|
1
|
Brassetti A, Cacciatore L, Bove AM, Anceschi U, Proietti F, Misuraca L, Tuderti G, Flammia RS, Mastroianni R, Ferriero MC, Chiacchio G, D’Annunzio S, Pallares-Mendez R, Lombardo R, Leonardo C, De Nunzio C, Simone G. The Impact of Physical Activity on the Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:630. [PMID: 38339381 PMCID: PMC10854832 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16030630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2024] [Revised: 01/29/2024] [Accepted: 01/30/2024] [Indexed: 02/12/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Active surveillance has emerged as a valid therapeutic option in patients with low-risk prostate cancer, allowing for the deferral of definitive treatment until the time of possible disease progression. Although it is known that physical activity plays a protective role in the onset and progression of this tumor, its impact on patients with low-risk disease who are managed with active surveillance remains unclear. Our scoping review aims to summarize the existing evidence on this subject. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION On 9 April 2023, a systematic search was conducted using the PubMed and Scopus databases. The search employed the combination of the following terms: ("prostate cancer" OR "prostate tumor") AND ("active surveillance") AND ("physical activity" OR "physical exercise" OR "physical intensive activity" OR "intensive exercise") AND ("lifestyle"). Out of the 506 identified articles, 9 were used for the present scoping review, and their results were reported according to the PRISMA-ScR statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS We discovered a lack of uniformity in the assessment of PA and its stratification by intensity. There was no consensus regarding what constitutes cancer progression in patients choosing expectant management. In terms of the impact of PA on AS outcomes, conflicting results were reported: some authors found no correlation, while others (six of total studies included) revealed that active men experience smaller increases in PSA levels compared to their sedentary counterparts. Additionally, higher levels of exercise were associated with a significantly reduced risk of PCa reclassification. CONCLUSION Due to the heterogeneity of the methodologies used in the available studies and the conflicting results reported, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions concerning the role physical activity may play in the risk of prostate cancer progression in men managed with active surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aldo Brassetti
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Loris Cacciatore
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Alfredo Maria Bove
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Umberto Anceschi
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Flavia Proietti
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Leonardo Misuraca
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Gabriele Tuderti
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Rocco Simone Flammia
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Riccardo Mastroianni
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Maria Consiglia Ferriero
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Giuseppe Chiacchio
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Simone D’Annunzio
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Rigoberto Pallares-Mendez
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Riccardo Lombardo
- “Sapienza” University of Rome, Department of Urology, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (C.D.N.)
| | - Costantino Leonardo
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Cosimo De Nunzio
- “Sapienza” University of Rome, Department of Urology, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (C.D.N.)
| | - Giuseppe Simone
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Johnson H, Taylor S, Peat S, Booker J, Yorke J. Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) monitoring in primary care after discharge from hospital-based follow-up following prostate cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2020; 30:e13389. [PMID: 33336540 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13389] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2020] [Revised: 10/01/2020] [Accepted: 11/27/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine follow-up procedures after men are discharged into primary care following prostate cancer and highlight any areas for service improvement. METHODS Patient record data from two Greater Manchester boroughs were retrieved retrospectively to investigate discharge instructions and monitoring adherence. Questionnaires were sent to patients exploring their understanding of the follow-up process. RESULTS A total of 300 records were accessed. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) re-referral level was provided to GPs in 39% of cases. Forty- six percent of men were not tested frequently enough, and 6% had no PSA testing recorded post-discharge. A total of 222 patient questionnaires were returned. Sixty-seven percent felt GPs should be responsible for PSA monitoring, and 60% felt confident that their GP was doing so effectively. Conversely, 12% felt their PSA monitoring had been neglected. CONCLUSION The findings highlight the complex nature of the follow-up and monitoring processes for prostate cancer patients. There is an urgent need for consensus in terms of monitoring frequency and referral pathways. Many patients do not engage in accurate monitoring post-treatment which has implications for early diagnosis of recurrence. Findings will be used to create an evidence-based, uniform Greater Manchester PSA monitoring service which is safe, acceptable and effective for all.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sally Taylor
- The Christie Patient Centred Research Team, The Christie School of Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Sara Peat
- The Christie Patient Centred Research Team, The Christie School of Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Jane Booker
