Watchful waiting vs. active surveillance: Which treatment option is right for patients with localized prostate cancer?

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil H Baum
2017 ◽  
Vol 72 (6) ◽  
pp. 899-907 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy Loeb ◽  
Qinlian Zhou ◽  
Uwe Siebert ◽  
Ursula Rochau ◽  
Beate Jahn ◽  
...  

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.


Author(s):  
Jan Herden ◽  
Andreas Schwarte ◽  
Thorsten Werner ◽  
Uwe Behrendt ◽  
Axel Heidenreich ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose To report on long-term outcomes of patients treated with active surveillance (AS) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the daily routine setting. Methods HAROW (2008–2013) was a non-interventional, health service research study about the management of localized PCa in the community setting, with 86% of the study centers being office-based urologists. A follow-up examination of all patients who opted for AS as primary treatment was carried out. Overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival, as well as discontinuation rates, were determined. Results Of 329 patients, 62.9% had very-low- and 21.3% low-risk tumours. The median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR 4.7–9.1). Twenty-eight patients (8.5%) died unrelated to PCa, of whom 19 were under AS or watchful waiting (WW). Additionally, seven patients (2.1%) developed metastasis. The estimated 10-year overall and metastasis-free survival was 86% (95% CI 81.7–90.3) and 97% (95% CI 94.6–99.3), respectively. One hundred eighty-seven patients (56.8%) discontinued AS changing to invasive treatment: 104 radical prostatectomies (RP), 55 radiotherapies (RT), and 28 hormonal treatments (HT). Another 50 patients switched to WW. Finally, 37.4% remained alive without invasive therapy (22.2% AS and 15.2% WW). Intervention-free survival differed between the risk groups: 47.8% in the very-low-, 33.8% in the low- and 34.6% in the intermediate-/high-risk-group (p = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, PSA-density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml2 was significantly predictive for receiving invasive treatment (HR 2.55; p = 0.001). Conclusion Even in routine care, AS can be considered a safe treatment option. Our results might encourage office-based urologists regarding the implementation of AS and to counteract possible concerns against this treatment option.


Author(s):  
Mitchell M. Huang ◽  
Ridwan Alam ◽  
Andrew T. Gabrielson ◽  
Zhuo T. Su ◽  
Borna Kassiri ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document