Dataset Information

Active surveillance versus surgery for low risk prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis.

ABSTRACT: We assessed the effect of age, health status and patient preferences on outcomes of surgery vs active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer.We used Monte Carlo simulation of Markov models of the life courses of 200,000 men diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer and treated with surveillance or radical prostatectomy to calculate quality adjusted life expectancy, life expectancy, prostate cancer specific mortality and years of treatment side effects, with model parameters derived from the literature. We simulated outcomes for men 50 to 75 years old with poor, average or excellent health status (50%, 100% and 150% of average life expectancy, respectively). Sensitivity of outcomes to uncertainties in model parameters was tested.For 65-year-old men in average health, surgery resulted in 0.3 additional years of life expectancy, 1.6 additional years of impotence or incontinence and a 4.9% decrease in prostate cancer specific mortality compared to surveillance, for a net difference of 0.05 fewer quality adjusted life years. Increased age and poorer baseline health status favored surveillance. With greater than 95% probability, surveillance resulted in net benefits compared to surgery for age older than 74, 67 and 54 years for men in excellent, average and poor health, respectively. Patient preferences toward life under surveillance, biochemical recurrence of disease, treatment side effects and future discount rate affected optimal management choice.Older men and men in poor health are likely to have better quality adjusted life expectancy with active surveillance. However, specific individual preferences impact optimal choices and should be a primary consideration in shared decision making.

SUBMITTER: Liu D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3952430 | biostudies-other | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Active surveillance versus surgery for low risk prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis.

Liu David D Lehmann Harold P HP Frick Kevin D KD Carter H Ballentine HB

The Journal of urology 20120214 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>We assessed the effect of age, health status and patient preferences on outcomes of surgery vs active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We used Monte Carlo simulation of Markov models of the life courses of 200,000 men diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer and treated with surveillance or radical prostatectomy to calculate quality adjusted life expectancy, life expectancy, prostate cancer specific mortality and years of treatment side effec ...[more]

PMID: 22335873

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the United States, 192,000 men were diagnosed as having prostate cancer in 2009, the majority with low-risk, clinically localized disease. Treatment of these cancers is associated with substantial morbidity. Active surveillance is an alternative to initial treatment, but long-term outcomes and effect on quality of life have not been well characterized.To examine the quality-of-life benefits and risks of active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer.Decision analysis using a simulation model was performed: men were treated at diagnosis with brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or radical prostatectomy or followed up by active surveillance (a strategy of close monitoring of newly diagnosed patients with serial prostate-specific antigen measurements, digital rectal examinations, and biopsies, with treatment at disease progression or patient choice). Probabilities and utilities were derived from previous studies and literature review. In the base case, the relative risk of prostate cancer-specific death for initial treatment vs active surveillance was assumed to be 0.83. Men incurred short- and long-term adverse effects of treatment.Hypothetical cohorts of 65-year-old men newly diagnosed as having clinically localized, low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL, stage ?T2a disease, and Gleason score ?6).Quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE).Active surveillance was associated with the greatest QALE (11.07 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), followed by brachytherapy (10.57 QALYs), IMRT (10.51 QALYs), and radical prostatectomy (10.23 QALYs). Active surveillance remained associated with the highest QALE even if the relative risk of prostate cancer-specific death for initial treatment vs active surveillance was as low as 0.6. However, the QALE gains and the optimal strategy were highly dependent on individual preferences for living under active surveillance and for having been treated.Under a wide range of assumptions, for a 65-year-old man, active surveillance is a reasonable approach to low-risk prostate cancer based on QALE compared with initial treatment. However, individual preferences play a central role in the decision whether to treat or to pursue active surveillance.

Project description:BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) is a viable management option for approximately 50% of men who are newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. To the authors' knowledge, no direct comparisons between the different variants of AS protocols have been conducted to date. The authors developed a microsimulation decision model to evaluate which of 3 alternative AS protocols is optimal for men with low-risk prostate cancer, and compared each of these with immediate treatment.MethodsMen who were diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer at age 65 years were modeled as having been treated with either immediate therapy or via each of 3 AS protocols. Modeled AS protocols represent those in the literature; a modified AS protocol was included in a sensitivity analysis. Immediate therapy included radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsImmediate therapy produced fewer QALYs than all variants of AS. Of the AS protocols evaluated, biennial biopsy was found to be the only efficient option, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3490 per QALY compared with immediate therapy. It delayed the need for curative therapy by a mean of 56 months, and was found to be preferred in >86.9% of cases in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. A modified version of low-intensity AS dominated all other options.ConclusionsFor a 65-year-old man with low-risk prostate cancer, AS with biennial biopsy appears to be highly cost-effective compared with common alternatives. An AS protocol using triennial biopsy was found to dominate all other strategies and should be considered for men who are comfortable with a longer period between biopsies. The optimal strategy depends on a patient's tolerance for periodic biopsies and comfort with delaying radical treatment. Physicians should incorporate these patient preferences into decision making.

