BMC Urology (Jun 2022)

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of active surveillance in prostate cancer among urologists: a real-life survey from Brazil

  • Marcelo Langer Wroclawski,
  • Breno Santos Amaral,
  • Paulo Priante Kayano,
  • Wilson Francisco Schreiner Busato,
  • Sebastião José Westphal,
  • Erik Montagna,
  • Bianca Bianco,
  • Andrey Soares,
  • Fernando Cotait Maluf,
  • Gustavo Caserta Lemos,
  • Arie Carneiro

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-022-01036-1
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred treatment for patients with very low-and low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but it is underperformed worldwide. This study aimed to report knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of AS for PCa among urologists in Brazil. Methods This cross-sectional study used a questionnaire with 50 questions divided into participant characteristics, knowledge regarding inclusion criteria for AS, follow-up, intervention triggers, acceptance, and practice for an index patient. Data analysis comprises absolute and relative frequencies of the variables. After that, a logistic regression was performed in order to verify possible patterns of answers provided by the respondents in the index patient questionnaire. Results Questionnaires were sent through the SurveyMonkey® platform to 5,015 urologists using email addresses and through social media. A total of 600 (12%) questionnaires returned and 413 (8.2%) were completed and included in the analysis. Only 53% of urologists adopt AS for low- and very-low-risk PCa. Inclusion criteria were patients with age > 50 years (32.2%), prostate specific antigen (PSA) < 10 ng/mL (87.2%), T1 clinical stage (80.4%), Biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6, positive cores ≤ 2 (44.3%), positive core involvement < 50% (45.3%), and magnetic resonance imaging findings (38.7%). The PSA doubling time was still used by 60.3%. Confirmatory biopsy (55.9%), PSA level (36.6%), and digital rectal examination (34.4%) were considered by most urologists for follow-ups. Patient preference (85.7%), upgrade of Gleason score (73.4%), and increased number of positive cores (66.8%) were associated with conversion to definitive treatment. In an index patient, non-acceptance and active treatment request were the most cited reasons for not performing AS. Conclusion There is significant variability in the KAP of AS in Brazil, which indicates the need to reinforce AS, its inclusion and follow-up criteria, and the benefits for physicians and the general population. Trial registration : Not applicable.

Keywords