Cancer Research Journal

| Peer-Reviewed |

Active Surveillance Criteria for Prostate Cancer Amongst Dutch Urologists

Received: 23 September 2014    Accepted: 08 October 2014    Published: 20 October 2014
Views:       Downloads:

Share This Article

Abstract

Introduction: This survey amongst Dutch urologists aimed to investigate their criteria before enrolling patients to active surveillance (AS) and managing follow-up. Materials and Methods: An online survey was distributed to 421 Dutch urologists. Demographics, enrollment criteria, intervention criteria and the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in AS were questioned. Results: 15% responded and completed the survey. A major 98% see AS as an alternative treatment for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). 79% felt that patients with a PSA ≤10 ng/ml were eligible for AS and 74% felt that patients required a Gleason score ≤6 for admitting to AS. There was agreement on the timing of second biopsies but, not for subsequent biopsies. 58% see a role for MRI in AS. Conclusions: Dutch urologists are accepting AS. They were in agreement regarding enrollment criteria, the best time for second biopsy, but there was no agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies.

DOI 10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14
Published in Cancer Research Journal (Volume 2, Issue 5, September 2014)
Page(s) 98-101
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Active Surveillance, Survey, Watchful Waiting, Prostate Cancer

References
[1] Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, Carroll PR, Wirth M, Grimm MO et al. The contemporary concpt of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 291 – 303
[2] Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part1: screening, diagnosis and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61–71
[3] Gorin MA, Eldefrawy A, Ekwenna O, Soloway MS. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologists. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2012) 15, 177–181
[4] R.C. van den Bergh, S. Roemeling, M.J. Roobol, et al. Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int. 2009;103:1472-1477
[5] A.V. D’Amico, M.H. Chen, K.A. Roehl, W.J. Catalona, Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:125-135
[6] A.V. D’Amico, A.A. Renshaw, B. Sussman, M.H. Chen. Pretreatment PSA velocity and risk of death from prostate cancer following external beam radiation therapy. JAMA. 2005;294:440-447
[7] Van Den Bergh R. PRIAS: Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance - guideline and study for the expectant management of localized prostate cancer with curative intent. https://www.prias-project.org
[8] D.M. Latini, S.L. Hart, S.J. Knight, et al. The relationship between anxiety and time to treatment for patients with prostate cancer on surveillance. J Urol. 2007;178:826-831 discussion 831–2
[9] L. Klotz, L. Zhang, A. Lam, R. Nam, A. Mamedov, A. Loblaw. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:126-131
[10] M.A. Dall’Era, B.R. Konety, J.E. Cowan, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer. 2008;112:2664-2670
[11] G. Ploussard, E. Xylinas, X. Durand, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance when the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme. BJU Int. 2011;108:513-517
Author Information
  • Department of Urology, Jeroen Bosch ziekenhuis, ‘S Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

  • Department of Urology, Sint-Franciscusziekenhuis, Heusden-Zolder, Belgium

  • Department of Urology, Jeroen Bosch ziekenhuis, ‘S Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

  • Department of Urology, Jeroen Bosch ziekenhuis, ‘S Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    Erwin Hendrik Denies, Filip Weckx, Rob Schipper, Bart Schrier. (2014). Active Surveillance Criteria for Prostate Cancer Amongst Dutch Urologists. Cancer Research Journal, 2(5), 98-101. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Erwin Hendrik Denies; Filip Weckx; Rob Schipper; Bart Schrier. Active Surveillance Criteria for Prostate Cancer Amongst Dutch Urologists. Cancer Res. J. 2014, 2(5), 98-101. doi: 10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Erwin Hendrik Denies, Filip Weckx, Rob Schipper, Bart Schrier. Active Surveillance Criteria for Prostate Cancer Amongst Dutch Urologists. Cancer Res J. 2014;2(5):98-101. doi: 10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14,
      author = {Erwin Hendrik Denies and Filip Weckx and Rob Schipper and Bart Schrier},
      title = {Active Surveillance Criteria for Prostate Cancer Amongst Dutch Urologists},
      journal = {Cancer Research Journal},
      volume = {2},
      number = {5},
      pages = {98-101},
      doi = {10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14},
      eprint = {https://download.sciencepg.com/pdf/10.11648.j.crj.20140205.14},
      abstract = {Introduction: This survey amongst Dutch urologists aimed to investigate their criteria before enrolling patients to active surveillance (AS) and managing follow-up. Materials and Methods: An online survey was distributed to 421 Dutch urologists. Demographics, enrollment criteria, intervention criteria and the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in AS were questioned. Results: 15% responded and completed the survey. A major 98% see AS as an alternative treatment for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). 79% felt that patients with a PSA ≤10 ng/ml were eligible for AS and 74% felt that patients required a Gleason score ≤6 for admitting to AS. There was agreement on the timing of second biopsies but, not for subsequent biopsies. 58% see a role for MRI in AS. Conclusions: Dutch urologists are accepting AS. They were in agreement regarding enrollment criteria, the best time for second biopsy, but there was no agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies.},
     year = {2014}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - Active Surveillance Criteria for Prostate Cancer Amongst Dutch Urologists
    AU  - Erwin Hendrik Denies
    AU  - Filip Weckx
    AU  - Rob Schipper
    AU  - Bart Schrier
    Y1  - 2014/10/20
    PY  - 2014
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14
    DO  - 10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14
    T2  - Cancer Research Journal
    JF  - Cancer Research Journal
    JO  - Cancer Research Journal
    SP  - 98
    EP  - 101
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2330-8214
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14
    AB  - Introduction: This survey amongst Dutch urologists aimed to investigate their criteria before enrolling patients to active surveillance (AS) and managing follow-up. Materials and Methods: An online survey was distributed to 421 Dutch urologists. Demographics, enrollment criteria, intervention criteria and the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in AS were questioned. Results: 15% responded and completed the survey. A major 98% see AS as an alternative treatment for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). 79% felt that patients with a PSA ≤10 ng/ml were eligible for AS and 74% felt that patients required a Gleason score ≤6 for admitting to AS. There was agreement on the timing of second biopsies but, not for subsequent biopsies. 58% see a role for MRI in AS. Conclusions: Dutch urologists are accepting AS. They were in agreement regarding enrollment criteria, the best time for second biopsy, but there was no agreement on the timing of follow-up biopsies.
    VL  - 2
    IS  - 5
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

  • Sections