Contemporary Management of Incident Prostate Cancer in Large Community Urology Practices in the United States



      To characterize the contemporary management of prostate cancer patients in large community practices. The optimal management of incident prostate cancer has changed in the last decades to include active surveillance for a large number of men. At the same time, many community practices have merged into larger groups. The adoption of evidence-based guidelines is of increasing importance, but poorly understood in this newer practice setting.


      We conducted a retrospective chart review of men ≤75 years old with very low, low, and intermediate risk incident prostate cancer diagnosed between December 1, 2012 and March 31, 2014, in 9 geographically distributed large urology practices. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable regression to assess predictors of primary management choice.


      2029 men were in the study cohort. A majority were white (68.7%). Total of 45.7% had intermediate risk, 36.2% low risk, and 17.9% had very low risk disease cancer. Active surveillance (AS) was the initial treatment for 74.7% of men with very low risk disease, 43.5% of men with low risk disease and 10.8% of men with intermediate risk disease. The probability of choosing surgery vs radiation for men with lower and intermediate risk disease was 0.54 (95% confidence interval: 0.42, 0.65) and 0.59 (95% confidence interval: 0.48, 0.69), respectively.


      We found that the initial management of lower risk prostate cancer in large community urology practices largely followed clinical characteristics, widespread adoption of active surveillance, and equal use of surgery and radiation. However, some variation by practice suggested a need for further investigation and continued improvement.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Thompson I.
        • Thrasher J.B.
        • Aus G.
        • et al.
        Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update.
        J Urol. 2007; 177: 2106-2131
        • Sanda M.G.
        • Cadeddu J.A.
        • Kirkby E.
        • et al.
        Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options.
        J Urol. 2018; 199: 683-690
        • Cooperberg M.R.
        • Carroll P.R.
        Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013.
        JAMA. 2015; 314: 80-82
        • Filson C.P.
        • Shelton J.B.
        • Tan H.J.
        • et al.
        Expectant management of veterans with early-stage prostate cancer.
        Cancer. 2016; 122: 626-633
        • Womble P.R.
        • Montie J.E.
        • Ye Z.
        • Linsell S.M.
        • Lane B.R.
        • Miller D.C.
        Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in michigan with low-risk prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 44-50
        • Loeb S.
        • Byrne N.
        • Makarov D.V.
        • Lepor H.
        • Walter D.
        Use of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer in the veterans affairs integrated health care system from 2005-2015.
        JAMA. 2018; 319: 2231-2233
        • Gaylis F.
        • Cohen E.
        • Calabrese R.
        • Prime H.
        • Dato P.
        • Kane C.J.
        Active surveillance of prostate cancer in a community practice: how to measure, manage, and improve?.
        Urology. 2016; 93: 60-67
        • Kirsh G.M.
        2014–2016: How far has LUGPA come?.
        Rev Urol. 2016; 18: 221-224
        • Shahinian V.B.
        • Kuo Y.F.
        • Gilbert S.M.
        Reimbursement policy and androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 1822-1832
        • Prasad S.M.
        • Gu X.
        • Lipsitz S.R.
        • Nguyen P.L.
        • Hu J.C.
        Inappropriate utilization of radiographic imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in the United States.
        Cancer. 2012; 118: 1260-1267
        • Mitchell J.M.
        Urologists' use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 1629-1637
        • Mitchell J.M.
        Urologists' self-referral for pathology of biopsy specimens linked to increased use and lower prostate cancer detection.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31: 741-749
        • Morris Z.S.
        • Wooding S.
        • Grant J.
        The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research.
        J R Soc Med. 2011; 104: 510-520
        • Berwick D.M.
        • Nolan T.W.
        • Whittington J.
        The triple aim: care, health, and cost.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2008; 27: 759-769
        • Committee on Quality of Health Care in America and Institute of Medicine
        Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.
        • Westfall J.M.
        • Mold J.
        • Fagnan L.
        Practice-based research–"Blue Highways" on the NIH roadmap.
        JAMA. 2007; 297: 403-406
        • Aizer A.A.
        • Paly J.J.
        • Zietman A.L.
        • et al.
        Multidisciplinary care and pursuit of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 3071-3076
      1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidlines in oncology, prostate cancer, version 1.2013. 2013.

        • Wennberg J.
        • Gittelsohn
        Small area variations in health care delivery.
        Science. 1973; 182: 1102-1108
        • Liu J.
        • Womble P.R.
        • Merdan S.
        • Miller D.C.
        • Montie J.E.
        • Denton B.T.
        Factors influencing selection of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2015; 86: 901-905
        • Auffenberg G.B.
        • Lane B.R.
        • Linsell S.
        • Cher M.L.
        • Miller D.C.
        Practice- vs physician-level variation in use of active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer: implications for collaborative quality improvement.
        JAMA surgery. 2017; 152: 978-980
        • Loeb S.
        • Curnyn C.
        • Fagerlin A.
        • et al.
        Qualitative study on decision-making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance.
        BJU Int. 2017; 120: 32-39
        • Herrel L.A.
        • Kaufman S.R.
        • Yan P.
        • et al.
        Health care integration and quality among men with prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 55-60
        • Jacobs B.L.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Skolarus T.A.
        • Hollenbeck B.K.
        Growth of high-cost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer raises concerns about overuse.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31: 750-759
        • Shahinian V.B.
        • Kaufman S.R.
        • Yan P.
        • Herrel L.A.
        • Borza T.
        • Hollenbeck B.K.
        Reimbursement and use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
        Medicine. 2017; 96: e6929
        • Penson D.F.
        The Power and the peril of large administrative databases.
        J Urol. 2015; 194: 10-11
      2. AUA Quality Registry.

      3. Medicare program; Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Model (APM) incentive under the physician fee schedule, and criteria for physician-focused payment models. Final rule with comment period.
        Fed Regist. 2016; 81: 77008-77831
      4. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), (2010).