Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Urologists’ Opinion on Active Surveillance: USA Versus the Netherlands

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

  • 671 Accesses

Abstract

Active surveillance is a strategy that aims to individualize the management of early-diagnosed, low-risk prostate cancer by replacing immediate radical treatment by closely monitoring the disease. If risk reclassification occurs, delayed curative treatment is started. Throughout the years, much attention has been paid to the validity and safety of AS, as well as the consequences for patients, also in terms of quality of life and psychological features. However, in the literature, much less attention has been paid to the opinions of urologists. In this chapter, the acceptance and opinions of American and Dutch urologists regarding AS will be discussed and compared. Attention is given to the interpretation of American and Dutch guidelines, urologists’ opinions about AS, factors influencing an AS recommendation and the possible influence of financial incentives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance’ study. BJU Int. 2010;105: 956–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:126–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol. 2007;178:2359–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, et al. Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0Mo prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008;38:122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Leeuwen PJ, Roobol MJ, Schröder FH. Early detection and screening for prostate cancer. In: Dahm P, Dmochowski R, editors. Evidence-based urology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell/BMJ Books; 2010. p. 243–54.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Kouriefs C, Sahoyl M, Grange P, et al. Prostate specific antigen through the years. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2009;81:195–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, et al. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:725–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb 3rd RL, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Eng J Med. 2009;360:1310–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271:368–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: patient selection and management. Curr Oncol. 2010;17 Suppl 2:S11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang Y, Skolarus TA, Miller DC, et al. Understanding prostate cancer spending growth among medicare beneficiaries. Urology. 2011;77:326–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Skolarus TA, Zhang Y, Miller DC, et al. The economic burden of prostate cancer survivorship care. J Urol. 2010;184:532–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Incidence 2008 & 2009, IKC the Netherlands. Available through www.ikcnet.nl. Accessed 2 Feb 2011.

  15. Challacombe BJ, Murphy D, Lilja H, et al. The continuing role of prostate-specific antigen as a marker for localized prostate cancer: ‘do not throw the baby out with the bath water’. BJU Int. 2009;104:1553–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;293: 2095–101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jang TL, Han M, Roehl KA, et al. More favorable tumor features and progression-free survival rates in a longitudinal prostate cancer screening study: PSA era and threshold-specific effects. Urology. 2006;67: 343–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boevee SJ, Venderbos LD, Tammela TL, et al. Change of tumor characteristics and treatment over time in both arms of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:3082–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW. Predictive models in diagnosing indolent cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:3100–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Haas GP, Delongchamps N, Brawley OW, et al. The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol. 2008;15: 3866–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:868–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2007;52: 1560–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer. 2008;112:2664–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, et al. Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int. 2008;101:165–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Parker C. Active surveillance of early prostate cancer: rationale, initial results and future developments. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2004;7:184–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Khatami A, Aus G, Damber JE, et al. PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening-detected prostate cancer: results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Sweden section. Int J Cancer. 2007;120: 170–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stattin P, Holmberg E, Johansson JE, et al. Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:950–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vicini FA, Martinez A, Hanks G, et al. An interinstitutional and interspecialty comparison of treatment outcome data for patients with prostate carcinoma based on predefined prognostic categories and minimum follow-up. Cancer. 2002;95:2126–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:225–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Crissmann JD, et al. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma between the ages of 20–69: an autopsy study of 249 cases. In Vivo. 1994;8:439–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per millilitre. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2239–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8165–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:374–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J, et al. Validation of contemporary Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol. 2008;54: 1306–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, et al. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer. 2004;101: 2001–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chun FK, Haese A, Ahyai SA, et al. Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men. Cancer. 2008;113:701–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bastian PJ, Carter BH, Bjartell A, et al. Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1321–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, et al. Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA. 2009;302:1202–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sanda MG, Kaplan ID. A 64-year-old man with low-risk prostate cancer: review of prostate cancer treatment. JAMA. 2009;301:2141–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Shappley 3rd WV, Kenfield SA, Kasperzyk JL, et al. Prospective study of determinants and outcomes of deferred treatment or watchful waiting among men with prostate cancer in a nationwide cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4980–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filen F, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1144–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Schröder FH, Roach 3rd M, Scardino P. Clinical decisions. Management of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2605–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schwartz RS. Clinical decisions. Management of prostate cancer – polling results. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:e4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, et al. 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. 2002;167: 1664–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stephenson AJ, Aprikian AG, Souhami L, et al. Utility of PSA doubling time in follow-up of untreated patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology. 2002;59:652–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Van den Bergh RC, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, et al. Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:3868–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Klotz L. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favourable risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2006;24:46–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Johansson JE, Andren O, Andersson SO, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2004;291:2713–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Zietman AL, Thakral H, Wilson L, et al. Conservative management of prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era: the incidence and time course of subsequent therapy. J Urol. 2001;166:1702–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Adolfsson J, Oksanen H, Salo JO, et al. Localized prostate cancer and 30 years of follow-up in a population-based setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2000;3:37–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A, et al. Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2005;95:956–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Warlick C, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:355–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, de Vries SH, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1244–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Burnet KL, Parker C, Dearnaley D, et al. Does active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer carry psychological morbidity? BJU Int. 2007;100: 540–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Snyder CF, Frick KD, Blackford AL, et al. How does initial treatment choice affect short-term and long-term costs for clinically localized prostate cancer? Cancer. 2010;116:5391–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, et al. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Davison BJ, Oliffe JL, Pickles T, et al. Factors influencing men undertaking active surveillance for the management of low-risk prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009;36:89–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. SEER Database. Available through http://seer.cancer.gov/statistics/. Accessed 20 Apr 2011.

