NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer.

Patricia A Ganz, John M Barry, Wylie Burke, Nananda F Col, Phaedra S Corso, Everett Dodson, M Elizabeth Hammond, Barry A Kogan, Charles F Lynch, Lee Newcomer, Eric J Seifter, Janet A Tooze, Kasisomayajula Vish Viswanath, Hunter Wessells
{"title":"NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer.","authors":"Patricia A Ganz,&nbsp;John M Barry,&nbsp;Wylie Burke,&nbsp;Nananda F Col,&nbsp;Phaedra S Corso,&nbsp;Everett Dodson,&nbsp;M Elizabeth Hammond,&nbsp;Barry A Kogan,&nbsp;Charles F Lynch,&nbsp;Lee Newcomer,&nbsp;Eric J Seifter,&nbsp;Janet A Tooze,&nbsp;Kasisomayajula Vish Viswanath,&nbsp;Hunter Wessells","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide healthcare providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on the use of active surveillance and other observational management strategies for low-grade, localized prostate cancer.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A non-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate 14-member panel representing the fields of cancer prevention and control, urology, pathology, epidemiology, genetics, transplantation, bioethics, economics, health services research, shared decisionmaking, health communication, and community engagement. In addition, 22 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience.</p><p><strong>Evidence: </strong>Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience.</p><p><strong>Conference process: </strong>The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has identified many men with low-risk disease. Because of the very favorable prognosis of low-risk prostate cancer, strong consideration should be given to modifying the anxiety-provoking term \"cancer\" for this condition. Treatment of low-risk prostate cancer patients with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy leads to side effects such as impotence and incontinence in a substantial number. Active surveillance has emerged as a viable option that should be offered to patients with low-risk prostate cancer. More than 100,000 men a year diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States are candidates for this approach. However, there are many unanswered questions about active surveillance strategies and prostate cancer that require further research and clarification. These include: • Improvements in the accuracy and consistency of pathologic diagnosis of prostate cancer • Consensus on which men are the most appropriate candidates for active surveillance • The optimal protocol for active surveillance and the potential for individualizing the approach based on clinical and patient factors • Optimal ways to communicate the option of active surveillance to patients • Methods to assist patient decisionmaking • Reasons for acceptance or rejection of active surveillance as a treatment strategy • Short- and long-term outcomes of active surveillance. Well-designed studies to address these questions and others raised in this statement represent an important health research priority. Qualitative, observational, and interventional research designs are needed. Due to the paucity of evidence about this important public health problem, all patients being considered for active surveillance should be offered participation in multicenter research studies that incorporate community settings and partners.</p>","PeriodicalId":86986,"journal":{"name":"NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements","volume":"28 1","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To provide healthcare providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on the use of active surveillance and other observational management strategies for low-grade, localized prostate cancer.

Participants: A non-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate 14-member panel representing the fields of cancer prevention and control, urology, pathology, epidemiology, genetics, transplantation, bioethics, economics, health services research, shared decisionmaking, health communication, and community engagement. In addition, 22 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience.

Evidence: Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience.

Conference process: The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government.

Conclusions: Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has identified many men with low-risk disease. Because of the very favorable prognosis of low-risk prostate cancer, strong consideration should be given to modifying the anxiety-provoking term "cancer" for this condition. Treatment of low-risk prostate cancer patients with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy leads to side effects such as impotence and incontinence in a substantial number. Active surveillance has emerged as a viable option that should be offered to patients with low-risk prostate cancer. More than 100,000 men a year diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States are candidates for this approach. However, there are many unanswered questions about active surveillance strategies and prostate cancer that require further research and clarification. These include: • Improvements in the accuracy and consistency of pathologic diagnosis of prostate cancer • Consensus on which men are the most appropriate candidates for active surveillance • The optimal protocol for active surveillance and the potential for individualizing the approach based on clinical and patient factors • Optimal ways to communicate the option of active surveillance to patients • Methods to assist patient decisionmaking • Reasons for acceptance or rejection of active surveillance as a treatment strategy • Short- and long-term outcomes of active surveillance. Well-designed studies to address these questions and others raised in this statement represent an important health research priority. Qualitative, observational, and interventional research designs are needed. Due to the paucity of evidence about this important public health problem, all patients being considered for active surveillance should be offered participation in multicenter research studies that incorporate community settings and partners.

美国国立卫生研究院最新科学会议声明:主动监测在男性局限性前列腺癌管理中的作用。
目的:为医疗保健提供者、患者和公众提供一个负责任的评估,以评估目前使用主动监测和其他观察性管理策略治疗低级别局限性前列腺癌的数据。参与者:非美国人。美国卫生与公众服务部,由14人组成的非倡导者小组,代表癌症预防和控制、泌尿学、病理学、流行病学、遗传学、移植、生物伦理学、经济学、卫生服务研究、共同决策、卫生交流和社区参与等领域。此外,来自相关领域的22位专家向小组和会议听众介绍了数据。证据:专家介绍和塔夫茨循证实践中心通过医疗保健研究和质量机构(AHRQ)编写的文献系统综述。科学证据优先于轶事经验。会议进程:小组根据公开论坛上提出的科学证据和已发表的科学文献起草了声明。声明草案在会议的最后一天提出,并分发给与会者征求意见。该委员会当天晚些时候在http://consensus.nih.gov上发布了一份修订后的声明。本声明是专家组的独立报告,不是NIH或联邦政府的政策声明。结论:前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)检测的前列腺癌筛查已经确定了许多低风险的男性疾病。由于低风险前列腺癌的预后非常好,因此应该强烈考虑修改引起焦虑的术语“癌症”。低风险前列腺癌患者的根治性前列腺切除术或放射治疗会导致阳痿和尿失禁等副作用。主动监测已经成为一种可行的选择,应该提供给低风险前列腺癌患者。在美国,每年有超过10万被诊断患有前列腺癌的男性可以采用这种方法。然而,关于主动监测策略和前列腺癌还有许多悬而未决的问题需要进一步的研究和澄清。这些包括:•提高前列腺癌病理诊断的准确性和一致性•关于哪些男性是主动监测的最合适人选的共识•主动监测的最佳方案以及基于临床和患者因素的个性化方法的潜力•向患者传达主动监测选择的最佳方式•辅助患者决策的方法•接受或拒绝主动监测的原因•主动监测的短期和长期结果。为解决这些问题和本声明中提出的其他问题而精心设计的研究是一项重要的卫生研究重点。需要定性、观察性和干预性的研究设计。由于缺乏关于这一重要公共卫生问题的证据,应让所有考虑进行主动监测的患者参与包括社区环境和合作伙伴在内的多中心研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信