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Janelle Yorke
- The Christie Patient Centred Research Team, The Christie School of Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.,Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Drudge-Coates L, Khati V, Ballesteros R, Martyn-Hemphill C, Brown C, Green J, Challacombe B, Muir G. A nurse practitioner model for the assessment of suspected prostate cancer referrals is safe, cost and time efficient. Ecancermedicalscience 2019; 13:994. [PMID: 32010218 PMCID: PMC6974368 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2019.994] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the outcomes from a Urology Nurse Practitioner (UNP)-led service for the initial assessment and diagnostic decision making and for suspected prostate cancer referrals. Methods Using a modified Delphi analysis approach, a panel of Urological Prostate Cancer specialists were asked to review the UNP management plans of a convenience sample of 60 randomly selected patient cases – between June 2012 and June 2015. The panel was required to establish consensus or identify divergence of clinical practice, based on five key statements. In addition, cost analysis, waiting time and patient satisfaction evaluation were made regarding the nurse-led service. Results In 87% (52/60 cases), consensus was reached by the panel that the UNP management plan was entirely appropriate and in only two cases was there discordance, where the panel felt that the management plan by the UNP was inappropriate with errors potentially and significantly affecting the patient. Over the 3 years, a modest cost saving of £11,500.38 was realised, which due to increased referrals has now realised in 1 year (2017/18) a saving of £11,335.50. Compared to the previous physician-led service, waiting times for patient appointment fell by 52% over the 3-year period; 57/63 (90%) patients reported being satisfied with seeing a UNP instead of a doctor for their first appointment; 60/63 (95%) reported that, following the initial hospital visit with the UNP, they had a clear understanding of what the next steps were in their assessment. Overall, 54/63 (86%) were ‘very satisfied’ with the UNP-led service. Conclusion Our study demonstrates that a UNP approach to the assessment and management of suspected prostate cancer referrals provides an effective approach to care in an ever-demanding healthcare arena. Through a supported training programme, urology nurses can deliver a high standard of service.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Vitra Khati
- Department of Urology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, SE5 9RS London, UK
| | - Randolph Ballesteros
- Department of Urology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, SE5 9RS London, UK
| | | | - Christian Brown
- Department of Urology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, SE5 9RS London, UK
| | - James Green
- Department of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Ben Challacombe
- Department of Urology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London SE1 9RT, UK
| | - Gordon Muir
- Department of Urology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, SE5 9RS London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Yassaie O, McLaughlin B, Perera M, Manning T, Lawrentschuk N, Malcolm A. Primary care follow-up of radical prostatectomy patients: A regional New Zealand experience. Prostate Int 2016; 4:136-139. [PMID: 27995112 PMCID: PMC5153434 DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2016.07.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2016] [Revised: 07/20/2016] [Accepted: 07/25/2016] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Contemporary recommendations regarding the duration of follow-up after radical prostatectomy (RP) are highly heterogeneous. Protocol-based follow-up schemes have been implemented to facilitate the expeditious identification of patients with recurrence. The aim of this study is to assess the reliability and comfort of general practitioners (GPs) in follow-up of RP. Methods Following institutional ethical approval, we performed a retrospective review in patients undergoing follow-up after RP between January 2004 and December 2010. Patient factors, disease variables, and follow-up prostate specific antigen (PSA) compliance was collected. “Noncompliant” follow-up care was defined as: patients that had not received a PSA for a 14 month period within 5 years of prostatectomy. Patient and disease-based risk factors for noncompliant follow-up were assessed. GPs were also surveyed in their follow-up practice of RP patients, to assess their familiarity in caring for these patients. Results In total, 65 cases were identified that met the inclusion criteria. At 60 months of follow-up, 66% (43/65) of patients had a compliant follow-up regime. For patients with noncompliant follow-up at 60 months, median time of compliance did not differ significantly when assessing preoperative PSA, Gleason sum, extraprostatic extension, or surgical margin status. Of the GPs surveyed, 68% of GPs felt comfortable in follow-up of RP patients. Some 62% of GPs would expect the PSA to be < 0.1 and 25% of GPs would measure the PSA annually. Conclusion Our study identified that follow-up by GPs after RP is insufficient. Accordingly, there is a requirement for formal educational programs if primary care is to take a greater role in follow-up of these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Omid Yassaie
- Department of Surgery, Nelson Marlborough District Health Board, Nelson, New Zealand; Department of Surgery, Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Ben McLaughlin
- Department of Surgery, Nelson Marlborough District Health Board, Nelson, New Zealand
| | - Marlon Perera
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Australia
| | - Todd Manning
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Australia
| | - Nathan Lawrentschuk
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Australia; Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Andrew Malcolm
- Department of Surgery, Nelson Marlborough District Health Board, Nelson, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|