Active Surveillance Criteria for Prostate Cancer Amongst Dutch Urologists

Erwin Hendrik Denies; Filip Weckx; Rob Schipper; Bart Schrier

doi:doi:10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14

| Peer-Reviewed

Active Surveillance Criteria for Prostate Cancer Amongst Dutch Urologists

Erwin Hendrik Denies, Filip Weckx, Rob Schipper, Bart Schrier

Published in Cancer Research Journal (Volume 2, Issue 5)

Received: 23 September 2014 Accepted: 8 October 2014 Published: 20 October 2014

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

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.

Published in	Cancer Research Journal (Volume 2, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.crj.20140205.14
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), 2014. 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

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

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://article.sciencepublishinggroup.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

Author Information

Erwin Hendrik Denies

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

Department of Urology, Sint-Franciscusziekenhuis, Heusden-Zolder, Belgium
Rob Schipper

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

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

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

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://article.sciencepublishinggroup.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