low-risk prostate cancer, ddiscordant specialist recommendations

this article was sent to me by gordy schiff. interesting study of perceptions and suggestions of US radiation oncologists and urologists on the effectiveness of active surveillance for patients with prostate cancer (see prostate cancer active surveillance. medcare2014 or Med Care 2014;52: 579–585). baseline is that there are general concerns that prostate cancer is greatly overtreated, and that active surveillance (AS) is appropriate (and in fact recommended) for low-risk prostate cancer (clinically localized disease, PSA in 4-10 range, Gleason 6 or less). results:

    --national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists about perceptions of AS, done from nov 2011 to april 2012, with 717 completing survey
    --71.9% thought AS effective and 80% thought it was underused
    --BUT for a case patient of a 60yoM  diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer, these specialists recommended radical prostatectomy in 44.9%, brachytherapy in 35.4% and AS only in 22.1%. though specialists in academic med centers more likely to recommend AS, with OR 2.35.
    --and, lest anyone is surprised, urologists vs radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend surgery (OR of 4.19) and less likely to recommend radiation treatment (OR 0.13 for brachytherapy and OR 0.11 for external beam radiation)

so, 230K patients are diagnosed each year with prostate cancer. and estimated 100K with clinically-localized disease, qualifying for AS. clinical guidelines do recommend AS with close disease monitoring by frequent PSA tests, digital rectal exams and  biopsies; but most patients are treated with XRT or surgery and only 10% get AS. clearly, a key barrier to AS is that the specialists involved in the care of these patients (radiation oncologists, urologists) are in fact more aggressive than the recommendations (and, indeed, more aggressive than what they even said -- that up to 80% thought AS was underused). given their inherent conflicts-of-interest, seems to me that primary care providers (and general oncologists) should be stronger advocates for patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more