Developing a National Pathway Framework for Prostate Cancer: Insights From Solaris Health

J Clin Pathways. 2025;11(4]65-66.

In this interview, Jason Hafron, MD, discusses how Solaris Health developed and implemented standardized, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-based prostate cancer pathways across its national network to ensure consistent, high-quality care, streamline diagnosis, and drive improvements through metric-driven adherence and outcomes evaluation (Figure). The following is an edited excerpt from the interview for clarity and brevity.

Jason Hafron, MD: Hi, I am Dr Jason Hafron. I’m a urologist in southeast Michigan. I’m also the Chief Medical Officer of the Michigan Institute of Urology and the co-director of the clinical board for Solaris Health.

Can you walk us through the current state of prostate can­cer care pathways across the US, and what specific gaps Solaris Health set out to address?

Dr Hafron: Current pathways for prostate cancer are primar­ily based on the National Comprehensive Network (NCCN) guidelines, which are updated twice a year. That’s what most people follow—most importantly, that’s what the payers fol­low. That helps us with getting reimbursed appropriately and getting therapies approved.

Approximately 2 years ago at Solaris Health, across the platform of 700 providers, we developed our own clinical pathways, which were based on the NCCN guidelines or the American Urological Association (AUA) [guidelines]. This was developed by our prostate cancer committee, which represents all of our affiliates across the country. We’re in 14 states right now, and we involved all the key opinion leaders, physicians, as well as nurse practitioners, in developing these pathways.

Through this review, we developed the pathways and cur­rently have them online and available to every one of our pro­viders, either in the office or even on their phone.

How does Solaris Health’s pathway streamline the transi­tion from abnormal PSA result to definitive diagnosis, and what has been the measurable impact on time to diagnosis?

Dr Hafron: Based on our pathways, we have a streamlined approach so that whether a patient is seen in Spokane, Wash­ington, Michigan, or New York, they’re essentially treated the same. That’s based on the current guidelines. Because we have pathways in place, our doctors are more likely to be more ef­ficient and get the appropriate testing so that the patients can get appropriate biopsy when needed.

How are diagnostic tools such as multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and prostate biopsy integrated into the pathway to support risk stratification and avoid overtreatment?

Dr Hafron: Currently, we extensively use mpMRI in our pathway. It is a screening tool and has quickly evolved into the standard of care for elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA). We also use a lot of biomarkers to help us better iden­tify patients with clinically significant prostate cancer—pa­tients that do require a biopsy. It’s a combination of biomark­er or adjuvant PSA testing based on the NCCN guidelines, as well as mpMRI, that are all predetermined in our pathways.

In what ways does your model ensure consistency and quality of care across Solaris Health’s large, multisite pro­vider network?

Dr Hafron: The first step for us was developing the pathways, which we did in 2023. The next step that we’ve been work­ing on is measuring pathway adherence. It’s one thing to have a pathway in place, but it’s great when you have physicians who follow it closely, which will lead to better outcomes. In the last 2 years we’ve been developing, with our IT teams, analytic programs to monitor pathway adherence to ensure that when our patients see any Solaris provider, they get the highest qual­ity of care.

Looking ahead, how is Solaris Health evolving its path­way to incorporate emerging technologies or data-driven insights that may further improve early detection and treatment selection?

Dr Hafron: We’re extensively focused on developing metrics for pathway adherence. We constantly talk and work with our physicians, reminding them that the metrics aren’t to show that you’re a good or bad doctor—they’re essentially feedback and give you opportunities to improve. Metrics don’t improve care, but they point to gaps or deficits that need to be corrected.

That’s where we are today and will be for this year. We’re also critically evaluating our outcomes. We developed the pathways, we measure adherence, but are these the best pathways? Do they lead to the best clinical outcomes? What we started preliminar­ily and have done in some pilot studies is how much or how well do these pathways and adherence to these pathways improve the quality of care? That’s probably where we’ll go in 2026.

Watch the full video here.