OBJECTIVE: To understand the current practice pattern of active surveillance using a nationwide survey among Japanese urologists.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
METHODS: A new questionnaire about active surveillance was developed and mailed to 863 training institutes in January 2014. The questionnaire included indications for active surveillance, percentage of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer, problems with active surveillance, which protocol was used, timing of first repeat biopsy, use of prostate-specific antigen or doubling time and use of magnetic resonance imaging.
RESULTS: A total of 2133 Japanese urologists in the 632 training institutes answered the questionnaire. The median age was 42 years (26-84 years). Of the responders, 26.9% had no use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance criteria were most frequently used (29.7%), followed by a low-risk group without a definitive follow-up protocol (29.4%). Regarding repeat biopsy, 40.6% carried it out at 1 year after active surveillance initiation, but 24.1% did not usually carry it out and 31.8% carried it out only when they considered it necessary. Magnetic resonance imaging was used routinely in 22.2% and as required in 67.6%. Re-biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging was less carried out in general hospitals than in universities. The percentage of no usual repeat biopsy was significantly higher in urologists who had more than 10 years of experience. Repeat biopsies (60.3%), inadequate inclusion criteria (49.9%), psychological burden for patients (43.7%), unexpected progression (41.1%) and unknown long-term outcomes (40.6%) were considered the major problems of active surveillance in the responders.
CONCLUSIONS: The practice pattern of active surveillance varies widely among Japanese urologists. It is necessary to gain a correct understanding of active surveillance.
Mitsuzuka K, Koga H, Sugimoto M, Arai Y, Ohyama C, Kakehi Y, Naito S. Are you the author?
Department of Urology, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan; Department of Urology, Hara Sanshin Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan; Department of Urology, Kagawa University Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa, Japan; Department of Urology, Hirosaki University School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan; Department of Urology, Kyushu University School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan.
Reference: Int J Urol. 2015 May 10. Epub ahead of print.