Evidence-based medicine in prostate cancer: Where do we stand in 2006?

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 162-167

  Dahm, Philipp ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Evidence based medicine; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

ANAMNESIS; AWARENESS; CANCER CENTER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER THERAPY; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OBSERVER BIAS; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SOCIAL SUPPORT; UROLOGY;

DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MALE; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 33646928692     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mou.0000193395.00340.3e     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312:71-72.
2. Guyatt G, Cook D, Haynes B. Evidence based medicine has come a long way. BMJ 2004; 329:990-991.
3. Bhandari M, Montori V, Devereaux PJ, et al. Challenges to the practice of evidence-based medicine during residents' surgical training: a qualitative study using grounded theory. Acad Med 2003; 78:1183-1190.
4. Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 1996; 347:984-985.
5. Guyatt GH, Rennie D. User's Guide to the Medical Literature edn 4. Chicago, IL: AMA Press; 2002.
6. Evans CP. Evidence-based medicine for the urologist. BJU Int 2004; 94:1-2. Editorial that reviews the status of evidence-based medicine in urology.
7. Mansson W. Evidence-based urology - a Utopia? Eur Urol 2004; 46:143-146. Similar editorial published in the same year; addresses the present and future of evidence-based medicine in urology.
8. Wright JG, McLeod RS, Mahoney J, et al. Practice guidelines in surgery. Surgery 1996; 119:706-709.
9. Eddy DM. Evidence-based medicine: a unified approach. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24:9-17.
10. Pezzino G, Remington PL, Anderson HA, et al. Trends in the surgical treatment of prostate cancer in Wisconsin, 1989-1991. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86:1083-1086.
11. Lu-Yao GL, McLerran D, Wasson J, Wennberg JE. An assessment of radical prostatectomy. Time trends, geographic variation, and outcomes. The Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. JAMA 1993; 269:2633-2636.
12. Lu-Yao G, Albertsen PC, Stanford JL, et al. Natural experiment examining impact of aggressive screening and treatment on prostate cancer mortality in two fixed cohorts from Seattle area and Connecticut. BMJ 2002; 325:740.
13. Fowler FJ Jr. McNaughton Collins M, Albertsen PC, et al. Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2000; 283:3217-3222.
14. Winslow CM, Solomon DH, Chassin MR, et al. The appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy. N Engl J Med 1988; 318:721-727.
15. Aus G, Abbou CC, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2005; 48:546-551. Print version of the 2005 EAU prostate-cancer guidelines.
16. Scardino P. Update: NCCN prostate cancer clinical practice guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2005; 3 (Suppl 1):S29-S33. Review of recent changes to the NCCN prostate-cancer guidelines.
17. The National Cancer Center Network Prostate Cancer Panel. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology - v.2.2005: Prostate Cancer. National Cancer Center Network, 2005. The NCCN website at: http://www.nccn.org; provides the most updated version of these evidence-based guidelines on the management of prostate. The guidelines are in the form of an algorithm and are consensus-based (see Table 1 for categories).
18. The National Cancer Center Network Prostate Cancer Early Detection. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology - v.1.2005: Prostate Cancer Early Detection. National Cancer Center Network, 2005. See above for the website address to access the most recent version. Controversial changes included in the 2005 version include a screening age to 40 years of age (category 3) and a biopsy PSA threshold of ≥ 2.5 ng/ml (category 3).
19. Middleton RG, Thompson IM, Austenfeld MS, et al. Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Urological Association. J Urol 1995; 154:2144-2148.
20. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:168-172.
21. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280:969-974.
22. Wilson JR, Clarke MG, Ewings P, et al. The assessment of patient life-expectancy: how accurate are urologists and oncologists? BJU Int 2005; 95:794-798.
23. Froehner M, Koch R, Litz RJ, et al. Feasibility and limitations of comorbidity measurement in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2005; 47:190-195 (discussion 195).
24. Fang J, Metter EJ, Landis P, et al. Low levels of prostate-specific antigen predict long-term risk of prostate cancer: results from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Urology 2001; 58:411-416.
25. Andriole GL, Levin DL, Crawford ED, et al. Prostate Cancer Screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: findings from the initial screening round of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:433-438.
26. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ornstein DK. Prostate cancer detection in men with serum PSA concentrations of 2.6 to 4.0 ng/mL and benign prostate examination. Enhancement of specificity with free PSA measurements. JAMA 1997; 277:1452-1455.
27. Babaian RJ, Johnston DA, Naccarato W, et al. The incidence of prostate cancer in a screening population with a serum prostate specific antigen between 2.5 and 4.0 ng/ml: relation to biopsy strategy. J Urol 2001; 165:757-760.
28. Horninger W, Berger AP, Rogatsch H, et al. Characteristics of prostate cancers detected at low PSA levels. Prostate 2004; 58:232-237.
29. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2239-2246.
30. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Urological Association. In: Edited by; 2005. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer that were updated in 2005. Online at http:// www.uroweb.org. Guidelines are evidence-based and make explicit reference to underlying level of evidence and/or grade of recommendation (see Table 2).
31. Potosky AL, Davis WW, Hoffman RM, et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:1358-1367.
32. Mettlin C. Impact of screening on prostate cancer rates and trends. Microsc Res Tech 2000; 51:415-418.
33. Bartsch G, Horninger W, Klocker H, et al. Prostate cancer mortality after introduction of prostate-specific antigen mass screening in the Federal State of Tyrol, Austria. Urology 2001; 58:417-424.
34. Labrie F, Candas B, Cusan L, et al. Screening decreases prostate cancer mortality: 11-year follow-up of the 1988 Quebec prospective randomized controlled trial. Prostate 2004; 59:311-318.
35. Schroder FH, Raaijmakers R, Postma R, et al. 4-year prostate specific antigen progression and diagnosis of prostate cancer in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, section Rotterdam. J Urol 2005; 174:489-494 (discussion 493-484).
36. Otto SJ, Schroder FH, de Koning HJ. Low all-cause mortality in the volunteer-based Rotterdam section of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer: self-selection bias? J Med Screen 2004; 11:89-92.
37. Schroder FH, Denis LJ, Roobol M, et al. The story of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. BJU Int 2003; 92 (Suppl 2):1-13.
38. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy compared with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:1977-1984. Reports the 10-year outcomes of a randomized controlled study of radical prostatectomy and watchful waiting.
39. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:781-789.
40. Carter HB. Prostate cancers in men with low PSA levels - must we find them? N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2292-2294. Editorial that reviews the current controversy over PSA threshold that should serve as an indication for prostate biopsy.
41. Johansson JE, Andren O, Andersson SO, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2004; 291:2713-2719. Observational cohort study from Sweden that describes a cohort of 223 men that received no initial therapy and were followed for a mean of 22 years.
42. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293:2095-2101. Observational cohort study of 767 men from Connecticut that were treated with either observation or immediate or early androgen ablation for a median of 24 years.
43. Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, et al. Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA 1997; 277:467-471.
44. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, Barry MJ. Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280:975-980.
45. Punglia RS, D'Amico AV, Catalona WJ, et al. Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:335-342.
46. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:1248-1253. Study suggesting that improved prostate cancer patient outcomes over the last two decades may - at least in part - be explained by a statistical artifact referred to as the Will Rogers phenomenon.
47. Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The Will Rogers phenomenon. Stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med 1985; 312:1604-1608.
48. Punglia RS, Kuntz KM, Catalona WJ, D'Amico A. Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen and verification bias. JAMA 2005; 294:2698-2699 (2698; [author reply]). Study that analyzes the performance characteristics of the PSA screening test under consideration of a verification bias. The authors conclude that the PSA biopsy threshold should be lowered to 2.5 ng/ml.
49. Scales CD Jr. Norris RD, Peterson BL, et al. Clinical research and statistical methods in the urology literature. J Urol 2005; 174:1374-1379. Study suggesting that the standards of the statistical analysis and reporting are sub-optimal.
50. Albertsen PC. Outcomes Research: A Primer for Urologists. AUA Update Series 1998; 17:106-111.
51. Thompson IM, Canby-Hagino E, Lucia MS. Stage migration and grade inflation in prostate cancer: Will Rogers meets Garrison Keillor. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:1236-1237.