Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 383–391 | Cite as

Utilization of Active Surveillance and Watchful Waiting for localized prostate cancer in the daily practice

  • Jan HerdenEmail author
  • Lothar Weissbach
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the utilization of Active Surveillance (AS) and Watchful Waiting (WW) in the daily routine setting, since both are non-invasive treatment options for localized prostate cancer (PCa), which are used in a curative (AS) or palliative (WW) setting. Since differentiation of both strategies is not always clear, patients were compared with respect to the inclusion criteria, frequency of follow-up examinations (Prostate Specific Antigen = PSA tests, rebiopsies), and initiation of a deferred treatment.

Methods

HAROW is a non-interventional, health-service research study on the management of localized PCa in the community setting. Of 3169 patients, prospectively enrolled from 2008 to 2013 with a mean follow-up of 28.2 months, 468 chose AS and 126 WW. Treating urologists reported clinical variables, information on therapy and clinical course of disease.

Results

AS patients were significantly younger and had more low-risk tumors. No differences were seen in the number of PSA tests during follow-up: mean number of PSA tests was 6.08 for AS- and 5.18 for WW patients, more than four PSA tests were reported in 63.9% AS- and 59.5% WW patients (p = 0.136). At least one re-biopsy was performed in 39.7% AS- and 9.5% WW patients (p < 0.001). Discontinuation rates were 23.9% (n = 112) for AS and 11.9% (n = 15) for WW. Most of the AS patients opted for a curative treatment (prostatectomy = 65, radiotherapy = 30), whereas 12 WW patients received a palliative hormone therapy and three patients received radiotherapy.

Conclusions

Physicians seem to distinguish clearly between AS and WW in terms of inclusion criteria and deferred therapy, whereas this differentiation tends to become indistinct in terms of follow-up examinations.

Keywords

Localized prostate cancer Active Surveillance Watchful Waiting HAROW study Health-service research 

Notes

Authors’ contribution

JH Project development, Data analysis, Manuscript writing. LW Project development, Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript editing

Financial

The HAROW study was initiated and conducted by the Foundation of Men’s Health (Berlin, Germany). Gazprom Germany sponsored the Foundation of Men’s Health by providing an unconditional Grant for data collection and data management.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Jan Herden and Lothar Weissbach declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The HAROW study was approved by the ethics committee of the Bavarian State Board of Physicians. The study was registered under study ID 479 at the DKSR (German Cancer Study Registry; February 2008). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of the State Chamber of Medicine in Bavaria and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF: Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms. www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/043–022OL.html. Accessed 26 Nov 2017
  2. 2.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1415–1424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH et al (2014) Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer—a systematic review. J Surg Oncol 109:830–835CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Womble PR, Montie JE, Ye Z et al (2015) Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67:44–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weerakoon M, Papa N, Lawrentschuk N et al (2015) The current use of active surveillance in an Australian cohort of men: a pattern of care analysis from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. BJU Int 115(Suppl 5):50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Curnyn C et al (2016) Uptake of active surveillance for very-low-risk prostate cancer in Sweden. JAMA Oncol.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3600. (Epub ahead of print)
  9. 9.
    Weissbach L, Stuerzebecher S, Mumperow E, Klotz T, Schnell D (2016) HAROW: the first comprehensive prospective observational study comparing treatment options in localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 34:641–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C et al (2002) Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol 167:1664–1669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parker C (2004) Active surveillance: towards a new paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol 5:101–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schröder FH, Bangma CH (2007) Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 52:1560–1563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al (2008) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53:68–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berges R, Ebert T, Schafhauser W, Schultze-Seemann W, Braun M, Herden J, Weib P, Garcia Schürmann M, Reimann M, Bornhof C, Oberpenning F, Baur P, Zumbé J, Gronau E, Diederichs W, Brinkman OA, Goepel M, Göll A, Hoefner K, Kriegmair M, Laabs S, Planz B, Platz G, Heidenreich A (2015) Treatment mapping of prostate cancer in DVPZ prostate centers in Germany. Urologe A [Article in German] 54(1546):1548–1554Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR (2015) Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA 314:80–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ et al (2017) Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 377:132–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H et al (2014) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 370:932–942CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loeb S, Walter D, Curnyn C, Gold HT, Lepor H, Makarov DV (2016) How active is active surveillance? intensity of follow-up during active surveillance for prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol 196:721–726CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Health Research for Men GmbHBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations