WATCHFUL WAITING AND HEALTH RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PATIENTS WITH LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER: DATA FROM CaPSURE

Arredondo, Shelley A.; Downs, Tracy M.; Lubeck, Deborah P.; Pasta, David J.; Silva, Stefanie J.; Wallace, Katrine L.; Carroll, Peter R.

doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000140758.04424.77

Cited by 52 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although men on watchful waiting have reported decrements in health-related quality of life domains, such as sexual health, these rates are less than those observed after prostate cancer treatments and are most likely because of age-related declines in function. 17 Although there is increasing interest in examining active surveillance as a legitimate management approach for low-risk prostate cancer, the criteria for patient selection and definition of progressive disease vary between studies. [8][9][10]18 In general, most active surveillance studies have restricted patient selection by using Gleason grade and PSA cutoff points; however, specific threshold values vary between studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort

Dall′Era

Konety

Cowan

et al. 2008

Cancer

Self Cite

359

243

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND.Active surveillance followed by selective treatment for men who have evidence of disease progression may be an option for select patients with early‐stage prostate cancer. In this article, the authors report their experience in a contemporary cohort of men with prostate cancer who were managed with active surveillance.METHODS.All men who were managed initially with active surveillance were identified through the authors' institutional database. Selection criteria for active surveillance included: prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) <10 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason sum ≤6 with no pattern 4 or 5, cancer involvement of <33% of biopsy cores, and clinical stage T1/T2a tumor. Patients were followed with PSA measurements and digital rectal examination every 3 to 6 months and with transrectal ultrasound at 6‐ to 12‐month intervals. Beginning in 2003, patients also underwent repeat prostate biopsy at 12 to 24 months. The primary outcome measured was active treatment. Evidence of disease progression, defined as an increase in rebiopsy Gleason sum or significant PSA velocity changes (>0.75 ng/mL per year), was a secondary outcome. Chi‐square and log‐rank tests were used to compare groups. The association between clinical characteristics and receipt of active treatment was analyzed by using Cox proportional hazards regression.RESULTS.Three hundred twenty‐one men (mean age [±standard deviation]: 63.4 ± 8.5 years) selected active surveillance as their initial management. The overall median follow‐up was 3.6 years (range, 1–17 years). The initial mean PSA level was 6.5 ± 3.9 ng/mL. One hundred twenty men (37%) met at least 1 criterion for progression. Overall, 38% of men had higher grade on repeat biopsy, and 26% of men had a PSA velocity >0.75 ng/mL per year. Seventy‐eight men (24%) received secondary treatment at a median 3 years (range, 1–17 years) after diagnosis. Approximately 13% of patients with no disease progression elected to obtain treatment. PSA density at diagnosis and rise in Gleason score on repeat biopsy were associated significantly with receipt of secondary treatment. The disease‐specific survival rate was 100%.CONCLUSIONS.Selected individuals with early‐stage prostate cancer may be candidates for active surveillance. Specific criteria can be and need to be developed to select the most appropriate individuals for this form of management and to monitor disease progression. A small attrition rate can be expected because of men who are unable or unwilling to tolerate surveillance. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort

Dall′Era

Konety

Cowan

et al. 2008

Cancer

Self Cite

359

243

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…117 The majority of population based studies have been published after 1999 and examples of these databases include: Medicare, 18,77,78 Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER), 77,83 the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (PCOS), 81,82,118 Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research and Endeavor (CaPSURE). 79,119 Finally, when choosing among treatment options, it is also important to consider the quality of life effects of a complication. 120 Several standardized measures for health related quality of life are widely utilized and include: SF-36, 18,29,41,71,73,79,119 the UCLA Prostate Cancer Index, 18,29,41,71,73 the AUA Symptom Score, 54,63 the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy, 71,121 the EORTC questionnaire 14,122 and the ICS Male Questionnaire.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the risk of long-term erectile, urinary and bowel symptoms resulting from prostate cancer treatment

Bhatnagar

Stewart

Huynh

et al. 2006

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reports on long-term complications resulting from treatment for localized prostate cancer are very inconsistent. In order to estimate the risks of long-term erectile dysfunction, urine symptoms and bowel symptoms following prostatectomy (RP), external conventional or conformal beam radiation (ERT or CRT) and brachytherapy (BRT), 98 papers from the PubMed and Cochrane Clinical Trial databases were selected, reviewed and critically evaluated. The majority of papers were institutionbased retrospective and prospective follow-up studies; only two of these studies measured the risk of developing more than one treatment complication. Due to differences in study designs and populations, it is difficult to directly compare studies and not meaningful to calculate summary estimates. In addition to focusing on randomized clinical trials and well-designed population based studies, future research should adopt standardized methodologies and should measure the risk of developing more than one treatment complication.

show abstract

“…There is no difference in overall survival rates between patients who remain on surveillance and those who seek deferred treatment [46]. Annual mortality rates of low-grade prostate cancer patients under active surveillance have been reported to remain stable at 15 years post-diagnosis, and similar or better health-related quality of life outcomes have been documented for those in watchful waiting programs when compared to controls [13,47]. The most common cause of death among active surveillance patients is cardiovascular disease, and the relative risk of non-prostate cancer related mortality has been calculated to be 10 times more likely than death due to prostate cancer [46].…”

Section: Active Surveillancementioning

confidence: 93%

The Risks and Benefits of Current Treatment Options for Prostate Cancer and Future Possibilities in Advanced Imaging and Targeted Therapy: A Review

Huebner

Barqawi²

2015

Arch Surg Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WATCHFUL WAITING AND HEALTH RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PATIENTS WITH LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER: DATA FROM CaPSURE

Cited by 52 publications

References 12 publications

Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort

Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort

Estimating the risk of long-term erectile, urinary and bowel symptoms resulting from prostate cancer treatment

The Risks and Benefits of Current Treatment Options for Prostate Cancer and Future Possibilities in Advanced Imaging and Targeted Therapy: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About