Advertisement

Temporal Changes in Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Men With Prostate Cancer Electing for Conservative Management in the United States

Published:January 13, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.12.007

      Objective

      To characterize the role of clinical and sociodemographic factors in the use of conservative management for localized prostate cancer in the US between 2010 and 2015, and to understand how those factors evolved in light of the recent national increase in conservative management rates.

      Methods

      Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program “Prostate with Watchful Waiting Database,” where conservative treatment was delineated by a distinct classifier, was used to evaluate factors associated with electing for conservative management at initial diagnosis (2010-2015). Men aged ≥40 years with cT1-T2a and T2NOS with Gleason score 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 were included (n = 118,415). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between clinical and sociodemographic factors and electing conservative management.

      Results

      Between 2010 and 15, a total of 22,099 (18.6%) men were managed conservatively. Mean age of men managed conservatively decreased from 66.6 to 64.6 years, and median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) increased from 5.7 to 6.0 ng/mL, P <.0001. Men with lower income experienced a greater increase in conservative management rates compared to those with high income (152% vs 72% for third and fifth [richest] income quintiles, respectively). On multivariable analysis, Gleason score 3 + 3, older age, lower PSA, more recent year, treatment in the West, and higher levels of county income were significantly associated with conservative management.

      Conclusion

      Characteristics of men undergoing conservative management are rapidly changing. Younger men, men with higher PSAs, and men of all incomes are increasingly being managed conservatively. Narrowing of income-based disparities with concurrent broadening of patients considered eligible for surveillance is encouraging.
      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:

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

      References

        • Carroll PH
        • Mohler JL
        NCCN guidelines updates: prostate cancer and prostate cancer early detection.
        J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018; 16: 620-623https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.0036
        • Briganti A.
        • Fossati N.
        • Catto J.
        • et al.
        Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2018.
        European Urology. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008
        • Sanda MG
        • Cadeddu JA
        • 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: 683-690https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095
        • Mahal BA
        • Butler S
        • Franco I
        • et al.
        Use of active surveillance or watchful waiting for low-risk prostate cancer and management trends across risk groups in the United States, 2010-2015.
        JAMA. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.19941
        • Löppenberg B
        • Friedlander DF
        • Krasnova A
        • et al.
        Variation in the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.
        Cancer. 2018; 124: 55-64https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30983
        • Radhakrishnan A
        • Grande D
        • Mitra N
        • Pollack CE
        Which patients report that their urologists advised them to forgo initial treatment for prostate cancer?.
        Urology. 2018; 115: 133-138https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.01.048
        • Gray PJ
        • Lin CC
        • Cooperberg MR
        • Jemal A
        • Efstathiou JA
        Temporal trends and the impact of race, insurance, and socioeconomic status in the management of localized prostate cancer.
        Eur. Urol. 2017; 71: 729-737https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.047
        • Moschini M
        • Fossati N
        • Sood A
        • et al.
        Contemporary management of prostate cancer patients suitable for active surveillance: a North American population-based study.
        Eur. Urol. Focus. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.06.001
      1. Prostate with Watchful Waiting Database—SEER Data & Software. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/databases/prostate-ww/index.html. Accessed February 21, 2019.

        • Womble PR
        • Montie JE
        • Ye Z
        • et al.
        Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer.
        Eur. Urol. 2015; 67: 44-50https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.024
        • Hoffman KE
        • Niu J
        • Shen Y
        • et al.
        Physician variation in management of low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study.
        JAMA Intern. Med. 2014; 174: 1450-1459https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3021
        • Loeb S
        • Byrne N
        • Makarov DV
        • 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: 2231-2233https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.5616
        • Bandini M
        • Nazzani S
        • Marchioni M
        • et al.
        Increasing rate of noninterventional treatment management in localized prostate cancer candidates for active surveillance: a north american population-based study.
        Clin. Genitourin. Cancer. 2019; 17 (e4.): 72-78https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.09.011
        • Parikh RR
        • Kim S
        • Stein MN
        • Haffty BG
        • Kim IY
        • Goyal S
        Trends in active surveillance for very low-risk prostate cancer: do guidelines influence modern practice?.
        Cancer Med. 2017; 6: 2410-2418https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1132
        • Loeb S
        • Berglund A
        • Stattin P
        Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.
        J. Urol. 2013; 190: 1742-1749https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.054
        • Richard PO
        • Alibhai SMH
        • Panzarella T
        • et al.
        The uptake of active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer: a population-based analysis.
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2016; 10: 333-338https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3684
        • Ong WL
        • Evans SM
        • Evans M
        • et al.
        Trends in conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer in a population-based cohort of Australian men diagnosed between 2009 and 2016.
        Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.04.006
        • Salari K
        • Kuppermann D
        • Preston MA
        • et al.
        Active surveillance of prostate cancer is a viable option for men younger than 60 years.
        J. Urol. 2019; 201: 721-727https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000031
        • Butler SS
        • Mahal BA
        • Lamba N
        • et al.
        Use and early mortality outcomes of active surveillance in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
        Cancer. 2019; 125: 3164-3171https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32202
        • Al Hussein Al Awamlh B.
        • Ma X.
        • Christos P.
        • et al.
        Active Surveillance for Black Men With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in the United States.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 2581-2582https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1912868
        • Weiner AB
        • Conti RM
        • Eggener SE
        National economic conditions and patient insurance status predict prostate cancer diagnosis rates and management decisions.
        J. Urol. 2016; 195: 1383-1389https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.071