Watchful Waiting and Factors Predictive of Secondary Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer

2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (3) ◽  
pp. 1111-1116 ◽  
Author(s):  
HONGYAN WU ◽  
LEON SUN ◽  
JUDD W. MOUL ◽  
HONGYU WU ◽  
DAVID G. McLEOD ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 72 (6) ◽  
pp. 899-907 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy Loeb ◽  
Qinlian Zhou ◽  
Uwe Siebert ◽  
Ursula Rochau ◽  
Beate Jahn ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 22-22
Author(s):  
Luca Afferi ◽  
Stefania Zamboni ◽  
Philipp Baumeister ◽  
Livio Mordasini ◽  
Agostino Mattei ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 159 (5) ◽  
pp. 1431-1436 ◽  
Author(s):  
GARY D. STEINBERG ◽  
GREGORY T. BALES ◽  
CHARLES B. BRENDLER

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 215-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Mollica ◽  
Lisa M Lines ◽  
Timothy S. McNeel ◽  
Serban Negoita ◽  
Sarah Gaillot ◽  
...  

215 Background: Over 161,000 new prostate cancer patients diagnosed annually, with 75% diagnosed at early stages. Limited evidence exists supporting choice of treatment (including radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, active surveillance or watchful waiting) for localized prostate cancer. Treatments have varying side effects associated with impaired functional status and health-related quality of life. Patient care experiences are important quality indicators, but research examining patient experiences by prostate cancer treatment is limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between treatment received (surgery, radiation, or no treatment) and CAHPS ratings of overall care over the prior six months. Methods: This study used data from SEER-CAHPS, which links Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data with Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) patient experience survey and Medicare claims data. Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries ≥65 years with a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosis were assigned to surgery only, radiation only, and no treatment received groups for analysis. The outcome variable was a CAHPS rating of overall care (0 = worst; 10 = best). The analysis adjusted for case mix and other cancer-specific variables. Results: The final cohort included 507 prostate cancer survivors (surgery n = 109 [21%]; radiation n = 197 [39%]; no treatment n = 201 [40%]). Respondents who received radiation rated their overall care higher than those not receiving treatment (adjusted mean 8.9 vs 8.3; p= 0.02). Ratings did not differ significantly between the surgery and no treatment groups. Conclusions: This study represents a first look at patient experiences among localized prostate cancer survivors receiving surgery, radiation, or no treatment. It is not clear whether those who did not receive treatment chose active surveillance or watchful waiting, or whether they did not have access to care, which could have affected results. Future research should explore associations between receipt of treatment and patient care experiences in an adequately powered sample to inform future interventions.


2008 ◽  
Vol 179 (5S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelley A. Arredondo ◽  
Tracy M. Downs ◽  
Deborah P. Lubeck ◽  
David J. Pasta ◽  
Stefanie J. Silva ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 170 (5) ◽  
pp. 1804-1807 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUSAN R. HARLAN ◽  
MATTHEW R. COOPERBERG ◽  
ERIC P. ELKIN ◽  
DEBORAH P. LUBECK ◽  
MAXWELL V. MENG ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Mojtaba NOUHI ◽  
Seyed Masood MOUSAVI ◽  
Alireza OLYAEEMANESH ◽  
Nasser SHAKSISALIM ◽  
Ali AKBARI SARI

Background: The present study aimed to compare the long-term clinical and functional outcomes of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy compared to the watchful waiting. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and reference lists of relevant marker studies were scrutinized from inception to Jan 2018. Two reviewers conducted data abstraction and quality assessment of included trials independently. Quality of included studies were assessed by using Cochrane checklist. Inverse-variance and Mantel-Haenszel estimates under random effects model were used to pool results as relative risks with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was assessed by using I2. Results: Three randomized controlled trials with 1568 participants were included. Compared to watchful waiting, radical prostatectomy had no significant effect on all-cause mortality at 12-year follow-up. However, radical prostatectomy had significant effect on reducing prostate-cause mortality at 12-year follow-up. We found significant lower prostate-cause mortality in patients with PSA>10 and GS≥7 scores who had undergone radical prostatectomy compared with patients in watchful waiting group. In addition, younger patients undergoing surgery developed lower distant metastases rate compared to another approach. Watchful waiting had a significant effect on erectile and urinary incontinence during 2 years. Conclusion: There was no significant difference between radical prostatectomy and watchful waiting on all-cause mortality. However, the radical prostatectomy was associated with statistically lower prostate-cause mortality and metastases rates. Compared with older men, younger men experienced better clinical outcomes. Moreover, watchful waiting had better effect on reducing erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence among patients during 2 years compared to radical prostatectomy.  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document