Literature DB >> 27422298

Appropriateness Criteria for Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

Michael L Cher1, Apoorv Dhir2, Gregory B Auffenberg2, Susan Linsell2, Yuqing Gao2, Bradley Rosenberg3, S Mohammad Jafri3, Laurence Klotz4, David C Miller2, Khurshid R Ghani2, Steven J Bernstein5, James E Montie2, Brian R Lane6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The adoption of active surveillance varies widely across urological communities, which suggests a need for more consistency in the counseling of patients. To address this need we used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop appropriateness criteria and counseling statements for active surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panelists were recruited from MUSIC urology practices. Combinations of parameters thought to influence decision making were used to create and score 160 theoretical clinical scenarios for appropriateness of active surveillance. Recent rates of active surveillance among real patients across the state were assessed using the MUSIC registry.
RESULTS: Low volume Gleason 6 was deemed highly appropriate for active surveillance whereas high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4 were deemed appropriate to uncertain. No scenario was deemed inappropriate or highly inappropriate. Prostate specific antigen density, race and life expectancy impacted scores for intermediate and high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4. The greatest degree of score dispersion (disagreement) occurred in scenarios with long life expectancy, high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4. Recent rates of active surveillance use among real patients ranged from 0% to 100% at the provider level for low or intermediate biopsy volume Gleason 6, demonstrating a clear opportunity for quality improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: By virtue of this work urologists have the opportunity to present specific recommendations from the panel to their individual patients. Community-wide efforts aimed at increasing rates of active surveillance and reducing practice and physician level variation in the choice of active surveillance vs treatment are warranted. Copyright Â
© 2017 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  counseling; decision making; program evaluation; prostatic neoplasms; watchful waiting

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27422298     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.005

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


  11 in total

1.  Practice- vs Physician-Level Variation in Use of Active Surveillance for Men With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Collaborative Quality Improvement.

Authors:  Gregory B Auffenberg; Brian R Lane; Susan Linsell; Michael L Cher; David C Miller
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 14.766

2.  Prostate cancer: Active surveillance appropriateness criteria - a way forward.

Authors:  Svetlana Avulova; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Prostate Cancer Screening and the Goldilocks Principle: How Much Is Just Right?

Authors:  Izak Faiena; Stuart Holden; Mathew R Cooperberg; Stuart Holden; Howard R Soule; Jonathan W Simons; Todd M Morgan; David F Penson; Alicia K Morgans; Maha Hussain
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  askMUSIC: Leveraging a Clinical Registry to Develop a New Machine Learning Model to Inform Patients of Prostate Cancer Treatments Chosen by Similar Men.

Authors:  Gregory B Auffenberg; Khurshid R Ghani; Shreyas Ramani; Etiowo Usoro; Brian Denton; Craig Rogers; Benjamin Stockton; David C Miller; Karandeep Singh
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Appropriateness Criteria for Ureteral Stent Omission following Ureteroscopy for Urinary Stone Disease.

Authors:  Spencer C Hiller; Stephanie Daignault-Newton; Ivan Rakic; Susan Linsell; Bronson Conrado; S Mohammad Jafri; Ronald Rubenstein; Mazen Abdelhady; C Peter Fischer; Elena Gimenez; Richard Sarle; William W Roberts; Conrad Maitland; Rafid Yousif; Robert Elgin; Laris Galejs; Jeremy Konheim; David Leavitt; Eric Stockall; J Rene Fontera; J Stuart Wolf; John M Hollingsworth; Casey A Dauw; Khurshid R Ghani
Journal:  Urol Pract       Date:  2022-03-03

Review 6.  Active Surveillance Use Among a Low-risk Prostate Cancer Population in a Large US Payer System: 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Versus Other Risk Stratification Methods.

Authors:  Steven Canfield; Michael J Kemeter; John Hornberger; Phillip G Febbo
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2017

Review 7.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes.

Authors:  Colton H Walker; Kathryn A Marchetti; Udit Singhal; Todd M Morgan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Targeted Prostate Biopsy in the Era of Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Fuad F Elkhoury; Demetrios N Simopoulos; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 2.633

Review 9.  The use of prostate MR for targeting prostate biopsies.

Authors:  R Phelps Kelley; Ronald J Zagoria; Hao G Nguyen; Katsuto Shinohara; Antonio C Westphalen
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2019-06-19

10.  Initial Observation of a Large Proportion of Patients Presenting with Clinical Stage T1 Renal Masses: Results from the MUSIC-KIDNEY Statewide Collaborative.

Authors:  Amit K Patel; Craig G Rogers; Anna Johnson; Sabrina L Noyes; Ji Qi; David Miller; Edward Shervish; Benjamin Stockton; Brian R Lane
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2020-12-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.