William G Chu1, Brian J Kim1, Jeff Slezak2, Teresa N Harrison2, Joy Gelfond2, Steven J Jacobsen2, Gary W Chien3. 1. Department of Urology, Los Angeles Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 4900 Sunset Blvd., 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90027, USA. 2. Research and Evaluation Department, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 100 S. Los Robles Ave., 2nd Floor, Pasadena, CA, 91101, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Los Angeles Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 4900 Sunset Blvd., 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90027, USA. Gary.W.Chien@kp.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the urologist's experience in selecting active surveillance (AS) versus immediate treatment (IT) for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Men with low-risk prostate cancer were enrolled from March 2011 to August 2013 at 13 medical centers in Kaiser Permanente Southern California. The AS cohort was defined as men who had cT1-T2a stage prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml, a biopsy revealing Gleason grade ≤6, fewer than three biopsy cores positive, ≤50 % cancer in any core, and not undergone immediate therapy (surgery, radiation, other) within 6 months following diagnosis. The urologist's experience (age, number of years in practice, number of robotic surgeries performed, and fellowship experience in oncology and/or robotics) was then compared between AS and IT cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 4754 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 713 men satisfied with inclusion criteria; 433 (60.7 %) and 280 (39.3 %) chose AS and IT, respectively. A total of 87 urologists were included. Univariate and multivariate adjusted analyses revealed no differences in urologist's age or years in practice. Patients who saw urologists who had performed ≥50 robotic surgeries were less likely to choose AS (OR 0.40, 95 % CI 0.25-0.66). Patients who saw urologists with a fellowship in oncology and/or robotics were more than twice as likely to choose AS (OR 2.27, 95 % CI 1.38-3.75). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the decision to pursue AS may be influenced by the urologist's experience.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the urologist's experience in selecting active surveillance (AS) versus immediate treatment (IT) for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS:Men with low-risk prostate cancer were enrolled from March 2011 to August 2013 at 13 medical centers in Kaiser Permanente Southern California. The AS cohort was defined as men who had cT1-T2a stage prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml, a biopsy revealing Gleason grade ≤6, fewer than three biopsy cores positive, ≤50 % cancer in any core, and not undergone immediate therapy (surgery, radiation, other) within 6 months following diagnosis. The urologist's experience (age, number of years in practice, number of robotic surgeries performed, and fellowship experience in oncology and/or robotics) was then compared between AS and IT cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 4754 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 713 men satisfied with inclusion criteria; 433 (60.7 %) and 280 (39.3 %) chose AS and IT, respectively. A total of 87 urologists were included. Univariate and multivariate adjusted analyses revealed no differences in urologist's age or years in practice. Patients who saw urologists who had performed ≥50 robotic surgeries were less likely to choose AS (OR 0.40, 95 % CI 0.25-0.66). Patients who saw urologists with a fellowship in oncology and/or robotics were more than twice as likely to choose AS (OR 2.27, 95 % CI 1.38-3.75). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the decision to pursue AS may be influenced by the urologist's experience.
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Ruth Etzioni; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Lynn Greene; Lars Holmberg; Philip Kantoff; Badrinath R Konety; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David F Penson; Anthony L Zietman Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Heidi A van Vugt; Monique J Roobol; Henk G van der Poel; Erik H A M van Muilekom; Martijn Busstra; Paul Kil; Eric H Oomens; Annemarie Leliveld; Chris H Bangma; Ida Korfage; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Albert El Hajj; Guillaume Ploussard; Alexandre de la Taille; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; Claude Clément Abbou; Laurent Salomon Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: J S Blumenthal-Barby; Scott B Cantor; Heidi Voelker Russell; Aanand D Naik; Robert J Volk Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Andrew J Roth; Barry Rosenfeld; Alice B Kornblith; Christopher Gibson; Howard I Scher; Tracy Curley-Smart; Jimmie C Holland; William Breitbart Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Claire Kim; Frances C Wright; Nicole J Look Hong; Gary Groot; Lucy Helyer; Pamela Meiers; May Lynn Quan; Robin Urquhart; Rebecca Warburton; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 3.240