Page 402 - An Evidence Review of Active Surveillance in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer
P. 402
Appendix Table C3.1 Studies on offer, acceptance, and adherence of active surveillance (continued)
Factors examined Author Study approach AS/WW definitions Findings Issues
Year
PMID
Offer of WW by Fowler 188 Survey (“pretested”) returned by WW = “expectant • ~10-20% of urologists and • Surveys sent to
MD 2000 504 urologists and 559 radiation management” radiation oncologists would urologists and radiation
10866869 oncologists; random sample of recommend WW if PSA ~5 oncologists were
urologists (response rate 64%) and ng/mL and Gleason score 4 or 5 somewhat different
radiation oncologists (response rate (Scenario was for a 65 yr man in • Survey response rate
76%) in the AMA Registry of good health, with negative DRE 64% (urologists) & 76%
Physicians who practiced at least and no evidence of nonlocalized (radiation oncologists)
20 h per week disease).
• Almost no (0-1%) would
recommend WW for those with
higher PSA or Gleason scores.
• No difference between
urologists and radiation
oncologists.
Offer of AS by Gorin 122 Survey of 185 men already on AS DRE + PSA q 3-4 mo • AS offered by the MD who • Non-validated survey
MD; 2011 (unclear selection procedure) in a for the first 2 yr, then q had made the initial dx in 38/105 instrument
acceptance of 21215429 university-based urologic oncology 6 mo; annual bx; (36%) • Population already
AS by patient practice (105 of 185, 57% sooner if significant • MD influence had the decided to enroll in AS
responded); pts were asked rise in PSA or change greatest impact on choosing AS • Had been on AS
whether the urologist who dx’d the in DRE; treatment (73%) varying times (some >2
cancer offered AS as a primary encouraged for ↑ • Concerns for incontinence yrs)
treatment alternative tumor volume, (48%) and erectile dysfunction • Survey response rate
Gleason ≥7 or >2 (44%) also reasons for choosing 57%
positive cores AS
Patient factors Holmboe 187 Open-ended interview of 102 men WW (not explicitly • 30% men stated that • Small sample size
affecting 2000 with localized disease who had provided) physician recommendation • Unclear details
acceptance 11089712 made a treatment decision but had influenced their treatment concerning WW
not yet received the treatment (88% decision
RP, RT or ADT; 12% WW); sample • 59% of patients discussed
obtained from 128 consecutive men WW (presumably with their
with newly dx’d localized disease, physicians)
pts drawn from a university, a VA, • Fear of consequences most
and 2 community urology practices common reason (64%) for not
selecting WW; some of the
others were perceived elevated
risk because of PSA or Gleason
(12%); physician (12%) and/or
family (4%) against WW
C-119
