mitomycin C to reduce recurrence of bladder cancer are suggested. Alternatives such as gemcitabine may also help overcome these barriers.en_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.citationCary, C., Militello, L., DeChant, P., Frankel, R., Koch, M. O., & Weiner, M. (2020). Barriers to Single-Dose Intravesical Chemotherapy in Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: What's the Problem?. Urology Practice, 10-1097. https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000174en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/23980
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Urological Associationen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000174en_US
dc.relation.journalUrology Practiceen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourceAuthoren_US
dc.subjectnon-muscle invasive bladder canceren_US
dc.subjectmitomycin Cen_US
dc.subjectcancer recurrenceen_US
dc.titleBarriers to Single-Dose Intravesical Chemotherapy in Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: What's the Problem?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Cary2020Barriers.pdf
Size:
518.7 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: