| 1. |
- Christiansen, Ola, et al.
(författare)
-
TECLA-an innovative technical approach for prostate cancer registries.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian journal of urology. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 2168-1813 .- 2168-1805. ; 53:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To present a code-driven, electronic database for patients TrEated with robotic-assisted radiCaL prostAtectomy (TECLA), developed at Innlandet Hospital (IH), Trust, Norway, for research, local quality control and to deliver data to the National Cancer Registry of Norway (CRN). Clinical data are directly extracted from the structured documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR). Materials and methods: The urological department at IH treats about 200 patients with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) annually. All consenting patients registered with the procedure code for RARP are included in TECLA. Clinical data are obtained automatically from the EMR, by structured forms. Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) are filled in by the patients on an iPad or a smartphone. Results: The basic construct of TECLA is presented. From August 2017 to June 2018, 200 men were treated with RARP, of which 182 (91%) provided consent for inclusion in the register. Of these, 97% completed the PROM survey before treatment and 91% at 3 months follow-up. PREMs were completed by 78%. All clinical variables for the hospital stay and for the 6-week follow-up were more than 95% complete. Conclusion: This entirely electronic surgical quality register is easy to use, both for patients and clinicians, and has a high capture rate. The data collection is linked to the clinicians' workflow, without double data entry, so entering data does not add any extra work. The register design can be used by other hospitals for various surgical procedures.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ahlberg, Mats Steinholtz, et al.
(författare)
-
PCASTt/SPCG-17-A randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer: Rationale and design
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Overtreatment of localised prostate cancer is substantial despite increased use of active surveillance. No randomised trials help define how to monitor patients or when to initiate treatment with curative intent. Methods and analysis A randomised, multicentre, intervention trial designed to evaluate the safety of an MRI-based active surveillance protocol, with standardised triggers for repeated biopsies and radical treatment. The aim is to reduce overtreatment of prostate cancer. 2000 men will be randomly allocated to either surveillance according to current practice or to standardised triggers at centres in Sweden, Norway, Finland and the UK. Men diagnosed in the past 12 months with prostate cancer, ≤T2a, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <15 ng/mL, PSA density ≤0.2 ng/mL/cc, any International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 are eligible. Men with ISUP grade 2 in <30% of cores on systematic biopsy and <10 mm cancer in one core on systematic or targeted biopsy are also eligible. Men diagnosed on systematic biopsy should have an MRI and targeted biopsies against Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System V.2 3-5 lesions before inclusion. Identical follow-up in the two study arms: biannual PSA testing, yearly clinical examination and MRI every second year. In the experimental arm, standardised triggers based on MRI and PSA density elicit repeated biopsies. MRI and histopathological progression trigger radical treatment. Primary outcome measure is progression-free survival. Secondary outcome measures are cumulative incidence of metastatic disease, treatments with curative intent, pT3-4 at radical prostatectomy, switch to watchful waiting, prostate cancer mortality and quality of life. Inclusion started in October 2016 and in October 2018; 275 patients have been enrolled. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained in each participating country. Results for the primary and secondary outcome measures will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT02914873.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bergengren, Oskar, et al.
(författare)
-
Determinants for choosing and adhering to active surveillance for localised prostate cancer: A nationwide population-based study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 9:12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective Knowledge about factors influencing choice of and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PC) is scarce. We aim to identify which factors most affected choosing and adhering to AS and to quantify their relative importance. Design, setting and participants In 2015, we sent a questionnaire to all Swedish men aged ≤70 years registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden who were diagnosed in 2008 with low-risk PC and had undergone prostatectomy, radiotherapy or started on AS. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Logistic regression was used to calculate ORs with 95% CIs for factors potentially affecting choice and adherence to AS. Results 1288 out of 1720 men (75%) responded, 451 (35%) chose AS and 837 (65%) underwent curative treatment. Of those starting on AS, 238 (53%) diverted to treatment within 7years. Most men (83%) choose AS because ‘My doctor recommended AS’. Factors associated with choosing AS over treatment were older age (OR 1.81, 95%CI 1.29 to 2.54), a Charlson Comorbidity Index >2 (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.06 to 2.13), being unaccompanied when notified of the cancer diagnosis (OR 1.45, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.89). Men with a higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at the time of diagnosis were less likely to adhere to AS (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.63). The reason for having treatment after initial AS was ‘the PSA level was rising’ in 55% and biopsy findings in 36%. Conclusions A doctor’s recommendation strongly affects which treatment is chosen for men with low-risk PC. Rising PSA values were the main factor for initiating treatment for men on AS. These findings need be considered by healthcare providers who wish to increase the uptake of and adherence to AS.
|
|
| 4. |
- Bergengren, Oskar, et al.
(författare)
-
Satisfaction with Care Among Men with Localised Prostate Cancer: A Nationwide Population-based Study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Urology Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2588-9311. ; 1:1, s. 37-45
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Information about how men with prostate cancer (PC) experience their medical care and factors associated with their overall satisfaction with care (OSC) is limited. Objective: To investigate OSC and factors associated with OSC among men with low-risk PC. Design, setting, and participants: Men registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden as diagnosed in 2008 with low-risk PC at the age of ≤70 yr who had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT), or started on active surveillance (AS) were invited in 2015 to participate in this nationwide population-based survey (n = 1720). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: OSC data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for comparisons between the highest and lowest possible response categories. Results and limitations: A total of 1288 men (74.9%) responded. High OSC was reported by 958 (74.4%). Factors associated with high OSC were high participation in decision-making (OR 4.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.61–6.69), receiving more information (OR 11.1, 95% CI 7.97–15.6), high-quality information (OR 7.85, 95% CI 5.46–11.3), access to a nurse navigator (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.44–2.26), and better functional outcomes (defined as 25 points higher on the EPIC-26 questionnaire; OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21–1.48). OSC was not affected by whether a doctor or specialist nurse conducted follow-up (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66–1.07). These findings were similar across treatment groups. Men who had undergone RP or RT reported high OSC more often than men on AS (78.2% vs 84.0% vs 72.6%), high participation in decision-making (70.5% vs 64.5% vs 49.2%), and having received more information (40.5% vs 45.8% vs 28.6%), and were less likely to believe they would die from PC (3.8% vs 3.9% vs 8.0%). Limitations include the nonrandomised retrospective design and potential recall bias. Conclusions: Information and participation in decision-making, as well as access to a nurse navigator, are key factors for OSC, regardless of treatment. Men on AS need more information about their treatment and need to participate more in decision-making. OSC was as high among men who had nurse-led follow-up as among men who had doctor-led follow-up. Patient summary: Information about how men with low-risk prostate cancer experience their medical care is limited. In this nationwide population-based study we found that information and participation in decision-making as well as access to a nurse navigator are key factors for satisfaction regardless of treatment. Men who are being closely watched for prostate cancer without immediate curative treatment need more information than they now receive and need to participate more in decision-making than they currently do. Information and participation in decision-making are key factors for satisfaction with care among men with localised prostate cancer. Men under active surveillance need more information about their treatment and need to participate more in decision-making. © 2018 European Association of Urology
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Bjartell, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Prediction of clinical progression after radical prostatectomy in a nationwide population-based cohort
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Urology. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 2168-1805 .- 2168-1813. ; 50:4, s. 255-259
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to create a model for predicting progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Material and methods: The risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) was modelled in a cohort of 3452 men aged 70 years or younger who were primarily treated with radical prostatectomy after being diagnosed between 2003 and 2006 with localized prostate cancer [clinical stage T1c-T2, Gleason score 5-10, N0/NX, M0/MX, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)<20 ng/ml]. The cohort was split into two: one cohort for model development (n = 3452) and one for validation (n = 1762). BCR was defined as two increasing PSA values of at least 0.2 ng/ml, initiation of secondary therapy, distant metastases or death from prostate cancer. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was applied, predictive performance was assessed using the bootstrap resampling technique to calculate the c index, and calibration of the model was evaluated by comparing predicted and observed Kaplan-Meier 1 year BCR. Results: The overall 5 year progression-free survival was 83% after a median follow-up time of 6.8 years in the development cohort and 7.3 years in the validation cohort. The final model included T stage, PSA level, primary and secondary Gleason grade, and number of positive and negative biopsies. The c index for discrimination between high and low risk of recurrence was 0.68. The probability of progression-free survival ranged from 22% to 97% over the range of risk scores in the study population. Conclusions: This model is based on nationwide population-based data and can be used with a fair predictive accuracy to guide decisions on clinical follow-up after prostatectomy. An online calculator for convenient clinical use of the model is available at www.npcr.se/nomogram
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Bratt, Ola, et al.
(författare)
-
Family History and Probability of Prostate Cancer, Differentiated by Risk Category : A Nationwide Population-Based Study
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 108:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Familial prostate cancer risk estimates are inflated by clinically insignificant low-risk cancer, diagnosed after prostate-specific antigen testing. We provide age-specific probabilities of non-low-and high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: Fifty-one thousand, eight hundred ninety-seven brothers of 32 807 men with prostate cancer were identified in Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe). Nelson-Aalen estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for cumulative, family history-stratified probabilities of any, non-low-(any of Gleason score >= 7, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >= 10 ng/mL, T3-4, N1, and/or M1) and high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score >= 8 and/or T3-4 and/or PSA >= 20 ng/mL and/or N1 and/or M1). Results: The population probability of any prostate cancer was 4.8% (95% CI = 4.8% to 4.9%) at age 65 years and 12.9% (95% CI = 12.8% to 12.9%) at age 75 years, of non-low-risk prostate cancer 2.8% (95% CI = 2.7% to 2.8%) at age 65 years and 8.9% (95% CI = 8.8% to 8.9%) at age 75 years, and of high-risk prostate cancer 1.4% (95% CI = 1.3% to 1.4%) at age 65 years and 5.2% (95% CI = 5.1% to 5.2%) at age 75 years. For men with one affected brother, probabilities of any prostate cancer were 14.9% (95% CI = 14.1% to 15.8%) at age 65 years and 30.3% (95% CI = 29.3% to 31.3%) at age 75 years, of non-low-risk prostate cancer 7.3% (95% CI = 6.7% to 7.9%) at age 65 years and 18.8% (95% CI = 17.9% to 19.6%) at age 75 years, and of high-risk prostate cancer 3.0% (95% CI = 2.6% to 3.4%) at age 65 years and 8.9% (95% CI = 8.2% to 9.5%) at age 75 years. Probabilities were higher for men with a stronger family history. For example, men with two affected brothers had a 13.6% (95% CI = 9.9% to 17.6 %) probability of high-risk cancer at age 75 years. Conclusions: The age-specific probabilities of non-low-and high-risk cancer presented here are more informative than relative risks of any prostate cancer and more suitable to use for counseling men with a family history of prostate cancer.
|
|
