This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
This study uses US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data to characterize trends in the use of watchful waiting and active surveillance as strategies for managing low-risk prostate cancer in US ...veterans from 2005 through 2015.
Purpose While major prostate cancer active surveillance programs recommend repeat testing such as prostate specific antigen and prostate biopsy, to our knowledge compliance with such testing is ...unknown. We determined whether men in the community receive the same intensity of active surveillance testing as in prospective active surveillance protocols. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of men 66 years old or older in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare database. These men were diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2001 to 2009, did not receive curative therapy in the year after diagnosis and underwent 1 or more post-diagnosis prostate biopsies. We used multivariable adjusted Poisson regression to determine the association of the frequency of active surveillance testing with patient demographics and clinical features. In 1,349 men with 5 years or less of followup we determined the proportion who underwent testing as intense as that recommended by the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and PRIAS (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance) programs, including 14 or more PSA tests and 2 or more biopsies, and The Johns Hopkins program, including 10 or more prostate specific antigen tests and 4 or more biopsies. Results Among 5,192 patients undergoing active surveillance greater than 80% had 1 or more prostate specific antigen tests per year but fewer than 13% underwent biopsy beyond the first 2 years. Magnetic resonance imaging was rarely done during the study period. On multivariable analysis recent diagnosis and higher income were associated with a higher frequency of surveillance biopsy while older age and greater comorbidity were associated with fewer biopsies. African American men underwent fewer prostate specific antigen tests but a similar number of biopsies. During 5 years of active surveillance only 11.1% and 5.0% of patients met the testing standards of the Sunnybrook/PRIAS and The Johns Hopkins programs, respectively. Conclusions In the community few elderly men receive the intensity of active surveillance testing recommended in major prospective active surveillance programs.
Abstract Background Active surveillance (AS) is an important yet underutilized strategy to reduce prostate cancer (PCa) overtreatment. Objective To examine the 5-yr outcomes of AS in a ...population-based setting. Design, setting, and participants From the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden, we identified 11 726 men ≤70 yr diagnosed with very low-risk to intermediate-risk PCa from 2003 to 2007 who completed 5 yr of follow-up. Of these men, 1729 (15%) chose AS for the primary management strategy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis We calculated the probability of discontinuation of AS over time, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine factors associated with discontinuation. Reasons for discontinuation were assessed by data extraction from medical charts. Results and limitations By 5 yr, 64% of the men remained on AS. Predictors of discontinuation were younger age, fewer comorbidities, more education, higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and clinical stage T2 disease; marital status did not predict discontinuation. In a subset with data on the reason for discontinuation (86%), 20% of men discontinued because of patient preference, 52% because of PSA progression, 24% because of biopsy progression, and 3% for other reasons. Conclusions In a population-based setting, the majority of men remained on AS at 5 yr. However, one-fifth of the men who discontinued AS did so for nonbiologic reasons. Thus, there is a need for support and counseling for men to continue AS in the absence of signs of progression to improve adherence to AS and decrease overtreatment. Patient summary Active surveillance (AS) is an important option to delay or avoid treatment for men with favorable prostate cancer features. This study shows that at 5 yr, 64% of men across an entire population remained on AS. We concluded that AS is a durable option and that counseling may be useful to promote adherence for men without progression.
To evaluate the influence of immortal time bias on observational cohort studies of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) and the effectiveness of sequential landmark analysis to account for this bias.
...First, we reviewed previous studies of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to determine how frequently this bias was considered. Second, we used SEER to select three tumor types (glioblastoma multiforme, Stage IA-IVM0 gastric adenocarcinoma, and Stage II-III rectal carcinoma) for which prospective trials demonstrated an improvement in survival associated with PORT. For each tumor type, we calculated conditional survivals and adjusted hazard ratios of PORT vs. postoperative observation cohorts while restricting the sample at sequential monthly landmarks.
Sixty-two percent of previous SEER publications evaluating PORT failed to use a landmark analysis. As expected, delivery of PORT for all three tumor types was associated with improved survival, with the largest associated benefit favoring PORT when all patients were included regardless of survival. Preselecting a cohort with a longer minimum survival sequentially diminished the apparent benefit of PORT.
Although the majority of previous SEER articles do not correct for it, immortal time bias leads to altered estimates of PORT effectiveness, which are very sensitive to landmark selection. We suggest the routine use of sequential landmark analysis to account for this bias.
