Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Patterns of practice in the United States: Insights from CaPSURE on prostate cancer management

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) is a national disease registry of more than 10,000 patients with prostate cancer treated at 31 primarily community-based sites across the country. The database tracks oncologic and health-related quality-of-life outcomes. Because the urologists participating in the project treat according to their usual practices, CaPSURE facilitates the study of trends in disease-management strategies, offering a reflection of “real world” practice patterns. This review highlights key studies during the past several years that document downward risk migration, validates widely used prognostic nomograms, establishes prostatespecific antigen doubling time as a surrogate endpoint for disease-specific mortality, assesses the impact of treatment on patient-reported quality of life, and presents national trends in imaging test use and primary treatment strategies for localized disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al.: A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002, 347:781–789.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lubeck DP, Litwin MS, Henning JM, et al.: The CaPSURE database: a methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. CaPSURE Research Panel. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. Urology 1996, 48:773–777.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Penson DF, et al.: Sociodemographic and clinical risk characteristics of patients with prostate cancer within the Veterans Affairs health care system: data from CaPSURE. J Urol 2003, 170:905–908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al.: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998, 280:969–974.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Carroll PR: Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (Data from CaPSURE). J Urol 2003, 170:S21-S27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith EB, Frierson HF Jr, Mills SE, et al.: Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: Is there evidence for systematic upgrading? Cancer 2002, 94:2282–2287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Presti JC Jr, Shinohara K, Bacchetti P, et al.: Positive fraction of systematic biopsies predicts risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1998, 52:1079–1084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al.: Clinical utility of the percentage of positive prostate biopsies in defining biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000, 18:1164–1172.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Freedland SJ, Csathy GS, Dorey F, Aronson WJ: Percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer is more predictive of biochemical failure or adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy than prostate-specific antigen or Gleason score. J Urol 2002, 167:516–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grossfeld GD, Latini DM, Lubeck DP, et al.: Predicting disease recurrence in intermediate and high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy using percent positive biopsies: results from CaPSURE. Urology 2002, 59:560–565.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al.: The use of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer [see comments]. J Urol 1993, 150:110–114.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Penson DF, Grossfeld GD, Li YP, et al.: How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor. J Urol 2002, 167:1653–1658.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bauer JJ, Connelly RR, Seterhenn IA, et al.: Biostatistical modeling using traditional preoperative and pathological prognostic variables in the selection of men at high risk for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998, 159:929–933.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Moul JW, Connelly RR, Lubeck DP, et al.: Predicting risk of prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy with the Center for Prostate Disease Research and Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor databases. J Urol 2001, 166:1322–1327.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, et al.: A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:766–771.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Cagiannos I, et al.: International validation of a preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20:3206–3212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cooperberg MR, Greene KL, Grossfeld GD, et al.: Validation of the Kattan pre-treatment nomogram in community patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from CaPSURE [Abstract]. J Urol 2003, 169:1661.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Grossfeld GD, Latini DM, Lubeck DP, et al.: Predicting recurrence after radical prostatectomy for patients with high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2003, 169:157–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Grossfeld GD, Latini DM, Downs T, et al.: Is ethnicity an independent predictor of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy? J Urol 2002, 168:2510–2515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. D’Amico AV, Moul JW, Carroll PR, et al.: Surrogate end point for prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003, 95:1376–1383. If validated in future studies, PSADT may prove to be the first biochemical surrogate that actually predicts mortality outcomes across various treatment types.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wei JT, Dunn RL, Sandler HM, et al.: Comprehensive comparison of health-related quality of life after contemporary therapies for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20:557–566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Litwin MS, Lubeck DP, Henning JM, Carroll PR: Differences in urologist and patient assessments of health related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: results of the CaPSURE database. J Urol 1998, 159:1988–1992.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cooperberg MR, Koppie TM, Lubeck DP, et al.: How potent is potent? Evaluation of sexual function and bother in men who report potency after treatment for prostate cancer: data from CaPSURE. Urology 2003, 61:190–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Litwin MS, Pasta DJ, Yu J, et al.: Urinary function and bother after radical prostatectomy or radiation for prostate cancer: a longitudinal, multivariate quality of life analysis from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. J Urol 2000, 164:1973–1977.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Litwin MS, Flanders SC, Pasta DJ, et al.: Sexual function and bother after radical prostatectomy or radiation for prostate cancer: multivariate quality-of-life analysis from CaPSURE. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. Urology 1999, 54:503–508.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Talcott JA, Rieker P, Clark JA, et al.: Patient-reported symptoms after primary therapy for early prostate cancer: results of a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:275–283.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kindrick AV, Grossfeld GD, Stier DM, et al.: Use of imaging tests for staging newly diagnosed prostate cancer: trends from the CaPSURE database. J Urol 1998, 160:2102–2106.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Grossfeld GD, et al.: Contemporary trends in imaging test utilization for prostate cancer staging: data from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. J Urol 2002, 168:491–495.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cooperberg MR, Grossfeld GD, Lubeck DP, Carroll PR: National practice patterns and time trends in androgen ablation for localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003, 95:981–989. A detailed presentation of national trends in use of primary and neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for localized prostate cancer, in the context of current evidence for and against these treatment strategies.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. American Urological Association Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel: Report on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1995, 154:2144–2148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bolla M, Gonzalez D, Warde P, et al.: Improved survival in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and goserelin. N Engl J Med 1997, 337:295–300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Pilepich MV, Caplan R, Byhardt RW, et al.: Phase III trial of androgen suppression using goserelin in unfavorable-prognosis carcinoma of the prostate treated with definitive radiotherapy: report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 85-31. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:1013–1021.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Soloway MS, Pareek K, Sharifi R, et al.: Neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy in cT2bNxM0 prostate cancer: 5-year results. J Urol 2002, 167:112–116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Potters L, Torre T, Ashley R, Leibel S: Examining the role of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation in patients undergoing prostate brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000, 18:1187–1192.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Carter HB, Walsh PC, Landis P, Epstein JI: Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. J Urol 2002, 167:1231–1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Choo R, DeBoer G, Klotz L, et al.: PSA doubling time of prostate carcinoma managed with watchful observation alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 50:615–620.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Koppie TM, Grossfeld GD, Miller D, et al.: Patterns of treatment of patients with prostate cancer initially managed with surveillance: results from the CaPSURE database. J Urol 2000, 164:81–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Harlan SR, Cooperberg MR, Elkin EP, et al.: Time trends and characteristics of men choosing watchful waiting for initial treatment of localized prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2003, 170:1804–1807. This paper documents decreasing use of watchful waiting during the PSA era across all risk groups.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cooperberg MR, Mehta SS, Lubeck DP, et al.: The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and treatment patterns (data from CaPSURE) [Abstract]. J Urol 2003, 169:1723.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Koppie TM, Grossfeld GD, Miller D, et al.: Patterns of treatment of patients with prostate cancer initially managed with surveillance: results from The CaPSURE database. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urological Research Endeavor. J Urol 2000, 164:81–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Penson DF, Schonfeld WH, Flanders SC, et al.: Relationship of first-year costs of treating localized prostate cancer to initial choice of therapy and stage at diagnosis: results from the CAPSURE database. Urology 2001, 57:499–503.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cooperberg, M.R., Broering, J.M., Latini, D.M. et al. Patterns of practice in the United States: Insights from CaPSURE on prostate cancer management. Curr Urol Rep 5, 166–172 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-004-0033-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-004-0033-7

Keywords

Navigation