Arveen A Kalapara1, Jan F M Verbeek2, Daan Nieboer3, Michael Fahey4, Vincent Gnanapragasam5, Mieke Van Hemelrijck6, Lui Shiong Lee7, Chris H Bangma2, Ewout W Steyerberg8, Tim Harkin1, Jozien Helleman2, Monique J Roobol2, Mark Frydenberg9. 1. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Epworth HealthCare, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Academic Urology Group, Department of Surgery and Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 6. Division of Cancer Studies, Translational Oncology & Urology Research, King's College London, London, UK. 7. Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 8. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Urology, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: mark.frydenberg@monash.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) enrolment criteria and follow-up schedules for low-risk prostate cancer vary between institutions. However, uncertainty remains about adherence to these protocols. OBJECTIVE: To determine adherence to institution-specific AS inclusion criteria and follow-up schedules within the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively assessed the data of 15 101 patients from 25 established AS cohorts worldwide between 2014 and 2016. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Adherence to individual AS inclusion criteria was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from poor to excellent. Nonadherence to follow-up schedules was defined as absence of repeat biopsy 1 yr after the scheduled date. Cohorts were pooled into annual and Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS)-based biopsy schedules, and a generalised linear mixed model was constructed to test for nonadherence. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) inclusion criteria were followed in 92%, Gleason score (GS) criteria were followed in 97%, and the number of positive biopsy cores was followed in 94% of men. Both age and tumour stage (T stage) criteria had 99% adherence overall. Pooled nonadherence rates increased over time-8%, 16%, and 34% for annual schedules and 11%, 30%, and 29% for PRIAS-based schedules at 1, 4, and 7 yr, respectively-and did not differ between biopsy schedules. A limitation is that our results do not consider the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In on-going development of evidence-based AS protocols, variable adherence to PSA and GS inclusion criteria should be considered. Repeat biopsy adherence reduces with increased duration of surveillance, independent of biopsy frequency. This emphasises the importance of risk stratification at the commencement of AS. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied adherence to active surveillance protocols for prostate cancer worldwide. We found that inclusion criteria were generally followed well, but adherence to repeat biopsy reduced with time. This should be considered when optimising future active surveillance protocols.
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) enrolment criteria and follow-up schedules for low-risk prostate cancer vary between institutions. However, uncertainty remains about adherence to these protocols. OBJECTIVE: To determine adherence to institution-specific AS inclusion criteria and follow-up schedules within the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively assessed the data of 15 101 patients from 25 established AS cohorts worldwide between 2014 and 2016. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Adherence to individual AS inclusion criteria was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from poor to excellent. Nonadherence to follow-up schedules was defined as absence of repeat biopsy 1 yr after the scheduled date. Cohorts were pooled into annual and Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS)-based biopsy schedules, and a generalised linear mixed model was constructed to test for nonadherence. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) inclusion criteria were followed in 92%, Gleason score (GS) criteria were followed in 97%, and the number of positive biopsy cores was followed in 94% of men. Both age and tumour stage (T stage) criteria had 99% adherence overall. Pooled nonadherence rates increased over time-8%, 16%, and 34% for annual schedules and 11%, 30%, and 29% for PRIAS-based schedules at 1, 4, and 7 yr, respectively-and did not differ between biopsy schedules. A limitation is that our results do not consider the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In on-going development of evidence-based AS protocols, variable adherence to PSA and GS inclusion criteria should be considered. Repeat biopsy adherence reduces with increased duration of surveillance, independent of biopsy frequency. This emphasises the importance of risk stratification at the commencement of AS. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied adherence to active surveillance protocols for prostate cancer worldwide. We found that inclusion criteria were generally followed well, but adherence to repeat biopsy reduced with time. This should be considered when optimising future active surveillance protocols.
Authors: Visalini Nair-Shalliker; David P Smith; Val Gebski; Manish I Patel; Mark Frydenberg; John W Yaxley; Robert Gardiner; David Espinoza; Michael G Kimlin; Michael Fenech; David Gillatt; Henry Woo; Bruce K Armstrong; Krishan Rasiah; Nader Awad; James Symons; Howard Gurney Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Xinge Ji; Jozien Helleman; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris Bangma; Mark Frydenberg; Antti Rannikko; Lui Shiong Lee; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Michael W Kattan Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-03
Authors: Joseba Salguero; Enrique Gómez-Gómez; José Valero-Rosa; Julia Carrasco-Valiente; Juan Mesa; Cristina Martin; Juan Pablo Campos-Hernández; Juan Manuel Rubio; Daniel López; María José Requena Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Jonathan Olivier; Weiyu Li; Daan Nieboer; Jozien Helleman; Monique Roobol; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Mark Frydenberg; Mikio Sugimoto; Peter Carroll; Todd M Morgan; Riccardo Valdagni; Jose Rubio-Briones; Grégoire Robert; Phillip Stricker; Andrew Hayen; Ivo Schoots; Masoom Haider; Caroline M Moore; Brian Denton; Arnauld Villers Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-01-03
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
Authors: Michelle M Kouspou; Jenna E Fong; Nadine Brew; Sarah T F Hsiao; Seanna L Davidson; Peter L Choyke; Tony Crispino; Suneil Jain; Guido W Jenster; Beatrice S Knudsen; Jeremy L Millar; Nicole Mittmann; Charles J Ryan; Bertrand Tombal; Mark Buzza Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 14.432