Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: Knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologists

M. A. Gorin, A. Eldefrawy, O. Ekwenna, M. S. Soloway

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to survey urologists regarding their knowledge, acceptance and practice of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: An email-based survey was distributed to 4987 urologists. Respondents were surveyed regarding their knowledge and acceptance of AS. Those who felt AS was a reasonable strategy were asked their opinions on the criteria for AS enrollment and the details of their practice of AS. Respondents who felt AS was not a reasonable alternative were queried as to the reasons why. RESULTS: A total of 425 (9%) urologists successfully completed the survey and 387 (91%) were both familiar with AS and aware that AS differed from watchful waiting. Of this latter group, 370 (96%) respondents felt AS was a reasonable management strategy, 95% of whom manage patients with this approach. A minority of respondents (6%) felt that patients with a PSA>10 ng ml -1 were eligible for AS. Further, most participants (74%) felt that patients required a Gleason score 6. There was little agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies. Respondents who objected to AS were most commonly concerned with missing an opportunity for curative treatment (76%) and the risk of tumor undergrading (65%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants were knowledgeable and accepting of AS. Respondents were in relative agreement regarding the PSA and Gleason score criteria for AS enrollment. In contrast, there was a lack of agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies. In the future, comparative studies are required to determine the optimal enrollment criteria and follow-up protocol for patients managed with AS.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)177-181
Number of pages5
JournalProstate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
Volume15
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Neoplasm Grading
Watchful Waiting
Biopsy
Urologists
Surveys and Questionnaires
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • active surveillance
  • survey
  • watchful waiting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Urology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer : Knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologists. / Gorin, M. A.; Eldefrawy, A.; Ekwenna, O.; Soloway, M. S.

In: Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Vol. 15, No. 2, 01.06.2012, p. 177-181.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gorin, M. A. ; Eldefrawy, A. ; Ekwenna, O. ; Soloway, M. S. / Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer : Knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologists. In: Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. 2012 ; Vol. 15, No. 2. pp. 177-181.
@article{2951b92bff47443e8f4a4abfb83551d8,
title = "Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: Knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologists",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: This study aimed to survey urologists regarding their knowledge, acceptance and practice of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: An email-based survey was distributed to 4987 urologists. Respondents were surveyed regarding their knowledge and acceptance of AS. Those who felt AS was a reasonable strategy were asked their opinions on the criteria for AS enrollment and the details of their practice of AS. Respondents who felt AS was not a reasonable alternative were queried as to the reasons why. RESULTS: A total of 425 (9{\%}) urologists successfully completed the survey and 387 (91{\%}) were both familiar with AS and aware that AS differed from watchful waiting. Of this latter group, 370 (96{\%}) respondents felt AS was a reasonable management strategy, 95{\%} of whom manage patients with this approach. A minority of respondents (6{\%}) felt that patients with a PSA>10 ng ml -1 were eligible for AS. Further, most participants (74{\%}) felt that patients required a Gleason score 6. There was little agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies. Respondents who objected to AS were most commonly concerned with missing an opportunity for curative treatment (76{\%}) and the risk of tumor undergrading (65{\%}). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants were knowledgeable and accepting of AS. Respondents were in relative agreement regarding the PSA and Gleason score criteria for AS enrollment. In contrast, there was a lack of agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies. In the future, comparative studies are required to determine the optimal enrollment criteria and follow-up protocol for patients managed with AS.",
keywords = "active surveillance, survey, watchful waiting",
author = "Gorin, {M. A.} and A. Eldefrawy and O. Ekwenna and Soloway, {M. S.}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1038/pcan.2011.57",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "177--181",
journal = "Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases",
issn = "1365-7852",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

T2 - Knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologists

AU - Gorin, M. A.

AU - Eldefrawy, A.

AU - Ekwenna, O.

AU - Soloway, M. S.

PY - 2012/6/1

Y1 - 2012/6/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: This study aimed to survey urologists regarding their knowledge, acceptance and practice of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: An email-based survey was distributed to 4987 urologists. Respondents were surveyed regarding their knowledge and acceptance of AS. Those who felt AS was a reasonable strategy were asked their opinions on the criteria for AS enrollment and the details of their practice of AS. Respondents who felt AS was not a reasonable alternative were queried as to the reasons why. RESULTS: A total of 425 (9%) urologists successfully completed the survey and 387 (91%) were both familiar with AS and aware that AS differed from watchful waiting. Of this latter group, 370 (96%) respondents felt AS was a reasonable management strategy, 95% of whom manage patients with this approach. A minority of respondents (6%) felt that patients with a PSA>10 ng ml -1 were eligible for AS. Further, most participants (74%) felt that patients required a Gleason score 6. There was little agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies. Respondents who objected to AS were most commonly concerned with missing an opportunity for curative treatment (76%) and the risk of tumor undergrading (65%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants were knowledgeable and accepting of AS. Respondents were in relative agreement regarding the PSA and Gleason score criteria for AS enrollment. In contrast, there was a lack of agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies. In the future, comparative studies are required to determine the optimal enrollment criteria and follow-up protocol for patients managed with AS.

AB - BACKGROUND: This study aimed to survey urologists regarding their knowledge, acceptance and practice of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: An email-based survey was distributed to 4987 urologists. Respondents were surveyed regarding their knowledge and acceptance of AS. Those who felt AS was a reasonable strategy were asked their opinions on the criteria for AS enrollment and the details of their practice of AS. Respondents who felt AS was not a reasonable alternative were queried as to the reasons why. RESULTS: A total of 425 (9%) urologists successfully completed the survey and 387 (91%) were both familiar with AS and aware that AS differed from watchful waiting. Of this latter group, 370 (96%) respondents felt AS was a reasonable management strategy, 95% of whom manage patients with this approach. A minority of respondents (6%) felt that patients with a PSA>10 ng ml -1 were eligible for AS. Further, most participants (74%) felt that patients required a Gleason score 6. There was little agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies. Respondents who objected to AS were most commonly concerned with missing an opportunity for curative treatment (76%) and the risk of tumor undergrading (65%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants were knowledgeable and accepting of AS. Respondents were in relative agreement regarding the PSA and Gleason score criteria for AS enrollment. In contrast, there was a lack of agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies. In the future, comparative studies are required to determine the optimal enrollment criteria and follow-up protocol for patients managed with AS.

KW - active surveillance

KW - survey

KW - watchful waiting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861232311&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861232311&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/pcan.2011.57

DO - 10.1038/pcan.2011.57

M3 - Article

C2 - 22143447

AN - SCOPUS:84861232311

VL - 15

SP - 177

EP - 181

JO - Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

JF - Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

SN - 1365-7852

IS - 2

ER -