Diagnostic assessment program for prostate cancer: Lessons learned after 2 years and degree of compliance to Canadian guidelines
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.4.389
Accepted: October 17, 2021
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Background: In 2018, our Institute launched the Diagnostic Assessment Program (DAP) for prostate cancer. It enabled quick access to a urologist for patients presented to family physician with elevated PSA and allowed fast multidisciplinary patient care. We aim to document our data over 2 years in comparison to data before implementation of DAP and its impact on the degree of adherence to Canadian guidelines.
Methods: From April 2016 to April 2020, 880 patients who were evaluated for prostate cancer at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC) were included in this study. Patients’ characteristics, clinical data, waiting times and line of treatment before and after implementation of DAP were calculated and statistically analysed.
Results: The median waiting time to urology consultation was significantly reduced from 68 (IQR 27-168) days to 34 (23-44) days (p < 0.001). The time from patient’s referral to prostate biopsy decreased substantially from 34 (20-66) days to 18(11- 25) days after DAP (p < 0.001). After DAP, the percentage of Gleason 6 detected prostate cancers were significantly increased (19.7% to 30%) (p = 0.02). After DAP, rate for intermediate-risk patients elected for external beam radiotherapy (from 53.5% to 57.9%, p = 0.53) and radical prostatectomy (from 34.5% to 39.4%, p = 0.47) increased. More compliance to Canadian guidelines was observed in intermediate risk patients (88% vs 97.3%, p =.008).
Conclusions: Implementation of DAP has led to a notable reduction of waiting time to urology consult and prostate biopsy. There is significant increase in Gleason 6 detected prostate cancer. Increased compliance to Canadian guidelines was detected in intermediate risk patients.
D’Agostino D, Corsi P, Colicchia M, et al. The pathological and clinical features of anterior lesions of prostate cancer: evaluation in a single cohort of patients. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 92:102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.2.102
Horwich A, Hugosson J, de Reijke T, et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO consensus conference guidelines 2012. Ann Oncol. 2013; 24:1141-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds624
Valicenti RK, Gomella L, El-Gabry E, et al. The multidisciplinary clinic approach to prostate cancer counseling and treatment. Semin. Urol. Oncol. 2000; 18:188-191.
Pillay B, Wootten AC, Crowe H, et al. The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016; 42:56-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.11.007
Guy D, Ghanem G, Loblaw A, et al. Diagnosis, referral, and primary treatment decisions in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients in a multidisciplinary diagnostic assessment program. Can Urol Assoc J.
; 10:120.
Keyes M, Crook J, Morris WJ, et al. Canadian prostate brachytherapy in 2012. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013; 7:51-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.218
Sethukavalan P, Zhang L, Jethava V, et al. Improved wait time intervals for prostate cancer patients in a multi-disciplinary rapid diagnostic unit compared to a community-based referral pattern. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013; 7:244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.181
Pepe P, Candiano G, Pepe L, et al. mpMRI PI-RADS score 3 lesions diagnosed by reference vs affiliated radiological centers: Our experience in 950 cases. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021; 93:139-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.2.139
Stanzione A, Creta M, Imbriaco M, et al. Attitudes and perceptions towards multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: A national survey among Italian urologists. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020;9:291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.4.291
Pereira-Lourenço M, Vieira E Brito D, Peralta JP, et al. Influence of sociodemographic factors on treatment's choice for localized prostate cancer in Portugal. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 92:45-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.1.45
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Schultz D, et al. Outcome based staging for clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1997;158:1422-1426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64230-7
Brouwers M, Crawford J, Elison P, et al. Organizational standards for diagnostic assessment programs. Toronto (ON): Cancer Care Ontario; 2007 Jun 15 (In review 2011 Sep). Program in Evidence-based Care Evidence-based Series Organizational Standards for DAP. IN REVIEW
Brouwers M, Oliver TK, Crawford J, et al. Cancer diagnostic assessment programs: standards for the organization of care in Ontario. Curr Oncol. 2009; 16:29-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3747/co.v16i6.400
Grunfeld E, Watters JM, Urquhart R, et al. A prospective study of peri-diagnostic and surgical wait times for patients with presumptive colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009; 100:56-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604819
Forde JC, O'Connor KM, Casey L, et al. A rapid access diagnostic clinic for prostate cancer: the experience after one year. Ir J Med Sci. 2011; 180:505-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-011-0695-3
Kavanagh AG, Lee JC, Donnelly B. Time to treatment of prostate cancer through the Calgary Prostate Institute rapid access clinic. Can J Urol. 2008; 15:3975-3979.
Gilliland FD, Gleason DF, Hunt WC, et al. Trends in Gleason score for prostate cancer diagnosed between 1983 and 1993. J Urol. 2001; 165:846-850. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66542-1
O'Kelly F, Thomas AZ, Murray D, et al. Emerging evidence for Gleason grade migration and distance impact in prostate cancer? An analysis of the rapid access prostate clinic in a tertiary referral center: St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin (2009-2011). Ir J Med Sci. 2013; 182:487-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-013-0920-3
Moyer VA,US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Int Med. 2012; 157:120-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459
Butler SS, Muralidhar V, Zhao SG, et al. Prostate cancer incidence across stage, NCCN risk groups, and age before and after USPSTF Grade D recommendations against prostate-specific antigen screening in 2012. Cancer. 2020; 126:717-724. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32604
Aizer AA, Paly JJ, Zietman AL, et al. Models of care and NCCN guideline adherence in very-low-risk prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013; 11:1364-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2013.0160
Korman H, Lanni TJr, Shah C, et al. Impact of a prostate multidisciplinary clinic program on patient treatment decisions and on adherence to NCCN guidelines: the William Beaumont Hospital experience. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013; 36:121-125 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e318243708f
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
