National Prostate Cancer Registries: Contemporary Trends of Prostate Cancer in the United States

No AccessUrology Practicethe Specialty1 Nov 2014National Prostate Cancer Registries: Contemporary Trends of Prostate Cancer in the United States Ahmed A. Hussein, Christopher J. Welty, Jeanette Broering, Matthew R. Cooperberg, and Peter R. Carroll Ahmed A. HusseinAhmed A. Hussein Department of Urology and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California Department of Urology, Cairo University, Egypt No direct or indirect commercial incentive associated with publishing this article. More articles by this author , Christopher J. WeltyChristopher J. Welty Department of Urology and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California No direct or indirect commercial incentive associated with publishing this article. More articles by this author , Jeanette BroeringJeanette Broering Department of Urology and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California No direct or indirect commercial incentive associated with publishing this article. More articles by this author , Matthew R. CooperbergMatthew R. Cooperberg Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California Financial interest and/or other relationship with Myriad, Genomic Health, GenomeDx, Dendreon, Astellas, Janssen and Abbott. More articles by this author , and Peter R. CarrollPeter R. Carroll Department of Urology and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California Financial interest and/or other relationship with Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health International, Takeda, GHI and Medivation/Astellas. More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2014.07.005AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Introduction: Randomized clinical trials are considered the gold standard for evidence-based practices but strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, costs to perform them and the time required to design and complete them may limit generalizability, followup and timeliness. Observational studies based on well designed, large volume patient registries may be more flexible in that scope. Such registries can be modified with time to incorporate new treatments as they emerge. Methods: We describe the design, objectives, funding mechanisms and results to date of the major prostate cancer registries in the United States, highlighting as examples PCOS, CaPSURE™, PROST-QA, CEASAR, MUSIC and AQUA. Results: Registries and collaborations have provided valuable knowledge for prostate cancer regarding oncologic and health related quality of life outcomes among treatments, changes in disease prevalence, staging, national practice trends and health service utilization. Conclusions: While there are important limitations to observational data, registries will continue to have an important and growing role in advancing prostate cancer care as a complement to data from clinical trials and traditional cohort studies. References 1 : Premature termination of genitourinary cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol2014; 32. abstract 288. Google Scholar 2 : Comparison of health-related quality of life 5 years after SPIRIT: Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 362. Google Scholar 3 Observation or Radical Treatment in Patients With Prostate Cancer. Available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT00499174?term=Observation+or+Radical+Treatment+in+Patients+With+Prostate+Cancer&rank=1. Accessed June 10, 2014. Google Scholar 4 National Cancer Institute: SEER Cancer Statistics Factsheets—Prostate Cancer. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html. Accessed June 10, 2014. Google Scholar 5 : Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality2014. Available at http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/registries-guide-3.cfm. Accessed April 2014. Google Scholar 6 : Prostate cancer practice patterns and quality of life: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst1999; 91: 1719. Google Scholar 7 : Factors associated with initial therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst2001; 93: 1864. Google Scholar 8 : Racial differences in initial treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Gen Intern Med2003; 18: 845. Google Scholar 9 : Mortality after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2013; 105: 711. Google Scholar 10 : General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer: what influences outcomes? Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Clin Oncol2003; 21: 1147. Google Scholar 11 : Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst2000; 92: 1582. Google Scholar 12 : Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med2013; 368: 436. Google Scholar 13 : The CaPSURE database: a methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. CaPSURE Research Panel. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. Urology1996; 48: 773. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 14 : Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology2000; 56: 899. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 15 : The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE), a national disease registry. J Urol2004; 171: 1393. