Literature DB >> 26927971

Active surveillance in Canadian men with low-grade prostate cancer.

Octav Cristea1, Luke T Lavallée1, Joshua Montroy1, Andrew Stokl1, Sonya Cnossen1, Ranjeeta Mallick1, Dean Fergusson1, Franco Momoli1, Illias Cagiannos1, Christopher Morash1, Rodney H Breau2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend against routine screening for prostate cancer, partly because of the risks associated with overtreatment of clinically indolent tumours. We aimed to determine the proportion of patients whose low-grade prostate cancer was managed by active surveillance instead of immediate treatment.
METHODS: We reviewed data for patients who were referred to the Ottawa regional Prostate Cancer Assessment Clinic with abnormal results for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or prostate examination between Apr. 1, 2008, and Jan. 31, 2013. Patients with subsequent biopsy-proven low-grade (Gleason score 6) cancer were included. Active surveillance was defined a priori as monitoring by means of PSA, digital rectal examination and repeat biopsies, with the potential for curative-intent treatment in the event of disease progression.
RESULTS: Of 477 patients with low-grade cancer, active surveillance was used for 210 (44.0%), and the annual proportion increased from 32% (11/34) in 2008 to 67% (20/30) in 2013. Factors associated with immediate treatment were palpable tumour, PSA density above 0.2 ng/mL(2) and more than 2 positive biopsy cores. Factors associated with surveillance were age over 70 years and higher Charlson comorbidity index. Of 173 men who received immediate surgical treatment, 103 (59.5%) had higher-grade or advanced-stage disease on final pathologic examination. Of the 210 men with active surveillance, 62 (29.5%) received treatment within a median of 1.3 years, most commonly (52 [84%]) because of upgrading of disease on the basis of surveillance biopsy.
INTERPRETATION: Active surveillance has become the most common management strategy for men with low-grade prostate cancer at our regional diagnostic centre. Factors associated with immediate treatment reflected those that increase the risk of higher-grade tumours.
© 2016 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26927971      PMCID: PMC4868621          DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150832

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  24 in total

1.  Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS).

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:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Physician variation in management of low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Karen E Hoffman; Jiangong Niu; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; John W Davis; Jeri Kim; Deborah A Kuban; George H Perkins; Jay B Shah; Grace L Smith; Robert J Volk; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Integrated prostate cancer centers might cause an overutilization of radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer: A comparison of treatment trends in the United States and Germany from 2004 to 2011.

Authors:  Benjamin Hager; Klaus Kraywinkel; Bastian Keck; Alexander Katalinic; Martin Meyer; Sylke Ruth Zeissig; Roland Stabenow; Michael Froehner; Johannes Huber
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 6.280

4.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Active surveillance: patient selection.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.309

6.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz; Danny Vesprini; Perakaa Sethukavalan; Vibhuti Jethava; Liying Zhang; Suneil Jain; Toshihiro Yamamoto; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Dragan Ilic; Molly M Neuberger; Mia Djulbegovic; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-01-31

8.  Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Yasin Folkvaljon; Danil V Makarov; Ola Bratt; Anna Bill-Axelson; Pär Stattin
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 9.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: overview and update.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2013-03

10.  Anxiety and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer in an Australian centre.

Authors:  Chloe B Wilcox; Daniel Gilbourd; Mark Louie-Johnsun
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  8 in total

1.  Current prostate cancer treatment: Not what but when?

Authors:  Peter A Massaro; Ilias Cagiannos
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  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

3.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in Austria: the online registry of the Qualitätspartnerschaft Urologie (QuapU).

Authors:  Klaus Eredics; Karl Dorfinger; Gero Kramer; Anton Ponholzer; Stephan Madersbacher
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 1.704

Review 4.  Prostate Cancer Patient Perspectives on the Use of Information in Treatment Decision-Making: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-synthesis.

Authors:  Sujane Kandasamy; Ahmad Firas Khalid; Umair Majid; Meredith Vanstone
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2017-05-01

5.  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

Review 6.  Prolaris Cell Cycle Progression Test for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2017-05-01

7.  Reducing overtreatment of prostate cancer by radical prostatectomy in Eastern Ontario: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Luke Witherspoon; Johnathan L Lau; Rodney H Breau; Christopher Knee; Michael Fung Kee Fung; Robin Morash; Ranjeeta Mallick; Ilias Cagiannos; Christopher Morash; Luke T Lavallée
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2018-04-30

8.  Quality indicators of clinical cancer care for prostate cancer: a population-based study in southern Switzerland.

Authors:  Laura Ortelli; Alessandra Spitale; Luca Mazzucchelli; Andrea Bordoni
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 4.430

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.