Project description:Background: Active surveillance (AS) of small, low-risk papillary thyroid cancers (PTCs) is increasingly being considered. There is limited understanding of why individuals with low-risk PTC may choose AS over traditional surgical management. Methods: We present a mixed-methods analysis of a prospective observational real-life decision-making study regarding the choice of thyroidectomy or AS for management of localized, low-risk PTCs <2 cm in maximum diameter (NCT03271892). Patients were provided standardized medical information and were interviewed after making their decision (which dictated disease management). We evaluated patients' levels of decision-self efficacy (confidence in medical decision-making ability) at the time information was presented and their level of decision satisfaction after finalizing their decision (using standardized questionnaires). We asked patients to explain the reason for their choice and qualitatively analyzed the results. Results: We enrolled 74 women and 26 men of mean age 52.4 years, with a mean PTC size of 11.0 mm (interquartile range 9.0, 14.0 mm). Seventy-one patients (71.0% [95% confidence interval 60.9-79.4%]) chose AS over surgery. Ninety-four percent (94/100) of participants independently made their own disease management choice; the rest shared the decision with their physician. Participants had a high baseline level of decision self-efficacy (mean 94.3, standard deviation 9.6 on a 100-point scale). Almost all (98%, 98/100) participants reported high decision satisfaction. Factors reported by patients as influencing their decision included the following: perceived risk of thyroidectomy or the cancer, family considerations, treatment timing in the context of life circumstances, and trust in health care providers. Conclusions: In this Canadian study, ∼7 out of 10 patients with small, low-risk PTC, who were offered the choice of AS or surgery, chose AS. Personal perceptions about cancer or thyroidectomy, contextual factors, family considerations, and trust in health care providers strongly influenced patients' disease management choices.

Project description:ImportanceActive surveillance is an important option to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment, but it remains underutilized in many countries. Models from the United States show that greater use of active surveillance is important for prostate cancer screening to be cost-effective.ObjectivesTo perform an up-to-date, nationwide, population-based study on use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer in Sweden.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden from 2009 through 2014. The NPCR has data on 98% of prostate cancers diagnosed in Sweden and has comprehensive linkages to other nationwide databases. Overall, 32 518 men with a median age of 67 years were diagnosed with favorable-risk prostate cancer, including 4693, 15 403, and 17 115 men with very-low-risk (subset of the low-risk group) (clinical stage, T1c; Gleason score, ≤6; prostate-specific antigen [PSA], <10 ng/mL; PSA density <0.15 ng/mL/cm3; and <8-mm total cancer length in ≤4 positive biopsy cores), low-risk (including all men in the very-low-risk group) (T1-T2; Gleason score, ≤6; and PSA, <10 ng/mL), and intermediate-risk disease (T1-T2 with Gleason score, 7 and/or PSA, 10-20 ng/mL).ExposuresDiagnosis with favorable-risk prostate cancer.Main outcomes and measuresUtilization of active surveillance.ResultsThe use of active surveillance increased in men of all ages from 57% (380 of 665) to 91% (939 of 1027) for very-low-risk prostate cancer and from 40% (1159 of 2895) to 74% (1951 of 2644) for low-risk prostate cancer, with the strongest increase occurring from 2011 onward. Among men aged 50 to 59 years, 88% (211 of 240) with very-low-risk and 68% (351 of 518) with low-risk disease chose active surveillance in 2014. Use of active surveillance for intermediate-risk disease remained lower, 19% (561 of 3030) in 2014.Conclusions and relevanceActive surveillance has become the dominant management for low-risk prostate cancer among men in Sweden, with the highest rates yet reported and almost complete uptake for very-low-risk cancer. These data should serve as a benchmark to compare the use of active surveillance for favorable-risk disease around the world.

Project description:ImportanceActive surveillance (AS) is now recognized as the preferred management option for most low-risk prostate cancers to minimize risks of overtreatment. Despite increasing use of AS in the US, wide regional variability has been observed, and these regional variations in contemporary practice have not been well described.ObjectiveTo explore variations between county and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions in AS in the US.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study using the SEER Prostate with Watchful Waiting (WW) database linked to the County Area Health Resource File for detailed county-level demographics and physician distribution data was conducted from January 2010 to December 2015. Analysis was performed in October 2020. A total of 79 825 men with clinically localized, low-risk prostate cancer eligible for AS or WW were included.ExposuresMultiple patient-, county-, and SEER region-level factors, including age, year of diagnosis, county-level densities of urologists, radiation oncologists, primary care physicians, and SEER registry region.Main outcomes and measuresUse of AS or WW as the initial reported treatment strategy were noted. Hierarchical mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to evaluate clustered random regional variation on use of AS or WW. Temporal trends by year in proportions of initial treatment type, as well as county-level local variation, were also estimated.ResultsOf 79 825 men (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [7.6] years, 11 292 [14.1%] non-Hispanic Black, 7506 [9.4%] Hispanic) with low-risk prostate cancer, the mean annualized percent increase in AS rates from 2010 to 2015 ranged from 6.3% in New Mexico to 81.0% in New Jersey. Differences across SEER regions accounted for 17% of the total variation in AS. Increasing age (51-60 years: odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.21-1.46; 61-70 years: OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.70-2.04; 71-80 years: OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 2.05-2.50) was associated with greater odds of AS. Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85), T category (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84), and Medicaid enrollment (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81) were associated with lower odds of AS. Black race, county-level socioeconomic factors (household income, educational level, and city type), and specialist densities were not associated with AS use.Conclusions and relevanceIn this US cohort study based on the SEER-WW database, although the use of AS increased, considerable practice variation appeared to be associated with geographic location, but use of AS was not associated with Black race, specialty professional density, or socioeconomic factors. This small area variation underlies the broader national trends in AS practice and may inform policies aimed at continuing to affect risk-appropriate care for men throughout the US.