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Vegetable and fruit intake after diagnosis and risk of prostate cancer progression. Int J Cancer2012; 131: 201. Google Scholar 17 : Impact of folate intake on prostate cancer recurrence following definitive therapy: data from CaPSURE. J Urol2014; 191: 971. Link, Google Scholar 18 : Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol2007; 178: S14. Link, Google Scholar 19 : Patient demographics, quality of life, and disease features of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: trends in the PSA era. Urology2013; 82: 60. Google Scholar 20 : Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer2010; 116: 5226. Google Scholar 21 : What percentage of patients with newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate are candidates for surveillance? An analysis of the CaPSURE database. J Urol2008; 180: 1330. Link, Google Scholar 22 : Use of imaging tests for staging newly diagnosed prostate cancer: trends from the CaPSURE database. J Urol1998; 160: 2102. Link, Google Scholar 23 : Contemporary trends in imaging test utilization for prostate cancer staging: data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. J Urol2002; 168: 491. Link, Google Scholar 24 : The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol2005; 173: 1938. Link, Google Scholar 25 : The CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer2011; 117: 5039. Google Scholar 26 : Validity of the CAPRA score to predict biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Results from a European multicenter survey of 1,296 patients. J Urol2007; 178: 1957. Link, Google Scholar 27 : Risk assessment for prostate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst2009; 101: 878. Google Scholar 28 : Validation of the Kattan preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence using a community based cohort: results from Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urological Research Endeavor (CaPSURE). J Urol2004; 171: 2255. Link, Google Scholar 29 : Ability of 2 pretreatment risk assessment methods to predict prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: data from CaPSURE. J Urol2005; 173: 1126. Link, Google Scholar 30 : Surrogate end point for prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst2003; 95: 1376. Google Scholar 31 : Differences in urologist and patient assessments of health related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: results of the CaPSURE database. J Urol1998; 159: 1988. Link, Google Scholar 32 : Differing perceptions of quality of life in patients with prostate cancer and their doctors. J Urol2013; 189: S59. Link, Google Scholar 33 : Quality of life: radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol1995; 154: 1420. Link, Google Scholar 34 : Changes in health-related quality of life in the first year after treatment for prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. Urology1999; 53: 180. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 35 : Health related quality of life in patients treated with multimodal therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol2008; 180: 2415. Link, Google Scholar 36 : Health related quality of life differences between black and white men with prostate cancer: data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. J Urol2001; 166: 2281. Link, Google Scholar 37 : Differences in clinical characteristics and disease-free survival for Latino, African American, and non-Latino white men with localized prostate cancer: data from CaPSURE. Cancer2006; 106: 789. Google Scholar 38 : Using a population-based observational cohort study to address difficult comparative effectiveness research questions: the CEASAR study. J Comp Eff Res2013; 2: 445. Google Scholar 39 : Risk assessment among prostate cancer patients receiving primary androgen deprivation therapy. J Clin Oncol2009; 27: 4306. Google Scholar 40 : Sixth joint meeting of J-CaP and CaPSURE—a multinational perspective on prostate cancer management and patient outcomes. Jpn J Clin Oncol2013; 43: 756. Google Scholar 41 : Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med2008; 358: 1250. Google Scholar 42 : Measuring and predicting prostate cancer related quality of life changes using EPIC for clinical practice. J Urol2014; 191: 638. Link, Google Scholar 43 Effectiveness of Open and Robotic Prostatectomy (PROSTQA-RP2). Available at http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01325506 pp. Accessed May 8, 2014. Google Scholar 44 : Contemporary prevalence of pretreatment urinary, sexual, hormonal, and bowel dysfunction: defining the population at risk for harms of prostate cancer treatment. Cancer2014; 120: 1263. Google Scholar 45 : Infection related hospitalizations after prostate biopsy in a statewide quality improvement collaborative. J Urol2014; 191: 1787. Link, Google Scholar 46 : Improvement in clinical TNM staging documentation within a prostate cancer quality improvement collaborative. Urology2014; 83: 781. Google Scholar 47 : Variation in prostate cancer detection rates in a statewide quality improvement collaborative. J Urol2014; 192: 373. Link, Google Scholar 48 : Effectiveness of primary androgen-deprivation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2014; 32: 1324. Google Scholar 49 : Delayed radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer is associated with biochemical recurrence: possible implications for active surveillance from the SEARCH database. Prostate2013; 73: 409. Google Scholar © 2014 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 1Issue 4November 2014Page: 198-204 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsregistriesepidemiologic research designobservational study as topicprostatic neoplasmsdata collectionMetricsAuthor Information Ahmed A. Hussein Department of Urology and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California Department of Urology, Cairo University, Egypt No direct or indirect commercial incentive associated with publishing this article. More articles by this author Christopher J. Welty Department of Urology and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California No direct or indirect commercial incentive associated with publishing this article. More articles by this author Jeanette Broering Department of Urology and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California No direct or indirect commercial incentive associated with publishing this article. More articles by this author Matthew R. Cooperberg Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California Financial interest and/or other relationship with Myriad, Genomic Health, GenomeDx, Dendreon, Astellas, Janssen and Abbott. More articles by this author Peter R. Carroll Department of Urology and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California Financial interest and/or other relationship with Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health International, Takeda, GHI and Medivation/Astellas. More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...