Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

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

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 15, pages 177–181 (2012)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, Carroll PR, Wirth M, Grimm MO et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, Ohori M, Wheeler T, Scardino PT . An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol 2004; 171: 1520–1524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, Metter EJ, Landis P, Walsh PC et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 2007; 178: 2359–2364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, Ogawa O, Suzukamo Y, Fukuhara S et al. Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008; 38: 122–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112: 2664–2670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Aus G, Hugosson J, Rannikko AS et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A . Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 126–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M . Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 831–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007; 177: 2106–2131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. National comprehensive cancer network clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer (version 4.2011). http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2011.

  12. Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L . Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: an update. Nat Rev Urol 2011; 8: 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gorin MA, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Soloway MS . Factors that influence patient enrollment in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2011; 77: 588–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Barocas DA, Cowan JE, SmithJr JA, Carroll PR . What percentage of patients with newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate are candidates for surveillance? An analysis of the CaPSURE database. J Urol 2008; 180: 1330–1334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van den Bergh RC, van Vugt HA, Korfage IJ, Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Schröder FH et al. Disease insight and treatment perception of men on active surveillance for early prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010; 105: 322–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. van den Bergh RC, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, Schroder FH, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW . Do anxiety and distress increase during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer? J Urol 2010; 183: 1786–1791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Daubenmier JJ, Weidner G, Marlin R, Crutchfield L, Dunn-Emke S, Chi C et al. Lifestyle and health-related quality of life of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Urology 2006; 67: 125–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Holmboe ES, Concato J . Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer: asking men what's important. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15: 694–701.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Berry DL, Ellis WJ, Woods NF, Schwien C, Mullen KH, Yang C . Treatment decision-making by men with localized prostate cancer: the influence of personal factors. Urol Oncol 2003; 21: 93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Davison BJ, Oliffe JL, Pickles T, Mroz L . Factors influencing men undertaking active surveillance for the management of low-risk prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 2009; 36: 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hadway P, Barrett LK, Waghorn DJ, Hasan K, Bdesha A, Haldar N et al. Urosepsis and bacteraemia caused by antibiotic-resistant organisms after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2009; 104: 1556–1558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lange D, Zappavigna C, Hamidizadeh R, Goldenberg SL, Paterson RF, Chew BH . Bacterial sepsis after prostate biopsy—a new perspective. Urology 2009; 74: 1200–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Klein T, Palisaar RJ, Holz A, Brock M, Noldus J, Hinkel A . The impact of prostate biopsy and periprostatic nerve block on erectile and voiding function: a prospective study. J Urol 2010; 184: 1447–1452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Raz O, Haider M, Trachtenberg J, Leibovici D, Lawrentschuk N . MRI for men undergoing active surveillance or with rising PSA and negative biopsies. Nat Rev Urol 2010; 7: 543–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rapp DE, Chanduri K, Infusino G, Hoda ZA, Orvieto MA, Elliott SP et al. Internet survey of management trends of urethral strictures. Urol Int 2008; 80: 287–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Swartz M, Vasavada S, Goldman H . Perioperative management of patients undergoing sling surgery: a survey of US urologists. Urology 2010; 76: 314–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank CURED and Vincent A Rodriguez.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

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

Authors
  1. M A Gorin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A Eldefrawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O Ekwenna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M S Soloway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M S Soloway.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gorin, M., Eldefrawy, A., Ekwenna, O. et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologists. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 15, 177–181 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.57

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.57

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links