We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines.

In the last decade, active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an acceptable choice for low-risk prostate cancer (PC), however there is discordance amongst large AS cohort studies with respect to entry and monitoring protocols. We systematically reviewed worldwide AS practices in studies reporting ≥5 years follow-up. We searched PubMed and Medline 2000-now and identified 13 AS cohorts. Three key areas were identified: (I) patient selection; (II) monitoring protocols; (III) triggers for intervention—(I) all studies defined clinically localised PC diagnosis as T2b disease or less and most agreed on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) threshold (<10 µg/L) and Gleason score threshold (3+3). Inconsistency was most notable regarding pathologic factors (e.g., number of positive cores); (II) all agreed on PSA surveillance as crucial for monitoring, and most agreed that confirmatory biopsy was required within 12 months of initiation. No consensus was reached on optimal timing of digital rectal examination (DRE), general health assessment or re-biopsy strategies thereafter; (III) there was no universal agreement for intervention triggers, although Gleason score, number or percentage of positive cancer cores, maximum cancer length (MCL) and PSA doubling time were used by several studies. Some also used imaging or re-biopsy. Despite consistent high progression-free/cancer-free survival and conversion-to-treatment rates, heterogeneity exists amongst these large AS cohorts. Combining existing evidence and gathering more long-term evidence [e.g., the Movember’s Global AS database or additional information on use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] is needed to derive a broadly supported guideline to reduce variation in clinical practice.

Objective• To describe a protocol for transperineal sector biopsies (TPSB) of the prostate and present the clinical experience of this technique in a UK population. Patients and Methods• A retrospective review of a single-centre experience of TPSB approach was undertaken that preferentially, but not exclusively, targeted the peripheral zone of the prostate with 24-38 cores using a 'sector plan' . Procedures were carried out under general anaesthetic in most patients.• Between January 2007 and August 2011, 634 consecutive patients underwent TPSB for the following indications: prior negative transrectal biopsy (TRB; 174 men); primary biopsy in men at risk of sepsis (153); further evaluation after low-risk disease diagnosed based on a 12-core TRB (307). Results• Prostate cancer was found in 36% of men after a negative TRB; 17% of these had disease solely in anterior sectors.• As a primary diagnostic strategy, prostate cancer was diagnosed in 54% of men (median PSA level was 7.4 ng/mL).• Of men with Gleason 3+3 disease on TRB, 29%were upgraded and went on to have radical treatment.• Postoperative urinary retention occurred in 11 (1.7%) men, two secondary to clots. Per-urethral bleeding requiring hospital stay occurred in two men. There were no cases of urosepsis. Conclusions• TPSB of the prostate has a role in defining disease previously missed or under-diagnosed by TRB. The procedure has low morbidity.

No abstract

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended by most national medical organizations as the preferred treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). However, studies report that up to one third of men on AS dropout within 5 years, without evidence of disease progression. Despite high dropout rates, few studies have purposively explored the opinions and experiences of men who discontinued AS. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the reasons why some men on AS for PCa discontinue active treatment without evidence of disease progression.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 14 men from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds who had been on AS for PCa but dropped out of surveillance to undergo active treatment without signs of disease progression. Purposive sampling to reach data saturation was used to select participants based on their experience of AS and willingness to share their experiences. Interviews were transcribed and analysis undertaken in an inductive thematic manner. Results:The following themes arose from interviews as factors that potentially influence adherence to AS: men's experience at diagnosis and follow-up consultations, involvement in shared decision-making, the extent of supportive care and information, administrative procedures and support from partner and peers. A poor experience during diagnosis could adversely influence long-term adherence to AS, given the same diagnostic tests are frequently repeated. The provision of consistent information and support while on AS, similar to that offered to men undergoing radical treatment, was also highlighted as being important to increase confidence in the process.Conclusions: Effective communications skills among health professionals, aimed at building trust in patient-clinician relationships, providing opportunities for shared decision-making and developing selfefficacy, along with structured information and support, are key to enhancing long-term adherence to AS.

No abstract

Aim To explore patient experiences of a structured exercise intervention for men with prostate cancer (PCa). Sample 41 men with either localised or advanced PCa who had been referred for a structured exercise programme by their physician and then subsequently consented to a telephone survey. Method Participants underwent a 10-week supervised exercise programme within a large cancer centre hospital consisting of 8 sessions. They then completed a short multiple choice telephone survey, elaborating on their responses where appropriate. Views expressed by participants were analysed using an affinity diagram and common themes were identified. Results Feedback from our telephone surveys was consistently positive and suggests that the structured exercise intervention provides exercise confidence, motivation to exercise, and social support and promotes positive health behaviour change in the context of exercise. Individual differences arose amongst participants in their perceived utility of the intervention, with 73.3% expressing a preference for structured exercise classes and 19.5% expressing a preference for exercising independently. Conclusion Design of a structured exercise intervention for patients with PCa should embrace the positive aspects outlined here but consider patients' individual differences. Ongoing feedback from patients should be utilised alongside traditional study designs to inform intervention design in this area.

If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.