OBJECTIVE: To investigate the treatment of prostate cancer in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A postal survey was conducted of consultant urologists and general surgeons with an interest in urology to assess the current patterns of management of patients with prostate cancer in the UK and to determine patterns of clinical practice. RESULTS: Two-hundred and seventy-four replies were analysed. Radical radiotherapy (50%) and radical prostatectomy (29%) were the most favoured treatment options for patients < 70 years old with poorly differentiated T1 disease; for those aged > 70 years, active treatment was favoured by 183 (67%) consultants with radical radiotherapy (37%) and hormonal intervention (29%) the most frequent choices. In well-differentiated T1 disease, active treatment was favoured by 226 (83%) of consultants for patients < 70 years, with radical prostatectomy (44%) the most frequent choice. For patients > 70 years, observational management was preferred by 190 (69%) of consultants. In poorly differentiated T1 prostate cancer, active treatment was favoured by 252 (91%) for patients < 70, with radiotherapy (50%) the most frequent choice and for patients > 70 years, active treatment was favoured by 67% with radical radiotherapy the most common preference being chosen, by 102 (37%). For asymptomatic locally advanced disease, 55% of consultants favoured active treatment, whilst 63% favoured the active treatment of asymptomatic metastatic disease. For patients with symptomatic metastatic disease, GnRH agonist therapy was the treatment of choice of 66% of urologists and was given as monotherapy by 44% or as part of maximal androgen blockade by 22%. In clinical practice, 82% of urologists have close links with oncology, available through joint clinics or on-site referral. However, < 5% of urologists refer patients to an oncologist before the development of hormone refractory disease. At relapse, only 53% of urologists referred their patients to oncologists or palliative-care clinicians. A wide variety of hormonal treatments was offered at relapse; only 24% of urologists treated their patients by antiandrogen withdrawal or introduction, which is currently the most effective second-line hormonal treatment for recurrent prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variation in the clinical management of prostate cancer and we recommend the establishment of standards of practice.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the treatment of prostate cancer in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A postal survey was conducted of consultant urologists and general surgeons with an interest in urology to assess the current patterns of management of patients with prostate cancer in the UK and to determine patterns of clinical practice. RESULTS: Two-hundred and seventy-four replies were analysed. Radical radiotherapy (50%) and radical prostatectomy (29%) were the most favoured treatment options for patients < 70 years old with poorly differentiated T1 disease; for those aged > 70 years, active treatment was favoured by 183 (67%) consultants with radical radiotherapy (37%) and hormonal intervention (29%) the most frequent choices. In well-differentiated T1 disease, active treatment was favoured by 226 (83%) of consultants for patients < 70 years, with radical prostatectomy (44%) the most frequent choice. For patients > 70 years, observational management was preferred by 190 (69%) of consultants. In poorly differentiated T1 prostate cancer, active treatment was favoured by 252 (91%) for patients < 70, with radiotherapy (50%) the most frequent choice and for patients > 70 years, active treatment was favoured by 67% with radical radiotherapy the most common preference being chosen, by 102 (37%). For asymptomatic locally advanced disease, 55% of consultants favoured active treatment, whilst 63% favoured the active treatment of asymptomatic metastatic disease. For patients with symptomatic metastatic disease, GnRH agonist therapy was the treatment of choice of 66% of urologists and was given as monotherapy by 44% or as part of maximal androgen blockade by 22%. In clinical practice, 82% of urologists have close links with oncology, available through joint clinics or on-site referral. However, < 5% of urologists refer patients to an oncologist before the development of hormone refractory disease. At relapse, only 53% of urologists referred their patients to oncologists or palliative-care clinicians. A wide variety of hormonal treatments was offered at relapse; only 24% of urologists treated their patients by antiandrogen withdrawal or introduction, which is currently the most effective second-line hormonal treatment for recurrent prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variation in the clinical management of prostate cancer and we recommend the establishment of standards of practice.