Patrick O Richard1, Shabbir M H Alibhai2, Tony Panzarella3, Laurence Klotz4, Maria Komisarenko5, Neil E Fleshner5, David Urbach6, Antonio Finelli5. 1. Division of Urology, Departments of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto;; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke and the University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Medicine, University Health Network and the University of Toronto. 3. Biostatistics Department, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network and the University of Toronto. 4. Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the University of Toronto. 5. Division of Urology, Departments of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto. 6. Department of Surgery, University Health Network and the University of Toronto; Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance (AS) is a strategy for the management of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). However, few studies have assessed the uptake of AS at a population level and none of these were based on a Canadian population. Therefore, our objectives were to estimate the proportion of men being managed by AS in Ontario and to assess the factors associated with its uptake. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based study using administrative databases from the province of Ontario to identify men ≤75 years diagnosed with localized PCa between 2002 and 2010. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the proportion of men managed by AS, whereas mixed models were used to assess the factors associated with the uptake of AS. RESULTS: 45 691 men met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 18% were managed by AS. Over time, the rates of AS increased significantly from 11% to 21% (p<0.001). Older age, residing in an urban centre, being diagnosed in the later years of the study period, having a neighborhood income in the highest quintile, and being managed by urologists were all associated with greater odds of receiving AS. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a steady increase in the uptake of AS between 2002 and 2010. However, only 18% of men diagnosed with localized PCa were managed by AS during the study period. The decisions to adopt AS were influenced by several individual and physician characteristics. The data suggest that there is significant opportunity for more widespread adoption of AS.
INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance (AS) is a strategy for the management of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). However, few studies have assessed the uptake of AS at a population level and none of these were based on a Canadian population. Therefore, our objectives were to estimate the proportion of men being managed by AS in Ontario and to assess the factors associated with its uptake. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based study using administrative databases from the province of Ontario to identify men ≤75 years diagnosed with localized PCa between 2002 and 2010. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the proportion of men managed by AS, whereas mixed models were used to assess the factors associated with the uptake of AS. RESULTS: 45 691 men met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 18% were managed by AS. Over time, the rates of AS increased significantly from 11% to 21% (p<0.001). Older age, residing in an urban centre, being diagnosed in the later years of the study period, having a neighborhood income in the highest quintile, and being managed by urologists were all associated with greater odds of receiving AS. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a steady increase in the uptake of AS between 2002 and 2010. However, only 18% of men diagnosed with localized PCa were managed by AS during the study period. The decisions to adopt AS were influenced by several individual and physician characteristics. The data suggest that there is significant opportunity for more widespread adoption of AS.
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
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Alex Mueller; Ryan K Berglund; Raj Ayyathurai; Cindy Soloway; Mark S Soloway; Robert Abouassaly; Eric A Klein; Steven J Jones; Chris Zappavigna; Larry Goldenberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mark V Mishra; Xinglei Shen; Robert B Den; Colin E Champ; Edouard J Trabulsi; Costas D Lallas; Leonard G Gomella; Adam P Dicker; Timothy N Showalter Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Mark S Soloway; Cynthia T Soloway; Ahmed Eldefrawy; Kristell Acosta; Bruce Kava; Murugesan Manoharan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Usama Mahmood; Lawrence B Levy; Paul L Nguyen; Andrew K Lee; Deborah A Kuban; Karen E Hoffman Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James M Wilson; David P Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; Alison Birtle; David Bloomfield; Ananya Choudhury; John Graham; Catherine Ferguson; Zafar Malik; Julian Money-Kyrle; Joe M O'Sullivan; Miguel Panades; Chris Parker; Yvonne Rimmer; Christopher Scrase; John Staffurth; Andrew Stockdale; Clare Cruickshank; Clare Griffin; Emma Hall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Catherine E Lovegrove; Vincenzo Ficarra; Francesco Montorsi; James N'Dow; Andrea Salonia; Suks Minhas Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Sangeet Ghai; Nathan Perlis; Uri Lindner; Eugen Hlasny; Masoom A Haider; Antonio Finelli; Alexandre R Zlotta; Girish S Kulkarni; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Stuart A McCluskey; Walter Kucharczyk; John Trachtenberg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rano Matta; Amanda E Hird; Erind Dvorani; Refik Saskin; Gregory J Nason; Girish Kulkarni; Ronald T Kodama; Sender Herschorn; Robert K Nam Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.452