Contemporary Management of Prostate Cancer Patients Suitable for Active Surveillance: A North American Population-based Study

European Urology Focus

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 68-74

  Moschini, Marco ^a,b   Fossati, Nicola ^a,c   Sood, Akshay ^d   Lee, Justin K ^c   Sammon, Jesse ^d   Sun, Maxine ^e   Pucheril, Dan ^d   Dalela, Deepansh ^d   Montorsi, Francesco ^a   Karnes, R Jeffrey ^b   Briganti, Alberto ^a   Trinh, Quoc Dien ^f   Menon, Mani ^d   Abdollah, Firas ^d  

^a VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^c MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d HENRY FORD HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE L UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^f BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Prostate cancer; Racial disparities; SEER; UCSF criteria

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CALIFORNIA; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXTERNAL BEAM RADIOTHERAPY; GLEASON SCORE; HAWAII; HUMAN; INCOME; INSURANCE; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NORTH AMERICAN; PROBABILITY; PROSTATE CANCER; RACISM; TUMOR BIOPSY; BLOOD; BRACHYTHERAPY; CANCER GRADING; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR; PROSTATECTOMY; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

AGED; BRACHYTHERAPY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SEER PROGRAM; UNITED STATES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 85006516096     PISSN: None     EISSN: 24054569     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Noldus, J., Graefen, M., Haese, A., Henke, R.P., Hammerer, P., Huland, H., Stage migration in clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 38 (2000), 74–78.
2. Abdollah, F., Suardi, N., Gallina, A., et al. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: a 20-year audit in a single center. Ann Oncol 24 (2013), 1459–1466.
3. Cooperberg, M.R., Lubeck, D.P., Meng, M.V., Mehta, S.S., Carroll, P.R., The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol 22 (2004), 2141–2149.
4. Albertsen, P.C., Hanley, J.A., Fine, J., 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293 (2005), 2095–2101.
5. Abdollah, F., Sun, M., Schmitges, J., et al. Survival benefit of radical prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer: estimations of the number needed to treat according to tumor and patient characteristics. J Urol 188 (2012), 73–83.
6. Bill-Axelson, A., Holmberg, L., Garmo, H., et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 370 (2014), 932–942.
7. Litwin, M.S., Hays, R.D., Fink, A., et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA 273 (1995), 129–135.
8. Cooperberg, M.R., Carroll, P.R., Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA 314 (2015), 80–82.
9. Tosoian, J.J., Mamawala, M., Epstein, J.I., et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33 (2015), 3379–3385.
10. Klotz, L., Vesprini, D., Sethukavalan, P., et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33 (2015), 272–277.
11. Womble, P.R., Montie, J.E., Ye, Z., Linsell, S.M., Lane, B.R., Miller, D.C., Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative. Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67 (2015), 44–50.
12. Chamie, K., Williams, S.B., Hu, J.C., Population-based assessment of determining treatments for prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol 1 (2015), 60–67.
13. Chamie, K., Williams, S.B., Hershman, D.L., Wright, J.D., Nguyen, P.L., Hu, J.C., Population-based assessment of determining predictors for quality of prostate cancer surveillance. Cancer 121 (2015), 4150–4157.
14. Mitchell, J.M., Urologists’ use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 369 (2013), 1629–1637.
15. Hoffman, K.E., Niu, J., Shen, Y., et al. Physician variation in management of low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 174 (2014), 1450–1459.
16. Dall'Era, M.A., Konety, B.R., Cowan, J.E., et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 112 (2008), 2664–2670.
17. Overview of the SEER program. National Cancer Institute Web site. http://seer.cancer.gov/about/overview.html.
18. Miller, D.C., Gruber, S.B., Hollenbeck, B.K., Montie, J.E., Wei, J.T., Incidence of initial local therapy among men with lower-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (2006), 1134–1141.
19. Wong, Y.N., Mitra, N., Hudes, G., et al. Survival associated with treatment vs observation of localized prostate cancer in elderly men. JAMA 296 (2006), 2683–2693.
20. Loeb, S., Berglund, A., Stattin, P., Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 190 (2013), 1742–1749.
21. Zeliadt, S.B., Ramsey, S.D., Penson, D.F., et al. Why do men choose one treatment over another?: a review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 106 (2006), 1865–1874.
22. Mohan, R., Beydoun, H., Barnes-Ely, M.L., et al. Patients’ survival expectations before localized prostate cancer treatment by treatment status. J Am Board Fam Med 22 (2009), 247–256.
23. Penson, D.F., Factors influencing patients’ acceptance and adherence to active surveillance. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012 (2012), 207–212.
24. Orom, H., Homish, D.L., Homish, G.G., Underwood, W. 3rd, Quality of physician-patient relationships is associated with the influence of physician treatment recommendations among patients with prostate cancer who chose active surveillance. Urol Oncol 32 (2014), 396–402.
25. Jacobs, B.L., Zhang, Y., Skolarus, T.A., Hollenbeck, B.K., Growth of high-cost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer raises concerns about overuse. Health Aff (Millwood) 31 (2012), 750–759.
26. Cooperberg, M.R., Broering, J.M., Carroll, P.R., Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28 (2010), 1117–1123.
27. Carter, H.B., Aligning evidence and practice: future research needs to increase utilization of active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 25 (2015), 277–282.
28. Eggener S. Commentary on “African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them?” Sundi D, Ross AE, Humphreys EB, Han M, Partin AW, Carter HB, Schaeffer EM, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(24):2991-7. [Epub 2013 Jun 17]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.47.0302. Urol Oncol 2014;32:936.
29. Ha, Y.S., Salmasi, A., Karellas, M., et al. Increased incidence of pathologically nonorgan confined prostate cancer in African-American men eligible for active surveillance. Urology 81 (2013), 831–835.
30. Ritch, C.R., Graves, A.J., Keegan, K.A., et al. Increasing use of observation among men at low risk for prostate cancer mortality. J Urol 193 (2015), 801–806.
31. Weiner, A.B., Patel, S.G., Etzioni, R., Eggener, S.E., National trends in the management of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol 193 (2015), 95–102.
32. Maurice, M.J., Abouassaly, R., Zhu, H., American trends in expectant management utilization for prostate cancer from 2000 to 2009. Can Urol Assoc J 8 (2014), E775–E782.