Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Intensity of observation with active surveillance or watchful waiting in men with prostate cancer in the United States

Abstract

Background

Population-based studies assessing various active surveillance (AS) protocols for prostate cancer, to date, have inferred AS participation by the lack of definitive treatment and use of post-diagnostic testing. This is problematic as evidence suggests that most men do not adhere to AS protocols. We sought to develop a novel method of identifying men on AS or watchful waiting (WW) independent of post-diagnostic testing and aimed to identify possible predictors of follow-up intensity in men on AS/WW.

Methods

A predictive model was developed using SEER watchful waiting data to identify men ≥66 years on AS between 2010–2015, irrespective of post-diagnostic testing, and applied to SEER-Medicare database. AS intensity among different variables including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, number of total and positive biopsy cores, Charlson comorbidity index, race (Black vs. non-Black), US census region, and county poverty, income, and education levels were compared using multivariable regression analyses for PSA testing, surveillance biopsy, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Results

A total of 2238 men were identified as being on AS. Of which, 81%, 33%, and 10% had a PSA test, surveillance biopsy, and MRI scan within 1–2 years, respectively. On multivariable analyses, Black men were less likely to have a PSA test (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] 0.60, 95% CI: 0.53–0.69), MRI scan (ARR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24–0.68), and surveillance biopsy (ARR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55–0.92) than non-Black men. Men within the highest income quintile were more likely to undergo PSA test (ARR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05–1.27) and MRI scan (ARR 1.60, 95% CI 1.15–2.27) compared to men with the lowest income.

Conclusions

Black men and men with lower incomes on AS underwent less rigorous monitoring. Further study is needed to understand and ameliorate differences in AS rigor stemming from sociodemographic differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Prediction model development.
Fig. 2: Selection of study population.
Fig. 3: Intensity of active surveillance/wathcful waiting in the US.
Fig. 4: Active surveillance/wathcful waiting intensity in Black men.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program and SEER-Medicare but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of the National Cancer Institute – SEER Database (https://seer.cancer.gov/data/)

References

  1. Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2182–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Auffenberg GB, Lane BR, Linsell S, Cher ML, Miller DC. Practice- vs physician-level variation in use of active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer: implications for collaborative quality improvement. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:978–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Patel N, Ma X, Calaway A, Ponsky L, Hu JC, et al. Variation in the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer across US census regions. Front Oncol. 2021;11:644885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Peterson S, Basak R, Moon DH, Liang C, Basak RS, Walden S, et al. Population-based cohort of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance (AS): guideline adherence, conversion to treatment and decisional regret. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:6512–6512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Filson CP, Schroeck FR, Ye Z, Wei JT, Hollenbeck BK, Miller DC. Variation in use of active surveillance among men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014;192:75–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Loeb S, Walter D, Curnyn C, Gold HT, Lepor H, Makarov DV. How active is active surveillance? Intensity of followup during active surveillance for prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol. 2016;196(Sep):721–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Krishna S, Fan Y, Jarosek S, Adejoro O, Chamie K, Konety B. Racial disparities in active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2017;197:342–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sayyid RK, Klotz L, Benton JZ, Lodh A, Lambert JH, Woodruff P, et al. Influence of sociodemographic factors on definitive intervention among low-risk active surveillance patients. Urology. 2021;155:117–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Butler SS, Loeb S, Cole AP, Zaslowe-Dude C, Muralidhar V, Kim DW, et al. United States trends in active surveillance or watchful waiting across patient socioeconomic status from 2010 to 2015. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:179–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Deka R, Courtney PT, Parsons JK, Nelson TJ, Nalawade V, Luterstein E, et al. Association between African American race and clinical outcomes in men treated for low-risk prostate cancer with active surveillance. JAMA. 2020;324:1747–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Prostate with Watchful Waiting Database - SEER Data & Software [Internet]. [cited 2019 Feb 21]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/databases/prostate-ww/index.html

  12. Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Ma X, Scherr D, Hu JC, Shoag JE. Temporal changes in demographic and clinical characteristics of men with prostate cancer electing for conservative management in the united states. Urology. 2020;137:60–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Scosyrev E, Messing J, Noyes K, Veazie P, Messing E. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program and population-based research in urologic oncology: an overview. Urol Oncol. 2012;30:126–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brief Description of SEER-Medicare Database [Internet]. [cited 2020 Dec 30]. Available from: https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seermedicare/overview/

  15. healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seermedicare/considerations/comorbidity.input.file.example.sas [Internet]. [cited 2020 Dec 30]. Available from: https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seermedicare/considerations/comorbidity.input.file.example.sas

  16. Shoag JE, Cai PY, Gross MD, Gaffney C, Li D, Mao J, et al. Impact of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging on biopsy and radical prostatectomy grade concordance. Cancer. 2020;126:2986–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Macleod LC, Yabes JG, Fam MM, Bandari J, Yu M, Maganty A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is associated with increased medicare spending in prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol Focus 2020;6:242–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dess RT, Hartman HE, Mahal BA, Soni PD, Jackson WC, Cooperberg MR, et al. Association of black race with prostate cancer-specific and other-cause mortality. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:975–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Iremashvili V, Soloway MS, Rosenberg DL, Manoharan M. Clinical and demographic characteristics associated with prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance. J Urol. 2012;187:1594–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Odom BD, Mir MC, Hughes S, Senechal C, Santy A, Eyraud R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in African American men: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2014;83:364–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Ma X, Christos P, Hu JC, Shoag JE. Active surveillance for black men with low-risk prostate cancer in the United States. N. Engl J Med. 2019;381:2581–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. DeWitt-Foy ME, Gam K, Modlin C, Kim SP, Abouassaly R. Race, decisional regret and prostate cancer beliefs: identifying targets to reduce racial disparities in prostate cancer. J Urol. 2021;205:426–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Walton EL, Deebajah M, Keeley J, Fakhouri S, Yaguchi G, Pantelic M, et al. Barriers to obtaining prostate multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in African-American men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Cancer Med. 2019;8:3659–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chamie K, Williams SB, Hershman DL, Wright JD, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Population-based assessment of determining predictors for quality of prostate cancer surveillance. Cancer. 2015;121:4150–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Carter HB, Walsh PC, Landis P, Epstein JI. Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. J Urol. 2002;167:1231–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:597–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hoffman RM, Mott SL, McDowell BD, Anand ST, Nepple KG. Trends and practices for managing low-risk prostate cancer: a SEER-Medicare study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25:100–8.

  28. Ginsburg KB, Auffenberg GB, Qi J, Powell IJ, Linsell SM, Montie JE, et al. Risk of becoming lost to follow-up during active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;74:704–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bhanji Y, Rowe SP, Pavlovich CP. New imaging modalities to consider for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. World J Urol. 2022;40:51–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work presented here was not directly funded by an outside organization or sponsor. JES is supported by the Frederick J. and Theresa Dow Fund of the New York Community Trust, the Vinney Scholars Award, and a Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation Physician-Scientist Training Award. JES had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Study conception and design: BA, JES; Acquisition of data: BA, XW, JES; Analysis and interpretation of data: BA, XW, DAB, KAM, RMH, SPB, PL, WWS, CAG, JES; Drafting of manuscript: BA, XW, DAB, KAM, RMH, SPB, PL, WWS, CAG, JES; Critical revision: BA, XW, DAB, KAM, RMH, SPB, PL, WWS, CAG, JES.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al Hussein Al Awamlh, B., Wu, X., Barocas, D.A. et al. Intensity of observation with active surveillance or watchful waiting in men with prostate cancer in the United States. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00580-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00580-z

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links