Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/21585
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorOng, Wee Loon-
dc.contributor.authorEvans, Sue M-
dc.contributor.authorEvans, Melanie-
dc.contributor.authorTacey, Mark A-
dc.contributor.authorDodds, Lachlan-
dc.contributor.authorKearns, Paul-
dc.contributor.authorMilne, Roger L-
dc.contributor.authorForoudi, Farshad-
dc.contributor.authorMillar, Jeremy-
dc.date2019-05-06-
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-19T06:13:05Z-
dc.date.available2019-08-19T06:13:05Z-
dc.date.issued2021-04-
dc.identifier.citationEuropean urology oncology 2021; 4(2): 319-322en
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/21585-
dc.description.abstractConservative management, specifically with active surveillance (AS), has emerged as the preferred approach for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC). We evaluated the trend for conservative management (ie, no active treatment within 12mo of diagnosis) for LRPC in an Australian population-based cohort of men captured in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry Victoria (PCOR-Vic). Of the 3201 men diagnosed with LRPC between January 2009 and December 2016, 60% (1928/3201) had conservative management, and 52% (1664/3201) were documented to be on AS. There was an increase in conservative management from 52% in 2009 to 73% in 2016 (p<0.001), largely attributable to an increase in AS from 33% in 2009 to 67% in 2016 (p<0.001). When stratified by age group, the increase in conservative management was more pronounced among younger patients: from 37% to 66% for men aged <60yr versus from 72% to 86% for men aged ≥70yr. In multivariable analyses, increasing age, lower prostate-specific antigen and clinical category, lower socioeconomic status, and being diagnosed in public metropolitan institutions were all independently associated with a greater likelihood of conservative management. Identification of sociodemographic and institutional variations in practice allows for targeted strategies to improve management for men with LRPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the uptake of conservative management (no active treatment within 12 mo of diagnosis) over time in an Australian population-based cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer. The proportion of men with low-risk prostate cancer managed conservatively increased from 52% in 2009 to 73% in 2016. The increase in the uptake of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer in Australia is concordant with international guidelines and other international population-based studies.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectActive surveillanceen
dc.subjectPatterns of careen
dc.subjectProstate canceren
dc.titleTrends in Conservative Management for Low-risk Prostate Cancer in a Population-based Cohort of Australian Men Diagnosed Between 2009 and 2016.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleEuropean urology oncologyen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKen
dc.identifier.affiliationPrecision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationCancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationRadiation Oncologyen
dc.identifier.affiliationBarwon Health, Geelong, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationBallarat Health Services, Ballarat, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAlfred Health Radiation Oncology Services, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationCentral Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationHealth and Biomedical Informatics Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationOlivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centreen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.euo.2019.04.006en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-8387-0965en
dc.identifier.pubmedid31411964-
dc.type.austinJournal Article-
local.name.researcherForoudi, Farshad
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.author.deptRadiation Oncology-
crisitem.author.deptOlivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre-
crisitem.author.deptRadiation Oncology-
crisitem.author.deptOlivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre-
crisitem.author.deptOlivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre-
crisitem.author.deptRadiation Oncology-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

56
checked on Jan 3, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.