Project description:IntroductionLow-risk papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) is increasingly being diagnosed throughout the world; yet the mortality risk is low compared with other malignancies. Traditional management includes thyroid surgery, sometimes followed by radioactive iodine and thyroid hormone treatment. Active surveillance (AS) has been proposed as a means to reduce overtreatment of PTC. AS involves close disease follow-up, with the intention to intervene if the disease progresses, or on patient request.Methods and analysisThis is a multiphase prospective observational study. In the first phase of this study, consenting eligible adults with low-risk PTC, that is, <2 cm in maximal diameter, confined to the thyroid and not immediately adjacent to critical structures in the neck, are provided verbal and written information about PTC disease prognosis following surgery or AS. Questionnaires are administered at baseline and after the disease management decision on AS or surgery is finalised. Patients may choose either option (surgery or AS), and the primary outcome is the frequency with which either disease management option is chosen. Secondary outcomes include: rationale for the decision, role of the patient in decision-making and decision satisfaction. In the second phase of the study, consenting eligible adult patients who completed the first study phase may enrol in respective AS or surgery group follow-up studies. The following outcomes are examined 1 year after enrolment in the follow-up phase: decision regret about disease management choice (primary outcome), psychological distress, disease-specific quality of life, fear of disease progression, body image satisfaction, disease progression, crossover to surgery in the AS group, new chronic thyroid hormone use and healthcare resource utilisation.Ethics and disseminationThe University Health Network Research Ethics Board approved this study (ID 15-8942). The results will be published in an open access journal.Trial registration numberNCT03271892; Pre-results.

Project description:ImportanceThere are few published studies prospectively assessing pharmacological interventions that may delay prostate cancer progression in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS).ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide monotherapy plus AS vs AS alone in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThe ENACT study was a phase 2, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2016 to August 2020 at 66 US and Canadian sites. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had received a diagnosis of histologically proven low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer within 6 months of screening, and were undergoing AS. Patients were monitored during 1 year of treatment and up to 2 years of follow-up. Data analysis was conducted in February 2021.InterventionsRandomized 1:1 to enzalutamide, 160 mg, monotherapy for 1 year or continued AS, as stratified by cancer risk and follow-up biopsy type.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was time to pathological or therapeutic prostate cancer progression (pathological, ≥1 increase in primary or secondary Gleason pattern or ≥15% increased cancer-positive cores; therapeutic, earliest occurrence of primary therapy for prostate cancer). Secondary end points included incidence of a negative biopsy result, percentage of cancer-positive cores, and incidence of a secondary rise in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 1 and 2 years, as well as time to PSA progression. Adverse events were monitored to assess safety.ResultsA total of 114 patients were randomized to treatment with enzalutamide plus AS and 113 to AS alone; baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [7.8] years; 1 Asian individual [0.4%], 21 Black or African American individuals [9.3%], 1 Hispanic individual [0.4%], and 204 White individuals [89.9%]). Enzalutamide significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer progression by 46% vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.89; P = .02). Compared with AS, odds of a negative biopsy result were 3.5 times higher; there was a significant reduction in the percentage of cancer-positive cores and the odds of a secondary rise in serum PSA levels at 1 year with treatment with enzalutamide; no significant difference was observed at 2 years. Treatment with enzalutamide also significantly delayed PSA progression by 6 months vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97; P = .03). The most commonly reported adverse events during enzalutamide treatment were fatigue (62 [55.4%]) and gynecomastia (41 [36.6%]). Three patients in the enzalutamide arm died; none were receiving the study drug at the time of death. No deaths were considered treatment-related.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that enzalutamide monotherapy was well-tolerated and demonstrated a significant treatment response in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. Enzalutamide may provide an alternative treatment option for patients undergoing AS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02799745.

Dataset Information

Active surveillance versus surgery for low risk prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis.

Publications

Active surveillance versus surgery for low risk prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets