A modified Delphi study to develop a practical guide for selecting patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance.
Active surveillance
Cancer treatment protocols
Patient selection
Prostate cancer
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Feb 2021
04 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
27
11
2020
accepted:
20
01
2021
entrez:
5
2
2021
pubmed:
6
2
2021
medline:
23
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Active surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with lower risk prostate cancer. There is wide variation in all aspects of AS internationally, from patient selection to investigations and follow-up intervals, and a lack of clear evidence on the optimal approach to AS. This study aimed to provide guidance for clinicians from an international panel of prostate cancer experts. A modified Delphi approach was undertaken, utilising two rounds of online questionnaires followed by a face-to-face workshop. Participants indicated their level of agreement with statements relating to patient selection for AS via online questionnaires on a 7-point Likert scale. Factors not achieving agreement were iteratively developed between the two rounds of questionnaires. Draft statements were presented at the face-to-face workshop for discussion and consensus building. 12 prostate cancer experts (9 urologists, 2 academics, 1 radiation oncologist) participated in this study from a range of geographical regions (4 USA, 4 Europe, 4 Australia). Complete agreement on statements presented to the participants was 29.4% after Round One and 69.0% after Round Two. Following robust discussions at the face-to-face workshop, agreement was reached on the remaining statements. PSA, PSA density, Multiparametric MRI, and systematic biopsy (with or without targeted biopsy) were identified as minimum diagnostic tests required upon which to select patients to recommend AS as a treatment option for prostate cancer. Patient factors and clinical parameters that identified patients appropriate to potentially receive AS were agreed. Genetic and genomic testing was not recommended for use in clinical decision-making regarding AS. The lack of consistency in the practice of AS for men with lower risk prostate cancer between and within countries was reflected in this modified Delphi study. There are, however, areas of common practice and agreement from which clinicians practicing in the current environment can use to inform their clinical practice to achieve the best outcomes for patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Active surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with lower risk prostate cancer. There is wide variation in all aspects of AS internationally, from patient selection to investigations and follow-up intervals, and a lack of clear evidence on the optimal approach to AS. This study aimed to provide guidance for clinicians from an international panel of prostate cancer experts.
METHODS
METHODS
A modified Delphi approach was undertaken, utilising two rounds of online questionnaires followed by a face-to-face workshop. Participants indicated their level of agreement with statements relating to patient selection for AS via online questionnaires on a 7-point Likert scale. Factors not achieving agreement were iteratively developed between the two rounds of questionnaires. Draft statements were presented at the face-to-face workshop for discussion and consensus building.
RESULTS
RESULTS
12 prostate cancer experts (9 urologists, 2 academics, 1 radiation oncologist) participated in this study from a range of geographical regions (4 USA, 4 Europe, 4 Australia). Complete agreement on statements presented to the participants was 29.4% after Round One and 69.0% after Round Two. Following robust discussions at the face-to-face workshop, agreement was reached on the remaining statements. PSA, PSA density, Multiparametric MRI, and systematic biopsy (with or without targeted biopsy) were identified as minimum diagnostic tests required upon which to select patients to recommend AS as a treatment option for prostate cancer. Patient factors and clinical parameters that identified patients appropriate to potentially receive AS were agreed. Genetic and genomic testing was not recommended for use in clinical decision-making regarding AS.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The lack of consistency in the practice of AS for men with lower risk prostate cancer between and within countries was reflected in this modified Delphi study. There are, however, areas of common practice and agreement from which clinicians practicing in the current environment can use to inform their clinical practice to achieve the best outcomes for patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33541309
doi: 10.1186/s12894-021-00789-5
pii: 10.1186/s12894-021-00789-5
pmc: PMC7863517
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18Références
Wong MCS, Goggins WB, Wang HHX, Fung FDH, Leung C, Wong SYS, et al. Global incidence and mortality for prostate cancer: analysis of temporal patterns and trends in 36 countries. Eur Urol. 2016;70(5):862–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.043 .
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.043
pubmed: 27289567
Humphrey PA. Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(3):292–306. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800054 .
doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800054
pubmed: 14976540
Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, Simko JP, Wheeler TM, Epstein JIM. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤ 6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(9):1346–52.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182556dcd
Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1425–37. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606221 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606221
pubmed: 27626365
pmcid: 5134995
Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3379–85.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764
Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–7.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192
Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, et al. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):954–60.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007
Newcomb LF, Thompson IM, Boyer HD, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary. PASS Cohort J Urol. 2016;195(2):313–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.087 .
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.087
pubmed: 26327354
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
pubmed: 27626365
pmcid: 5134995
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
pubmed: 30089067
Abraham NE, Mendhiratta N, Taneja SS. Patterns of repeat prostate biopsy in contemporary clinical practice. J Urol. 2015;193(4):1178–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.084 .
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.084
pubmed: 25444971
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 .
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
pubmed: 28110982
Ahlberg MS, Adami HO, Beckmann K, Bertilsson H, Bratt O, Cahill D, et al. PCASTt/SPCG-17-A randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer: rationale and design. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):1–7.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027860
Glass AS, Dall’Era MA. Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance. BJU Int. 2019;124:730–7.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14705
Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J, Briganti A, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinico-pathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):619–26.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.010
Merriel SWD, Hetherington L, Seggie A, Castle JT, Cross W, Roobol MJ, et al. Best practice in Active Surveillance for men with prostate cancer: A Prostate Cancer UK consensus statement. BJU Int. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14707 .
doi: 10.1111/bju.14707
pubmed: 30742733
pmcid: 6617751
Witherspoon L, Breau RH, Lavallée LT. Evidence-based approach to active surveillance of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02662-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02662-5
pubmed: 30726506
Komisarenko M, Martin LJ, Finelli A. Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(2):243–55.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2018.03.02
Kinsella N, Helleman J, Bruinsma S, Carlsson S, Cahill D, Brown C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(1):83–97.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.24
Kim SP, Tilburt JC, Shah ND, Yu JB, Konety B, Nguyen PL, et al. A national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists on perceived attitudes and recommendations of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.01.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.01.008
pubmed: 31917174
Murphy MK, Sanderson CFB, Black NA, Askham J, Lamping DL, Marteau T, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 1998;2(3):i–88.
McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):655–62.
pubmed: 26846316
pmcid: 4909789
NICE. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management. ng131. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2019.
Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(31):1–11.
Waggoner J, Carline JD, Durning SJ. Is there a consensus on consensus methodology? Descriptions and recommendations for future consensus research. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):663–8.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001092