Current Treatment for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in China: A National Network Survey

被引:6
|
作者
Wei, Yongbao [1 ,2 ]
Liu, Longfei [3 ]
Li, Xin [4 ]
Song, Wei [5 ]
Zhong, Dewen [6 ]
Cao, Xiande [7 ]
Yuan, Daozhang [8 ]
Ming, Shaoxiong [9 ]
Zhang, Peng [10 ]
Wen, Yanlin [11 ]
机构
[1] Fujian Med Univ, Shengli Clin Med Coll, Fuzhou 350001, Fujian, Peoples R China
[2] Fujian Prov Hosp, Dept Urol, 134 Dong St, Fuzhou 350001, Fujian, Peoples R China
[3] Cent S Univ, Xiangya Hosp, Dept Urol, Changsha 410000, Hunan, Peoples R China
[4] 118th Hosp PLA, Dept Urol, Wenzhou 325000, Peoples R China
[5] Hunan Prov Peoples Hosp, Dept Urol, Changsha 410005, Hunan, Peoples R China
[6] Fujian Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Urol, Longyan 364000, Peoples R China
[7] Jining Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Dept Urol, Jining 272000, Peoples R China
[8] Guangzhou Med Univ, Canc Ctr, Dept Urol, Guangzhou 510095, Guangdong, Peoples R China
[9] Second Mil Med Univ, Changhai Hosp, Dept Urol, Shanghai 200433, Peoples R China
[10] Wuhan Univ, Zhongnan Hosp, Dept Urol, Wuhan 430071, Hubei, Peoples R China
[11] Nanchong Cent Hosp, Dept Urol, Nanchong 637000, Peoples R China
来源
JOURNAL OF CANCER | 2019年 / 10卷 / 06期
关键词
prostate cancer; active surveillance; radical prostatectomy; urologist; China; survey; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; MANAGEMENT; TRENDS; MEN;
D O I
10.7150/jca.29595
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: To analyze the current treatment for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) in China. Methods: A national questionnaire survey titled "A survey of current treatment of LRPC" was designed and released nationally through the network from July 16 to August 3, 2017. Results: A total of 1,116 valid questionnaires were recovered. The percentages of preferred treatment by active surveillance (AS) or radical prostatectomy (RP) were 29.21% and 45.61%, respectively. A correspondence analysis showed that the physician in charge was more inclined to choose AS than RP. Respondents from different institution types, hospitals with different annual numbers of newly admitted patients with prostate cancer, and with different familiarity with the LRPC definition presented a significant difference in the preferred treatments (p < 0.05). Urologists chose AS or not for the following reasons: tumor progression (52.51%), potential medical disputes (42.56%) (i.e., medical disputes from patients or their relatives when urologists choose AS to treat patients with LRPC and the patient has a poor outcome), fear of cancer (4 1.94%), and surgical risk (39.07%). These reasons were ubiquitous, and there was no significant difference among urologists for these concerns (p > 0.05). Personal skills, surgical risk, and tumor progression were the most common factors that influenced whether AS or RP was preferred (p < 0.05). Concern about the medical disputes brought about by AS was a key factor for not choosing AS (p < 0.05). Conclusions: LRPC is still dominated by RP in China, followed by AS. Personal skills, surgical risk, and concern about tumor progression were the common factors influencing whether AS or RP was preferred. In addition, medical disputes brought by AS are another key factor for not choosing AS. There will be more Chinese data in the future to guide treatment of LRPC.
引用
收藏
页码:1496 / 1502
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Substantial Gleason reclassification in Black men with national comprehensive cancer network low-risk prostate cancer – A propensity score analysis
    Shivanshu Awasthi
    Brandon A. Mahal
    Jong Y. Park
    Jordan H. Creed
    Vonetta L. Williams
    Asmaa Elkenawi
    Sylvester O. Meadows
    Julio M. Pow-Sang
    Grace Lu-Yao
    Wm. Kevin Kelly
    Damaris-Lois Y. Lang
    Janice Zgibor
    Timothy R. Rebbeck
    Kosj Yamoah
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2022, 25 : 547 - 552
  • [32] Substantial Gleason reclassification in Black men with national comprehensive cancer network low-risk prostate cancer - A propensity score analysis
    Awasthi, Shivanshu
    Mahal, Brandon A.
    Park, Jong Y.
    Creed, Jordan H.
    Williams, Vonetta L.
    Elkenawi, Asmaa
    Meadows, Sylvester O.
    Pow-Sang, Julio M.
    Lu-Yao, Grace
    Kelly, Wm. Kevin
    Lang, Damaris-Lois Y.
    Zgibor, Janice
    Rebbeck, Timothy R.
    Yamoah, Kosj
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2022, 25 (03) : 547 - 552
  • [33] Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer
    Klotz, Laurence
    CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2017, 27 (03) : 225 - 230
  • [34] Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer
    Herlemann, Annika
    Stief, Christian G.
    UROLOGE, 2016, 55 (02): : 269 - 278
  • [35] Racial Disparities in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Ehdaie, Behfar
    Carlsson, Sigrid
    Vickers, Andrew
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2019, 321 (17): : 1726 - 1727
  • [36] Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Laurence Klotz
    Current Urology Reports, 2015, 16
  • [37] Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer
    Mazzucchelli, Roberta
    Nesseris, Ioannis
    Cheng, Liang
    Lopez-Beltran, Antonio
    Montironi, Rodolfo
    Scarpelli, Marina
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2010, 30 (09) : 3683 - 3692
  • [38] Low-risk prostate cancer: Contemporary trends
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    Broering, Jeanette M.
    Bakst, Alan
    Kantoff, Philip W.
    Carroll, Peter R.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 177 (04): : 68 - 69
  • [39] Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Klotz, Laurence
    CURRENT UROLOGY REPORTS, 2015, 16 (04) : 1 - 10
  • [40] Management dilemmas in low-risk prostate cancer
    Patel, Vipul R.
    Ganapathi, Hariharan Palayapalayam
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 118 (02) : 180 - 181