Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Active Surveillance for Men with Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.
Agrawal, Vishesh; Ma, Xiaoyue; Hu, Jim C; Barbieri, Christopher E; Nagar, Himanshu.
Affiliation
  • Agrawal V; Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
  • Ma X; Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
  • Hu JC; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
  • Barbieri CE; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
  • Nagar H; Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
J Urol ; 205(1): 115-121, 2021 Jan.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32658588
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Optimal treatment of intermediate risk prostate cancer remains unclear. National Comprehensive Cancer Network® guidelines recommend active surveillance, prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Recent trials demonstrated no difference in prostate cancer specific mortality for men undergoing active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer compared to prostatectomy or radiotherapy. The use of active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer is less clear. In this study we characterize U.S. national trends for demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors associated with active surveillance for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

This retrospective cohort study examined 176,122 men diagnosed with intermediate risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016 in the National Cancer Database. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate risk prostate cancer and association with the use of active surveillance were characterized. The analysis was performed in April 2020.

RESULTS:

In total, 176,122 men were identified with intermediate risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016. Of these men 57.3% underwent prostatectomy, 36.4% underwent radiotherapy and 3.2% underwent active surveillance. Active surveillance nearly tripled from 1.6% in 2010 to 4.6% in 2016 (p <0.001). On multivariate analysis use of active surveillance was associated with older age, diagnosis in recent years, lower Gleason score and tumor stage, type of insurance, treatment at an academic center and proximity to facility, and attaining higher education (p <0.05). Race and comorbidities were not associated with active surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings highlight increasing active surveillance use for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer demonstrating clinical and socioeconomic disparities. Prospective data and improved risk stratification are needed to guide optimal treatment for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prostatic Neoplasms / Health Status Disparities / Healthcare Disparities / Watchful Waiting Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Language: En Journal: J Urol Year: 2021 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prostatic Neoplasms / Health Status Disparities / Healthcare Disparities / Watchful Waiting Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Language: En Journal: J Urol Year: 2021 Type: Article