Stacy Loeb1, Qinlian Zhou2, Uwe Siebert3, Ursula Rochau4, Beate Jahn4, Nikolai Mühlberger4, H Ballentine Carter5, Herbert Lepor6, R Scott Braithwaite2. 1. Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: stacyloeb@gmail.com. 2. Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria; ONCOTYROL-Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria; Center for Health Decision Science and Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria. 5. The Brady Institute of Urology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing proportion of prostate cancer is being managed conservatively. However, there are no randomized trials or consensus regarding the optimal follow-up strategy. OBJECTIVE: To compare life expectancy and quality of life between watchful waiting (WW) versus different strategies of active surveillance (AS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A Markov model was created for US men starting at age 50, diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose conservative management by WW or AS using different testing protocols (prostate-specific antigen every 3-6 mo, biopsy every 1-5 yr, or magnetic resonance imaging based). Transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from the literature. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes include radical treatment, metastasis, and prostate cancer death. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All AS strategies yielded more life years compared with WW. Lifetime risks of prostate cancer death and metastasis were, respectively, 5.42% and 6.40% with AS versus 8.72% and 10.30% with WW. AS yielded more QALYs than WW except in cohorts age >65 yr at diagnosis, or when treatment-related complications were long term. The preferred follow-up strategy was also sensitive to whether people value short-term over long-term benefits (time preference). Depending on the AS protocol, 30-41% underwent radical treatment within 10 yr. Extending the surveillance biopsy interval from 1 to 5 yr reduced life years slightly, with a 0.26 difference in QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: AS extends life more than WW, particularly for men with higher-risk features, but this is partly offset by the decrement in quality of life since many men eventually receive treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: More intensive active surveillance protocols extend life more than watchful waiting, but this is partly offset by decrements in quality of life from subsequent treatment.
BACKGROUND: An increasing proportion of prostate cancer is being managed conservatively. However, there are no randomized trials or consensus regarding the optimal follow-up strategy. OBJECTIVE: To compare life expectancy and quality of life between watchful waiting (WW) versus different strategies of active surveillance (AS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A Markov model was created for US men starting at age 50, diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose conservative management by WW or AS using different testing protocols (prostate-specific antigen every 3-6 mo, biopsy every 1-5 yr, or magnetic resonance imaging based). Transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from the literature. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes include radical treatment, metastasis, and prostate cancer death. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All AS strategies yielded more life years compared with WW. Lifetime risks of prostate cancer death and metastasis were, respectively, 5.42% and 6.40% with AS versus 8.72% and 10.30% with WW. AS yielded more QALYs than WW except in cohorts age >65 yr at diagnosis, or when treatment-related complications were long term. The preferred follow-up strategy was also sensitive to whether people value short-term over long-term benefits (time preference). Depending on the AS protocol, 30-41% underwent radical treatment within 10 yr. Extending the surveillance biopsy interval from 1 to 5 yr reduced life years slightly, with a 0.26 difference in QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: AS extends life more than WW, particularly for men with higher-risk features, but this is partly offset by the decrement in quality of life since many men eventually receive treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: More intensive active surveillance protocols extend life more than watchful waiting, but this is partly offset by decrements in quality of life from subsequent treatment.
Authors: Shabbir M H Alibhai; Marc Leach; George Tomlinson; Murray D Krahn; Neil Fleshner; Eric Holowaty; Gary Naglie Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Roman Gulati; Elisabeth M Wever; Alex Tsodikov; David F Penson; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Jeffrey Katcher; Shih-Yuan Lee; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Gerrit Draisma; Harry J de Koning; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Hans Garmo; Jennifer R Rider; Kimmo Taari; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Anders Spångberg; Ove Andrén; Juni Palmgren; Gunnar Steineck; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher J Sweeney; Yu-Hui Chen; Michael Carducci; Glenn Liu; David F Jarrard; Mario Eisenberger; Yu-Ning Wong; Noah Hahn; Manish Kohli; Matthew M Cooney; Robert Dreicer; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Joel Picus; Daniel Shevrin; Maha Hussain; Jorge A Garcia; Robert S DiPaola Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jane M Lange; Aaron A Laviana; David F Penson; Daniel W Lin; Anna Bill-Axelson; Sigrid V Carlsson; Lisa F Newcomb; Bruce J Trock; H Ballentine Carter; Peter R Carroll; Mathew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Laurence H Klotz; Ruth B Etzioni Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Adrianna Jiaying Lee; Amelia Wnorowski; Nancy Ye; Linhan Xu; Michael Naslund; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto; M Minhaj Siddiqui Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2021-12-06
Authors: Henrik Olsson; Tobias Nordström; Fredrik Jäderling; Lars Egevad; Hari T Vigneswaran; Magnus Annerstedt; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund; Anna Lantz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 13.506