The Veterans Health Administration is chartered "to serve as the primary backup for any health care services needed…in the event of war or national emergency" according to a 1982 Congressional Act. ...This mission was invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to divert clinical and research resources. We used an electronic mixed-methods questionnaire constructed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation (COM-B) model for behavior change to study the effects of the pandemic on VHA researchers. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to 118 cancer researchers participating in national VHA collaborations. The questionnaire received 42 responses (36%). Only 36% did not feel that their research focus changed during the pandemic. Only 26% reported prior experience with infectious disease research, and 74% agreed that they gained new research skills. When asked to describe helpful support structures, 29% mentioned local supervisors, mentors, and research staff, 15% cited larger VHA organizations and 18% mentioned remote work. Lack of timely communication and remote work, particularly for individuals with caregiving responsibilities, were limiting factors. Fewer than half felt professionally rewarded for pursuing research related to COVID. This study demonstrated the tremendous effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities of VHA investigators. We identified perceptions of insufficient recognition and lack of professional advancement related to pandemic-era research, yet most reported gaining new research skills. Individualizing the structure of remote work and ensuring clear and timely team communication represent high yield areas for improvement.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Objectives To update the 2001 “Partin tables” with a contemporary patient cohort and revised variable categorization, correcting for the effects of stage migration. Methods We analyzed 5730 men ...treated with prostatectomy (without neoadjuvant therapy) between 2000 and 2005 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Average age was 57 years. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of organ-confined disease, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle involvement, or lymph node involvement. Predictor variables included preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (0 to 2.5, 2.6 to 4.0, 4.1 to 6.0, 6.1 to 10.0, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL), clinical stage (T1c, T2a, and T2b/T2c), and biopsy Gleason score (5 to 6, 3 + 4 = 7, 4 + 3 = 7, or 8 to 10). Bootstrap resampling was used to generate 95% confidence intervals for predicted probabilities. Results Seventy-seven percent of patients had T1c, 76% had Gleason score 5 to 6, 80% had a PSA level between 2.5 and 10.0 ng/mL, and 73% had organ-confined disease. Nomograms were developed for the predicted probability of pathologically organ-confined disease, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, or lymph node involvement. The risk of non-organ-confined disease increased with increases in any individual prognostic factor. The dramatic decrease in clinical stage T2c compared with the patient series used in the previous models resulted in T2b and T2c being combined as a single predictor in the nomogram. Conclusions These updated “Partin tables” were generated to reflect trends in presentation and pathologic stage for men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer at our institution. Clinicians and patients can use these nomograms to help make important decisions regarding management of prostate cancer.
Tobacco use is a causative or exacerbating risk factor for benign and malignant urological disease. However, it is not well known how often urologists screen for tobacco use and provide tobacco ...cessation treatment at the population level. We sought to evaluate how often urologists see patients for tobacco-related diagnoses in the outpatient setting and how often these visits include tobacco use screening and treatment.
We used the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey public use files for the years 2014-2016 to identify all outpatient urology visits with adults 18 years old or older. Clinic visit reasons were categorized according to diagnoses associated with the encounter: all urological diagnoses, a tobacco-related urological condition or a urological cancer. Our primary outcome was the percentage of visits during which tobacco screening was reported. Secondary outcomes included reported delivery of cessation counseling and provision of cessation pharmacotherapy.
We identified 4,625 unique urological outpatient encounters, representing a population-weighted estimate of 63.9 million visits over 3 years. Approximately a third of all urology visits were for a tobacco-related urological diagnosis and 15% were for urological cancers. An estimated 1.1 million visits over 3 years were with patients who identified as current tobacco users. Of all visits, 70% included tobacco screening. However, only 7% of visits with current smokers included counseling and only 3% of patients were prescribed medications. No differences in screening and treatment were observed between visit types.
Urologists regularly see patients for tobacco-related conditions and frequently, although not universally, screen patients for tobacco. However, urologists rarely offer counseling or cessation treatment. These findings may represent missed opportunities to decrease the morbidity associated with tobacco use.
To assess urologists’ perceptions and practices related to smoking and smoking cessation.
Six survey questions were designed to assess beliefs, practices, and determinants related to tobacco use ...assessment and treatment (TUAT) in outpatient urology clinics. These questions were included in an annual census survey (2021) offered to all practicing urologists. Responses were weighted to represent the practicing US population of nonpediatric urologists (N=12,852). The primary outcome was affirmative responses to the question, “Do you agree it is important for urologists to screen for and provide smoking cessation treatment to patients in the outpatient clinic?” Practice patterns, perceptions, and opinions of optimal care delivery were assessed.
In total, 98% of urologists agreed (27%) or strongly agreed (71%) that cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to urologic disease. However, only 58% agreed that TUAT is important in urology clinics. Most urologists (61%) advise patients who smoke to quit but do not provide additional cessation counseling or medications or arrange follow-up. The most frequently identified barriers to TUAT were lack of time (70%), perceptions that patients are unwilling to quit (44%), and lack of comfort prescribing cessation medications (42%). Additionally, 72% of respondents stated that urologists should provide a recommendation to quit and refer patients for cessation support.
TUAT does not routinely occur in an evidence-based fashion in outpatient urology clinics. Addressing established barriers and facilitating these practices with multilevel implementation strategies can promote tobacco treatment and improve outcomes for patients with urologic disease.
PDF
