Publication:
Variability in the multicentre National Registry in Active Surveillance; a questionnaire for urologists.

dc.contributor.authorRubio-Briones, J
dc.contributor.authorBorque-Fernando, A
dc.contributor.authorEsteban-Escaño, L M
dc.contributor.authorMartínez-Breijo, S
dc.contributor.authorMedina-López, R
dc.contributor.authorHernández, V
dc.contributor.authoren representación del Grupo Colaborativo PIEM-AEU Vigilancia Activa 2014 001 NCT02865330
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-25T10:06:45Z
dc.date.available2023-01-25T10:06:45Z
dc.date.issued2018-04-13
dc.description.abstractOur main objective was to report the current use of active surveillance in Spain and to identify areas for potential improvement. A questionnaire generated by the Platform for Multicentre Studies of the Spanish Urology Association (AEU/PIEM/2014/0001, NCT02865330) was sent to all associate researchers from January to March 2016. The questionnaire included 7 domains covering various aspects of active surveillance. Thirty-three of the 41 associate researchers responded to the questionnaire. Active surveillance is mainly controlled by the urology departments (87.9%). There was considerable heterogeneity in the classical clinical-pathological variables as selection criteria. Only 36.4% of the associate researchers used prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd). Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was clearly underused as initial staging (6%). Only 27.3% of the researchers stated that their radiology colleagues had a high level of experience in mpMRI. In terms of the confirmation biopsy, most of the centres used the transrectal pathway, and only 2 out of 33 used the transperineal pathway or fusion software. Half of the researchers interviewed applied active treatment when faced with disease progression to Gleason 7 (3+4). There was no consensus on when to transition to an observation strategy. The study showed the underutilisation of informed consent and quality-of-life questionnaires. PSAd was not included as a decisive element in the initial strategy for most researchers. There was a lack of confidence in the urologists' mpMRI experience and an underutilisation of the transperineal pathway. There was also no consensus on the follow-up protocols and active treatment criteria, confirming the need for prospective studies to analyse the role of mpMRI and biomarkers.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.acuro.2018.01.007
dc.identifier.essn2173-5786
dc.identifier.pmid29661508
dc.identifier.unpaywallURLhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/78901/files/texto_completo.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10668/12353
dc.issue.number7
dc.journal.titleActas urologicas espanolas
dc.journal.titleabbreviationActas Urol Esp (Engl Ed)
dc.language.isoen
dc.language.isoes
dc.organizationIBIS
dc.page.number442-449
dc.pubmedtypeJournal Article
dc.pubmedtypeMulticenter Study
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectActive surveillance
dc.subjectCuestionario
dc.subjectCáncer de próstata
dc.subjectProstate cancer
dc.subjectQuestionnaire
dc.subjectVigilancia activa
dc.subject.meshHealth Care Surveys
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshMale
dc.subject.meshProstatic Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshRegistries
dc.subject.meshSpain
dc.subject.meshUrology
dc.subject.meshWatchful Waiting
dc.titleVariability in the multicentre National Registry in Active Surveillance; a questionnaire for urologists.
dc.title.alternativeVariabilidad dentro del Registro Nacional multicéntrico en Vigilancia Activa; cuestionario a urólogos.
dc.typeresearch article
dc.type.hasVersionAM
dc.volume.number42
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files