Patterns of prescription and adherence to European Association of Urology guidelines on androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: An Italian multicentre cross-sectional analysis from the Choosing Treatment for Prostate Cancer (CHOICE) study

Giovanna Mantini, Giuseppe Morgia, Giorgio Ivan Russo, Andrea Tubaro, Roberto Bortolus, Donato Randone, Pietro Gabriele, Fabio Trippa, Filiberto Zattoni, Massimo Porena, Vincenzo Mirone, Sergio Serni, Alberto Del Nero, Giancarlo Lay, Umberto Ricardi, Francesco Rocco, Carlo Terrone, Arcangelo Pagliarulo, Giuseppe Ludovico, Giuseppe VespasianiMaurizio Brausi, Claudio Simeone, Giovanni Novella, Giorgio Carmignani, Rosario Leonardi, Paola Pinnarò, Ugo De Paula, Renzo Corvò, Raffaele Tenaglia, Salvatore Siracusano, Paolo Gontero, Gianfranco Savoca, Vincenzo Ficarra

Risultato della ricerca: Contributo in rivistaArticolo in rivista

17 Citazioni (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To evaluate both the patterns of prescription of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer (PCA) and the adherence to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for ADT prescription. Methods The Choosing Treatment for Prostate Cancer (CHOICE) study was an Italian multicentre cross-sectional study conducted between December 2010 and January 2012. A total of 1 386 patients, treated with ADT for PCA (first prescription or renewal of ADT), were selected. With regard to the EAU guidelines on ADT, the cohort was categorized into discordant ADT (Group A) and concordant ADT (Group B). Results The final cohort included 1 075 patients with a geographical distribution including North Italy (n = 627, 58.3%), Central Italy (n = 233, 21.7%) and South Italy (n = 215, 20.0%). In the category of patients treated with primary ADT, a total of 125 patients (56.3%) were classified as low risk according to D'Amico classification. With regard to the EAU guidelines, 285 (26.51%) and 790 patients (73.49%) were classified as discordant (Group A) and concordant (Group B), respectively. In Group A, patients were more likely to receive primary ADT (57.5%, 164/285 patients) than radical prostatectomy (RP; 30.9%, 88/285 patients), radiation therapy (RT; 6.7%, 19/285 patients) or RP + RT (17.7%, 14/285 patients; P < 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusted for clinical and pathological variables, showed that patients from Central Italy (odds ratio [OR] 2.86; P < 0.05) and South Italy (OR 2.65; P < 0.05) were more likely to receive discordant ADT. Conclusion EAU guideline adherence for ADT was low in Italy and was influenced by geographic area. Healthcare providers and urologists should consider these results in order to quantify the inadequate use of ADT and to set policy strategies to overcome this risk.
Lingua originaleEnglish
pagine (da-a)867-873
Numero di pagine7
RivistaBJU International
Volume117
DOI
Stato di pubblicazionePubblicato - 2016

Keywords

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Androgen Antagonists
  • Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal
  • Combined Modality Therapy
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • European Association of Urology
  • Guideline Adherence
  • Humans
  • Italy
  • Male
  • Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
  • Patient Selection
  • Practice Guidelines as Topic
  • Prescriptions
  • Prostate-Specific Antigen
  • Prostatic Neoplasms
  • Time Factors
  • Urology
  • adherence
  • androgen deprivation therapy
  • guidelines
  • prostate cancer

Fingerprint

Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'Patterns of prescription and adherence to European Association of Urology guidelines on androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: An Italian multicentre cross-sectional analysis from the Choosing Treatment for Prostate Cancer (CHOICE) study'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

Cita questo