» Articles » PMID: 27984110

More Judicious Use of Expectant Management for Localized Prostate Cancer During the Last 2 Decades

Overview
Journal J Urol
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Specialty Urology
Date 2016 Dec 17
PMID 27984110
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Urologists have been criticized for overtreating men with low risk prostate cancer and for passively observing older men with higher risk disease. Proponents of active surveillance for low risk disease and critics of watchful waiting for higher risk disease have advocated for more judicious use of observation. Thus, we compared 2 population based cohorts to determine how expectant management has evolved during the last 2 decades.

Materials And Methods: A total of 5,871 men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled in the PCOS (Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study) or the CEASAR (Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation) study. We compared the use of definitive treatment vs expectant management (watchful waiting or active surveillance) across cohorts, focusing on the influence of disease risk, age and comorbidities.

Results: Use of watchful waiting or active surveillance was similar in PCOS and CEASAR (14% in each). Compared to the PCOS, more men in the CEASAR study with low risk disease selected watchful waiting or active surveillance (25% vs 15%, respectively), whereas fewer men with intermediate (7% vs 14%) and high risk (3% vs 10%) disease chose watchful waiting or active surveillance (p <0.001 for each). The association of disease risk with watchful waiting or active surveillance was significantly larger in CEASAR than in PCOS (OR 7.3, 95% CI 3.4 to 15.7). Older age was associated with watchful waiting or active surveillance in both cohorts but there was no association between comorbidity and watchful waiting or active surveillance in the CEASAR study.

Conclusions: Use of watchful waiting or active surveillance was more aligned with disease risk in CEASAR compared to PCOS, suggesting there has been a pivot from watchful waiting to active surveillance. While older men were more likely to be observed, comorbidity had little, if any, influence.

Citing Articles

Cost-effectiveness of an urinary biomarker panel in combination with MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Govers T, Resnick M, Rastinehad A, Caba L, Groskopf J, Van Criekinge W World J Urol. 2023; 41(6):1527-1532.

PMID: 37133554 PMC: 10241729. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04389-w.


Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.

Vernooij R, Lancee M, Cleves A, Dahm P, Bangma C, Aben K Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 6:CD006590.

PMID: 32495338 PMC: 7270852. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006590.pub3.


Interpretation of Domain Scores on the EPIC-How Does the Domain Score Translate into Functional Outcomes?.

Laviana A, Hernandez A, Huang L, Zhao Z, Koyama T, Conwill R J Urol. 2019; 202(6):1150-1158.

PMID: 31216252 PMC: 8627681. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000392.


Quality of care and economic considerations of active surveillance of men with prostate cancer.

Filson C Transl Androl Urol. 2018; 7(2):203-213.

PMID: 29732278 PMC: 5911536. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.08.08.


Prostate cancer management choices in patients undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy compared to systematic biopsy.

Gordetsky J, Saylor B, Bae S, Nix J, Rais-Bahrami S Urol Oncol. 2018; 36(5):241.e7-241.e13.

PMID: 29526599 PMC: 9036190. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.02.003.

References
1.
Tosoian J, Trock B, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein J, Partin A . Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(16):2185-90. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112. View

2.
Bekelman J, Mitra N, Handorf E, Uzzo R, Hahn S, Polsky D . Effectiveness of androgen-deprivation therapy and radiotherapy for older men with locally advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33(7):716-22. PMC: 4334776. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.2743. View

3.
Barocas D, Chen V, Cooperberg M, Goodman M, Graff J, Greenfield S . Using a population-based observational cohort study to address difficult comparative effectiveness research questions: the CEASAR study. J Comp Eff Res. 2013; 2(4):445-60. PMC: 4920086. DOI: 10.2217/cer.13.34. View

4.
Kutikov A, Cooperberg M, Paciorek A, Uzzo R, Carroll P, Boorjian S . Evaluating prostate cancer mortality and competing risks of death in patients with localized prostate cancer using a comprehensive nomogram. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2012; 15(4):374-9. PMC: 3815610. DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2012.21. View

5.
Cooperberg M, Broering J, Litwin M, Lubeck D, Mehta S, Henning J . The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor (CapSURE), a national disease registry. J Urol. 2004; 171(4):1393-401. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000107247.81471.06. View