The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Prostate Cancer form the basis of oncologic practice in the United States (to view the most recent version of these guidelines, visit NCCN. org).1 NCCN Guidelines indicate active surveillance to be a standard option for all men with very-low-risk prostate cancer, and the only option for men with very-low-risk prostate cancer and an expected survival of less than 20 years. Under an active surveillance regimen, immediate treatment for prostate cancer is deferred while patients undergo close monitoring for disease progression, with initiation of curative therapy at the time of convincing evidence of progression.1,2 The NCCN recommendations for patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer reflect both the extremely favorable prognosis for these men and the lack of perceived benefit to immediate, definitive treatment. Based on data from the 2007 Social Security Life Table, which indicates that the life expectancy for an average 61-year-old man is 20.2 years, the NCCN recommendations imply that active surveillance is the optimal option for many patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer aged 61 years or older. Although the incidence of very-low-risk prostate cancer has not been explicitly described, the belief is that approximately 70% of newly diagnosed patients have low-risk prostate cancer,3 and a sizeable proportion of low-risk patients have very-low-risk classification.
Consultation at a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic, in which patients meet concurrently with urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists specializing in prostate cancer, is thought to reduce physician bias and has been associated with increased selection of active surveillance in patients with prostate cancer when compared with sequential consultation with one or more individual providers.4 Whether this association exists in patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer has not been described. Given the improved quality of life3,5 and decreased health care costs6,7 associated with active surveillance as opposed to definitive therapy, factors associated with the pursuit of active surveillance are of clinical and economic importance. In addition, for very-low-risk patients with an expected survival of less than 20 years, active surveillance avoids overtreatment of a disease that is of minimal threat to survival.1,2,8,9
The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that multidisciplinary care is associated with selection of active surveillance in men with very-low-risk prostate cancer, and to examine the presence or absence of this association in the subset of men with an expected survival of less than 20 years.
This study was funded by departmental support from the Department of Radiation Oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Efstathiou was supported by a Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award. Funding was used to facilitate data collection. The authors have disclosed that they have no financial interests, arrangements, affiliations, or commercial interests with the manufacturers of any products discussed in this article or their competitors.
TosoianJJTrockBJLandisP. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol2011;29:2185–2190.
HayesJHOllendorfDAPearsonSD. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA2010;304:2373–2380.
AizerAAPalyJJZietmanAL. Multidisciplinary care and pursuit of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2012;30:3071–3076.
KasperzykJLShappleyWV3rdKenfieldSA. Watchful waiting and quality of life among prostate cancer survivors in the physicians’ health study. J Urol2011;186:1862–1867.
EldefrawyAKatkooriDAbramowitzM. Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: a cost comparison. Urol Oncol2013;31:576–580.
CorcoranATPeelePBBenoitRM. Cost comparison between watchful waiting with active surveillance and active treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology2010;76:703–707.
EpsteinJIWalshPCCarmichaelMBrendlerCB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA1994;271:368–374.
van den BerghRCRoemelingSRoobolMJ. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol2009;55:1–8.
CharlsonMEPompeiPAlesKLMacKenzieCR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis1987;40:373–383.
MurphySLXuJKochanekKD. Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Reports2012;60:1–51. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf. Accessed October 2 2013.
SandaMGDunnRLMichalskiJ. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med2008;358:1250–1261.
CooperbergMRBroeringJMCarrollPR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2010;28:1117–1123.
FalitBPGrossCPRobertsKB. Integrated prostate cancer centers and over-utilization of IMRT: a close look at fee-for-service medicine in radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2010;76:1285–1288.
MooreMJO’SullivanBTannockIF. How expert physicians would wish to be treated if they had genitourinary cancer. J Clin Oncol1988;6:1736–1745.
FowlerFJJrMcNaughton CollinsMAlbertsenPC. Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA2000;283:3217–3222.
VisserBCMaYZakY. Failure to comply with NCCN guidelines for the management of pancreatic cancer compromises outcomes. HPB (Oxford)2012;14:539–547.
WalzJGallinaASaadF. A nomogram predicting 10-year life expectancy in candidates for radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2007;25:3576–3581.
FroehnerMKochRLitzRJ. Which patients are at the highest risk of dying from competing causes </= 10 years after radical prostatectomy?BJU Int2012;110:206–210.
FeliuJJimenez-GordoAMMaderoR. Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for terminally ill cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst2011;103:1613–1620.
KormanHLanniTJrShahC. Impact of a prostate multidisciplinary clinic program on patient treatment decisions and on adherence to NCCN Guidelines: the William Beaumont Hospital experience. Am J Clin Oncol2013;36:121–125.
GomellaLGLinJHoffman-CensitsJ. Enhancing prostate cancer care through the multidisciplinary clinic approach: a 15-year experience. J Oncol Pract2010;6:e5–10.
StephensonAJBollaMBrigantiA. Postoperative radiation therapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol2012;61:443–451.
Bill-AxelsonAHolmbergLRuutuM. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med2011;364:1708–1717.
WidmarkA. Prospective randomized trial comparing external beam radiotherapy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. Presented at: Annual Meeting of The American Society of Radiation Oncology; October 3, 2011; Miami, Florida.
KlotzLZhangLLamA. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2010;28:126–131.