Greg E Gin1, Jorge F Pereira2, Alan D Weinberg3, Reza Mehrazin2, Susan M Lerner4, John P Sfakianos2, Courtney K Phillips2. 1. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY. Electronic address: ggin@coh.org. 2. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY. 3. Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY. 4. Recanati/Miller Transplantation Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Renal transplantation candidates are a highly screened population. There are currently no guidelines or consensus on prostate cancer (CaP) screening in these patients. In light of the recent United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, we conducted a survey of transplantation surgeons to gain a better understanding of practice patterns among U.S. centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 14-question multiple-choice online survey was e-mailed to 195 U.S. renal transplantation centers. The questionnaire assessed CaP screening and treatment practices. The survey also evaluated characteristics of the respondent's institution. Descriptive statistics were used for each of the responses, and associations were made with program characterization using logistic or linear regression models. RESULTS: A total of 90 surgeons responded, representing 65 of 195 programs (33% response rate). Overall, 89% of respondents reported routinely screening for CaP in renal transplantation candidates and 71% had set guidelines for PSA screening. The most common age to start PSA screening was 50 years (51%) and 79% of respondents reported no age limit to stop PSA screening. Definitive treatment of CaP was required before proceeding to transplantation in 45% of respondents. Active surveillance was a viable option in 67% of responders. Most respondents (73%) replied that the waiting time for eligibility after treatment depended on the CaP stage and risk. CONCLUSIONS: Although most programs have guidelines on PSA screening in renal transplantation candidates, there is still variation nationwide in screening and treatment practices. AS is a viable treatment option in most of the programs. Our results suggest a benefit of a consensus panel to recommend guidelines in this population.
INTRODUCTION: Renal transplantation candidates are a highly screened population. There are currently no guidelines or consensus on prostate cancer (CaP) screening in these patients. In light of the recent United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, we conducted a survey of transplantation surgeons to gain a better understanding of practice patterns among U.S. centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 14-question multiple-choice online survey was e-mailed to 195 U.S. renal transplantation centers. The questionnaire assessed CaP screening and treatment practices. The survey also evaluated characteristics of the respondent's institution. Descriptive statistics were used for each of the responses, and associations were made with program characterization using logistic or linear regression models. RESULTS: A total of 90 surgeons responded, representing 65 of 195 programs (33% response rate). Overall, 89% of respondents reported routinely screening for CaP in renal transplantation candidates and 71% had set guidelines for PSA screening. The most common age to start PSA screening was 50 years (51%) and 79% of respondents reported no age limit to stop PSA screening. Definitive treatment of CaP was required before proceeding to transplantation in 45% of respondents. Active surveillance was a viable option in 67% of responders. Most respondents (73%) replied that the waiting time for eligibility after treatment depended on the CaP stage and risk. CONCLUSIONS: Although most programs have guidelines on PSA screening in renal transplantation candidates, there is still variation nationwide in screening and treatment practices. AS is a viable treatment option in most of the programs. Our results suggest a benefit of a consensus panel to recommend guidelines in this population.
Authors: Uwe Bieri; Kerstin Hübel; Harald Seeger; Girish S Kulkarni; Tullio Sulser; Thomas Hermanns; Marian S Wettstein Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Sung Han Kim; Jae Young Joung; Yoon Seok Suh; Young Ae Kim; Jin Hyuk Hong; Tong Sun Kuark; Eun Sook Lee; Kang Hyun Lee Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-07-22