title: Interdisciplinary decision making in prostate cancer therapy - 5-years' time trends at the Interdisciplinary Prostate Cancer Center (IPC) of the Charité Berlin.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Patients with prostate cancer face the difficult decision between a wide range of therapeutic options. These men require elaborate information about their individual risk profile and the therapeutic strategies´ risks and benefits to choose the best possible option. In order to detect time trends and quality improvements between an early patient population (2003/2004) and a later reference group (2007/2008) data was analysed with regards to epidemiologic parameters, differences in diagnostics and the type and ranking of the recommended therapies taking into account changes to Gleason Grading System and implementation of new therapeutic strategies, particularly Active surveillance, in 2005.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data from all 496 consecutive patients who received consultation in 2003/2004 (n = 280) and 2007/2008 (n = 216) was retrospectively evaluated. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. Dependent variables were analysed using the unpaired Students´ t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The cohorts were comparable concerning clinical stage, initial PSA, prostate volume, comorbidities and organ confined disease. Patients in Cohort I were younger (66.44 vs. 69.31y; p < .001) and had a longer life expectancy (17.22 vs. 14.75y; p < .001). 50.9%, 28.2% and 20.9% in Cohort I and 37.2%, 39.6% and 23.2% in Cohort II showed low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease (D´Amico) with a trend towards an increased risk profile in Cohort II (p = .066). The risk-adapted therapy recommended as first option was radical prostatectomy for 91.5% in Cohort I and 69.7% in Cohort II, radiation therapy for 83.7% in Cohort I and 50.7% in Cohort II, and other therapies (brachytherapy, Active surveillance, Watchful waiting, high-intensity focused ultrasound) for 6.5% in Cohort I and 6.9% in Cohort II (p < .001). Radiation therapy was predominant in both cohorts as second treatment option (p < .001). Time trends showing quality improvement involved an increase in biopsy cores (9.95 ± 2.38 vs. 8.43 ± 2.29; p < .001) and an increased recommendation for bilateral nerve sparing (p < .001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In the earlier years, younger patients with a more favourable risk profile presented for interdisciplinary consultation. A unilateral recommendation for radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy was predominant. In the later years, the patient population was considerably older. However, this group may have benefitted from optimised diagnostic possibilities and a wider range of treatment options.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Magdeburg University Medical Center, Leipziger Strasse 44, Magdeburg, D-39120, Germany. daniel.baumunk@med.ovgu.de
authors.forename: Daniel
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Baumunk
authors.forename: Roman
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Reunkoff
authors.forename: Julien
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Kushner
authors.forename: Alexandra
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Baumunk
authors.forename: Carsten
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Kempkensteffen
authors.forename: Ursula
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Steiner
authors.forename: Steffen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Weikert
authors.forename: Lutz
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Moser
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schrader
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Höcht
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Wiegel
authors.forename: Kurt
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Miller
authors.forename: Martin
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schostak
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D001604:Berlin; D002173:Cancer Care Facilities / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D015331:Cohort Studies; D015897:Comorbidity; D003657:Decision Making; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009929:Organ Size; D010348:Patient Care Team / Q000458:organization & administration*; D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen / Q000032:analysis; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000379:methods; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery / Q000628:therapy*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors
chemical_list: D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Feb;177(2):540-5
references.pmid: 17222629
references.citation: Health Expect. 2004 Jun;7(2):126-41
references.pmid: 15117387
references.citation: BJU Int. 2012 Jul;110(2 Pt 2):E50-6
references.pmid: 22145791
references.citation: Br J Cancer. 2001 Jan 5;84(1):48-51
references.pmid: 11139312
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Jan;61(1):177-84
references.pmid: 21924545
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Jun 08;12:52
references.pmid: 22681782
references.citation: Fam Pract. 2003 Dec;20(6):724-9
references.pmid: 14701899
references.citation: Eur J Cancer. 2008 Nov;44(16):2418-24
references.pmid: 18774706
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2001 Jun;52(12):1865-78
references.pmid: 11352412
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2012 Jul;23(7):1912-8
references.pmid: 22258366
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Nov 13;12:130
references.pmid: 23148458
references.citation: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2012 Aug;83(2):225-34
references.pmid: 22154187
references.citation: Urology. 2010 Feb;75(2):414-8
references.pmid: 19963249
references.citation: Cancer Res. 1998 Jan 1;58(1):23-8
references.pmid: 9426051
references.citation: Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Sep;29(9):1228-42
references.pmid: 16096414
references.citation: Cancer. 2003 Jan 15;97(2):377-88
references.pmid: 12518362
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 10;23(32):8165-9
references.pmid: 16278468
references.citation: Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Jun 15;17(12):3903-12
references.pmid: 21680546
references.citation: J Urol. 2011 Nov;186(5):1868-73
references.pmid: 21944092
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011 Mar 08;11:16
references.pmid: 21385459
references.citation: Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(5):333-5; discussion 335
references.pmid: 22818151
references.citation: BJU Int. 2013 Mar;111(3 Pt B):E24-9
references.pmid: 22947135
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2009 Jun;55(6):1321-30
references.pmid: 19286302
references.citation: J Pathol. 1996 Nov;180(3):295-9
references.pmid: 8958808
references.citation: BJU Int. 2013 Feb;111(2):213-20
references.pmid: 22928860
references.citation: Cancer. 2006 Aug 1;107(3):620-30
references.pmid: 16802287
references.citation: BJU Int. 2001 Feb;87(3):218-23
references.pmid: 11167645
references.citation: Med J Aust. 2005 May 2;182(9):472-5
references.pmid: 15865593
references.citation: Prostate. 2012 Jan;72(1):58-64
references.pmid: 21520163
references.citation: Urology. 2007 May;69(5):941-5
references.pmid: 17482939
references.citation: BJU Int. 2004 Jan;93(1):47-51
references.pmid: 14678366
references.citation: Actas Urol Esp. 2011 Oct;35(9):501-14
references.pmid: 21757259
references.citation: World J Urol. 2004 Dec;22(6):441-8
references.pmid: 15378335
references.citation: Can J Urol. 2011 Dec;18(6):5998-6006
references.pmid: 22166326
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010 Mar 03;10:12
references.pmid: 20199680
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2012 Jan 13;14(1):e6
references.pmid: 22246148
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009 Nov 27;9:47
references.pmid: 19941668
references.citation: BJU Int. 2002 Feb;89(3):255-60
references.pmid: 11856106
references.citation: Cancer. 2006 May 1;106(9):1865-74
references.pmid: 16568450
references.citation: Genet Med. 2009 Jun;11(6):434-40
references.pmid: 19346953
references.citation: BJU Int. 2004 Dec;94 Suppl 3:6
references.pmid: 15521884