Literature DB >> 23727309

Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.

Stacy Loeb1, Anders Berglund, Pär Stattin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Prior studies have reported the underuse of deferred treatment (ie active surveillance or watchful waiting) for low risk prostate cancer in the United States. We examined contemporary trends in active surveillance and watchful waiting in the nationwide Swedish prostate cancer registry. We also examined factors associated with selection of deferred management, which might provide insight into the rational diffusion of this important management strategy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 57,713 men with very low risk (T1c, Gleason 6 or less, prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml, prostate specific antigen density less than 0.20 ng/ml/cc, 2 or fewer positive biopsy cores or less than 25% of cores positive), low risk (T1-T2, Gleason 6 or less, and prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml) and intermediate risk prostate cancer (T1-T2, Gleason 7 and/or prostate specific antigen 10 to 20 ng/ml) in the PCBaSe (Prostate Cancer database Sweden) from 1998 to 2011. Subclassification of very low risk disease, and active surveillance vs watchful waiting was possible beginning in 2007. We examined primary treatment selection by risk group and used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with deferred treatment.
RESULTS: Overall 13,272 (46%) men with low risk and 8,695 (30%) with intermediate risk prostate cancer chose deferred treatment. Since 2007, 59%, 41% and 16% of very low, low and intermediate risk prostate cancer, respectively, chose active surveillance. Age was by far the strongest determinant of deferred treatment. Education, marital status and comorbidity were significantly but weakly associated with deferring treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Deferred treatment for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer was frequently used in Sweden. Dissociating diagnosis from treatment in men with a low risk of progression can decrease the rate of overtreatment.
Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AS; CCI; Charlson comorbidity index; NPCR; National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden; PSA; active surveillance; prostate specific antigen; prostatic neoplasms; watchful waiting

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23727309     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  48 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: Growth of AS in the USA signals reduction in overtreatment.

Authors:  Declan G Murphy; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 2.  Best of the 2015 AUA Annual Meeting: Highlights From the 2015 American Urological Association Annual Meeting, May 15-19, 2015, New Orleans, LA.

Authors:  J Curtis Nickel; Michael A Gorin; Alan W Partin; Dean Assimos; Michael Brawer; Heinz Nicolai; Michael B Chancellor; Áine Goggins; Stacy Loeb; Ellen Shapiro
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2015

3.  Baseline and longitudinal plasma caveolin-1 level as a biomarker in active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Spyridon P Basourakos; John W Davis; Brian F Chapin; John F Ward; Curtis A Pettaway; Louis L Pisters; Neema Navai; Mary F Achim; Xuemei Wang; Hsiang-Chun Chen; Seungtaek Choi; Deborah Kuban; Patricia Troncoso; Sam Hanash; Timothy C Thompson; Jeri Kim
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 4.  Heterogeneity in active surveillance protocols worldwide.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; H Ballentine Carter; Mark Schwartz; Angela Fagerlin; R Scott Braithwaite; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2014

5.  The uptake of active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer: A population-based analysis.

Authors:  Patrick O Richard; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Tony Panzarella; Laurence Klotz; Maria Komisarenko; Neil E Fleshner; David Urbach; Antonio Finelli
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  Variation in Guideline Concordant Active Surveillance Followup in Diverse Urology Practices.

Authors:  Amy N Luckenbaugh; Gregory B Auffenberg; Scott R Hawken; Apoorv Dhir; Susan Linsell; Sanjeev Kaul; David C Miller
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Future-proofing Gleason Grading: What to Call Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer?

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Francesco Montorsi; James W Catto
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 8.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; H Ballentine Carter; Abbey Lepor; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Current impact of age and comorbidity assessment on prostate cancer treatment choice and over/undertreatment risk.

Authors:  Pierre Lunardi; Guillaume Ploussard; Pascale Grosclaude; Mathieu Roumiguié; Michel Soulié; Jean Baptiste Beauval; Bernard Malavaud
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Analysis of active surveillance uptake for low-risk localized prostate cancer in Canada: a Canadian multi-institutional study.

Authors:  Narhari Timilshina; Veronique Ouellet; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson; Nathalie Delvoye; Darrel Drachenberg; Antonio Finelli; Marie-Paule Jammal; Pierre Karakiewicz; Hélène Lapointe; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Kenny Lynch; Jean-Benoît Paradis; Paula Sitarik; Alan So; Fred Saad
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.