Division of Urology, University of Colorado-Denver, Denver, CO; Cancer Outcomes and Public Policy Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Division of Bioethics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Jun;17(3):e472-e481. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.01.008. Epub 2019 Feb 7.
Clinical factors and barriers affecting adoption of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain poorly understood. We performed a national survey of radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (URO) about the perceptions and recommendations of AS for low-risk PCa.
In 2017, we surveyed 915 RO and 940 URO about AS for low-risk PCa in the United States. Survey items queried respondents about their attitudes toward AS and recommendations of AS for low-risk PCa. Pearson chi-square and multivariable logistic regression identified clinical and physician factors related toward AS for low-risk PCa.
Overall, the response rate was 37.3% (n = 691) and was similar for RO and URO (35.7% vs. 38.7%; P = .18). RO were less likely to consider AS effective for low-risk PCa (86.5% vs. 92.0%; P = .04) and more likely to rate higher patient anxiety on AS (49.5% vs. 29.5%; P < .001) than URO. Recommendations of AS varied modestly on the basis of age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and number of cores positive for Gleason 3 + 3 PCa. For a 55-year-old man with PSA 8 with 6 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, both RO and URO infrequently recommended AS (4.4% vs. 5.2%; adjusted odds ratio = 0.6; P = .28). For a 75-year-old patient with PSA 4 with 2 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, URO and RO most often recommended AS (89.6% vs. 83.4%; adjusted odds ratio = 0.5; P = .07).
RO and URO consider AS to be effective in the clinical management of low-risk PCa, but this varies by clinical and physician factors.
影响低危前列腺癌(PCa)采用主动监测(AS)的临床因素和障碍仍知之甚少。我们对美国的放射肿瘤学家(RO)和泌尿科医生(URO)进行了一项关于 AS 用于低危 PCa 的看法和建议的全国性调查。
2017 年,我们调查了 915 名 RO 和 940 名 URO,了解他们对低危 PCa 的 AS 态度和 AS 对低危 PCa 的建议。调查项目询问了受访者对 AS 用于低危 PCa 的态度以及对 AS 用于低危 PCa 的建议。Pearson 卡方检验和多变量逻辑回归确定了与 AS 用于低危 PCa 相关的临床和医生因素。
总的来说,应答率为 37.3%(n=691),RO 和 URO 的应答率相似(35.7%对 38.7%;P=0.18)。RO 认为 AS 对低危 PCa 的效果不如 URO(86.5%对 92.0%;P=0.04),并且认为 AS 会导致更高的患者焦虑(49.5%对 29.5%;P<0.001)。根据年龄、前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)和 Gleason 3+3 阳性核心数,AS 的建议略有不同。对于一名 55 岁、PSA 8、Gleason 6 前列腺癌 6 个核心的男性,RO 和 URO 很少建议 AS(4.4%对 5.2%;调整后的优势比=0.6;P=0.28)。对于一名 75 岁、PSA 4、Gleason 6 前列腺癌 2 个核心的患者,URO 和 RO 最常建议 AS(89.6%对 83.4%;调整后的优势比=0.5;P=0.07)。
RO 和 URO 认为 AS 对低危 PCa 的临床管理有效,但这因临床和医生因素而异。