  59. Davison BJ, Goldenberg SL. Decisional regret and quality of life after participating in medical decision-making for early-stage prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2003;91:14–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Steginga SK, Occhipinti S, Gardiner RA, et al. Making decisions about treatment for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2002;89:255–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Gorin MA, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, et al. Factors that influence patient enrolment in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2011;77: 588–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. The US Postal Service and cancer screening – stamps of approval? N Engl J Med. 1999;340:884–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Ransohoff DF, McNaughton Collins M, Fowler FJ. Why is prostate cancer screening so common when the evidence is so uncertain? A system without negative feedback. Am J Med. 2002;113:663–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Krakowsky Y, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Prostate cancer death of men treated with initial active surveillance: clinical and biochemical characteristics. J Urol. 2010;184:131–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Hout E, Friele R, Legemaate J. The citizen as plaintiff in disciplinary procedures, lack of complaints possibly due to poor knowledge of the disciplinary system for health care. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009;153: A548.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Annual Report of the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Tribunal. 2010. Available through www.tuchtcollege-gezondheidszorg.nl. Accessed Apr 2011.

  67. Stimson CJ, Pichert JW, Moore IN, et al. Medical malpractice claims risk in urology: an empirical analysis of patient complaint data. J Urol. 2010;183: 1971–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Perrotti M, Badger W, Prader S, et al. Medical malpractice in urology, 1985 to 2004: 469 consecutive cases closed with indemnity payment. J Urol. 2006;176:2154–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Fowler Jr FJ, Bin L, Collins MM, et al. Prostate cancer screening and beliefs about treatment efficacy: a national survey of primary care physicians and urologists. Am J Med. 1998;104:526–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Fowler Jr FJ, McNaughton Collins M, Albertsen PC, et al. Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2000;283:3217–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Hegarty J, Beirne PV, Walsh E, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:CD006590.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Parekh DJ. Active surveillance for favourable risk prostate cancer. Beware the risks. J Urol. 2009;182:2566–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:781–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, et al. Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:790–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Van den Bergh RC, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, et al. Do anxiety and distress increase during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer? J Urol. 2010;183:1786–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Barry MJ. Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:127–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Nguyen PL, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29: 1517–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, van der Poel HG, et al. Selecting men diagnosed with prostate cancer for active surveillance using a risk calculator: a prospective impact study. 2011. Submitted to Br J Cancer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, Erasmus Medical Centre, 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Lionne D. F. Venderbos M.Sc. & Chris H. Bangma M.D., Ph.D.

  2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Centre, 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Ida J. Korfage Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Lionne D. F. Venderbos M.Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris H. Bangma M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ida J. Korfage Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lionne D. F. Venderbos M.Sc. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Division of Urology, Toronto, M4N 3M5, Ontario, Canada

    Laurence Klotz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Venderbos, L.D.F., Bangma, C.H., Korfage, I.J. (2012). Urologists’ Opinion on Active Surveillance: USA Versus the Netherlands. In: Klotz, L. (eds) Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-912-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-912-9_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-61779-911-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-61779-912-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation