Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer
Issued Date
2023-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
24054569
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85153794367
Journal Title
European Urology Focus
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
European Urology Focus (2023)
Suggested Citation
Saoud R., Woranisarakul V., Paner G.P., Ramotar M., Berlin A., Cooperberg M., Eggener S.E. Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer. European Urology Focus (2023). doi:10.1016/j.euf.2023.04.002 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/82495
Title
Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Despite its low-risk nature, grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer (PCa) remains overtreated. This suggests a disconnect between daily physician practice and the standard of care. We hypothesized that GG 1 disease is overtreated because of common misconceptions regarding its true natural history. Objective: To survey physicians worldwide to better understand their approach to management of GG 1 PCa. Design, setting, and participants: A 17-question survey was sent to urology, radiation oncology, and pathology societies on six continents, and was posted on Twitter. Responses were collected and analyzed. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Pearson's χ2 test was used to assess correlation between physician-related variables and the perception of active surveillance (AS) for GG 1 PCa. Logistic regression was used for multivariable analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21. Results and limitations: Among 1303 participants, 55% were urologists, 47% had completed fellowship, and 49% practice in an academic setting. Among the clinicians, 724 (83%) routinely recommend AS for GG 1 PCa and have never/rarely regretted it, while 18 (2%) “often” regretted it. Routine AS was more common among physicians aged <40 yr, those in practice for <10 yr, and those living in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. More than one-third of the respondents practicing in nonacademic settings reported 15-yr PCa mortality in low-risk PCa of >3%. Regarding reclassification of GG 1 to a precancerous lesion, 428 (39%) felt that this is a good idea, 340 (31%) disagreed, and 323 (30%) were uncertain. Those in support were more likely to be aged <40 yr (p = 0.001), in practice for <5 yr (p = 0.005), urologists (p < 0.001), and fellows trained in urologic oncology (p < 0.001). Opposition was common among pathologists (61%). Among terminologies proposed to replace “cancer” for GG 1 are neoplasm of low malignant potential (51% approval), indolent neoplasm rarely requiring treatment (23%), and indolent lesion of epithelial origin (8%). Conclusions: AS is more commonly recommended by physicians who are younger, are fellowship-trained in urologic oncology, practice in academic settings, and are based in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. Misconceptions regarding AS outcomes may hinder its adoption. Frequent use of AS is associated with support for changing the “cancer” nomenclature. Patient summary: In this study, we found that active surveillance remains underused in the management of low-risk prostate cancer because of incorrect perceptions regarding cancer outcomes. Omitting the word “cancer” for low-risk lesions is a challenging but promising effort that is favored by many clinicians, particularly by those who advocate for active surveillance.