Literature DB >> 26946161

How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States.

Stacy Loeb1, Dawn Walter2, Caitlin Curnyn2, Heather T Gold2, Herbert Lepor3, Danil V Makarov4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: While major prostate cancer active surveillance programs recommend repeat testing such as prostate specific antigen and prostate biopsy, to our knowledge compliance with such testing is unknown. We determined whether men in the community receive the same intensity of active surveillance testing as in prospective active surveillance protocols.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of men 66 years old or older in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare database. These men were diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2001 to 2009, did not receive curative therapy in the year after diagnosis and underwent 1 or more post-diagnosis prostate biopsies. We used multivariable adjusted Poisson regression to determine the association of the frequency of active surveillance testing with patient demographics and clinical features. In 1,349 men with 5 years of followup we determined the proportion who underwent testing as intense as that recommended by the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and PRIAS (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance) programs, including 14 or more PSA tests and 2 or more biopsies, and The Johns Hopkins program, including 10 or more prostate specific antigen tests and 4 or more biopsies.
RESULTS: Among 5,192 patients undergoing active surveillance greater than 80% had 1 or more prostate specific antigen tests per year but fewer than 13% underwent biopsy beyond the first 2 years. Magnetic resonance imaging was rarely done during the study period. On multivariable analysis recent diagnosis and higher income were associated with a higher frequency of surveillance biopsy while older age and greater comorbidity were associated with fewer biopsies. African American men underwent fewer prostate specific antigen tests but a similar number of biopsies. During 5 years of active surveillance only 11.1% and 5.0% of patients met the testing standards of the Sunnybrook/PRIAS and The Johns Hopkins programs, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In the community few elderly men receive the intensity of active surveillance testing recommended in major prospective active surveillance programs.
Copyright © 2016 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SEER program; aged; prostatic neoplasms; standard of care; watchful waiting

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26946161      PMCID: PMC5010531          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2963

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


  19 in total

1.  How active should active surveillance be?

Authors:  Scott Eggener
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Assessment of the quality of medical care among patients with early stage prostate cancer undergoing expectant management in the United States.

Authors:  Jamie Ritchey; E Greer Gay; Benjamin A Spencer; David C Miller; Lauren P Wallner; Andrew K Stewart; Rodney L Dunn; Mark S Litwin; John T Wei
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer in a veteran population.

Authors:  Eugene K Lee; Janet Baack; Heidi Penn; Cecil T Bromfield; David A Duchene; J Brantley Thrasher; Jeffrey M Holzbeierlein
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.344

4.  Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-04       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter; Patrick C Walsh; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Population-based assessment of determining predictors for quality of prostate cancer surveillance.

Authors:  Karim Chamie; Stephen B Williams; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright; Paul L Nguyen; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  A refined comorbidity measurement algorithm for claims-based studies of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Julie M Legler; Joan L Warren; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2007-05-25       Impact factor: 3.797

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

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Anders Berglund; Pär Stattin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  The feasibility of expectant management with inner-city men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Satoshi Anai; Kogenta Nakamura; Myron N Chang; John Pendleton; Saif Yacoub; Charles J Rosser
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2008-02

Review 10.  The Study of Active Monitoring in Sweden (SAMS): a randomized study comparing two different follow-up schedules for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ola Bratt; Stefan Carlsson; Erik Holmberg; Lars Holmberg; Eva Johansson; Andreas Josefsson; Annika Nilsson; Maria Nyberg; David Robinsson; Jonas Sandberg; Dag Sandblom; Pär Stattin
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 1.612

View more
  25 in total

Review 1.  Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies.

Authors:  Jonathan H Wang; Tracy M Downs; E Jason Abel; Kyle A Richards; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Best of the 2016 AUA Annual Meeting: Highlights From the 2016 American Urological Association Annual Meeting, May 6-10, 2016, San Diego, CA.

Authors:  J Curtis Nickel; Michael A Gorin; Partin Alan W; Stacy Loeb; Shapiro Ellen; Michael B Chancellor; Dean G Assimos; Michael K Brawer; Benjamin M Brucker
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2016

3.  Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Associated with Increased Medicare Spending in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Liam C Macleod; Jonathan G Yabes; Mina M Fam; Jathin Bandari; Michelle Yu; Avinash Maganty; Alessandro Furlan; Christopher P Filson; Benjamin J Davies; Bruce L Jacobs
Journal:  Eur Urol Focus       Date:  2019-04-25

4.  Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Low Risk Prostate Cancer Management: Results of a National Survey.

Authors:  Archana Radhakrishnan; Lauren P Wallner; Ted A Skolarus; Vahakn B Shahinian; Paul H Abrahamse; Michael D Fetters; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Urol Pract       Date:  2021-04-22

5.  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

Review 6.  When and How Should Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer be De-Escalated?

Authors:  Pawel Rajwa; Preston C Sprenkle; Michael S Leapman
Journal:  Eur Urol Focus       Date:  2020-02-02

7.  Receipt of Guideline-Recommended Surveillance in a Population-Based Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Ronald C Chen; Sabrina G Prime; Ramsankar Basak; Dominic Himchan Moon; Claire Liang; Deborah S Usinger; Aaron J Katz
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 8.013

8.  Variation in the Use of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Across US Census Regions.

Authors:  Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Neal Patel; Xiaoyue Ma; Adam Calaway; Lee Ponsky; Jim C Hu; Jonathan E Shoag
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  Predictors of adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy specimen in men initially enrolled in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Lars Björnebo; Henrik Olsson; Tobias Nordström; Fredrik Jäderling; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund; Anna Lantz
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Trends and practices for managing low-risk prostate cancer: a SEER-Medicare study.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Sarah L Mott; Bradley D McDowell; Sonia T Anand; Kenneth G Nepple
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 5.455

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.