PURPOSE In the absence of high-level evidence or clinical guidelines supporting any given active treatment approach over another for localized prostate cancer, clinician and patient preferences may lead to substantial variation in treatment use. METHODS Data were analyzed from 36 clinical sites that contributed data to the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry. Distribution of primary treatment use was measured over time. Prostate cancer risk was assessed using the D'Amico risk groups and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. Descriptive analyses were performed, and a hierarchical model was constructed that controlled for year of diagnosis, cancer risk variables, and other patient factors to estimate the proportion of variation in primary treatment selection explicable by practice site. Results Among 11,892 men analyzed, 6.8% elected surveillance, 49.9% prostatectomy, 11.6% external-beam radiation, 13.3% brachytherapy, 4.0% cryoablation, and 14.4% androgen deprivation monotherapy. Prostate cancer risk drives treatment selection, but the data suggest both overtreatment of low-risk disease and undertreatment of high-risk disease. The former trend appears to be improving over time, while the latter is worsening. Treatment varies with age, comorbidity, and socioeconomic status. However, treatment patterns vary markedly across clinical sites, and this variation is not explained by case-mix variability or known patient factors. Practice site explains a proportion of this variation ranging from 13% for androgen deprivation monotherapy to 74% for cryoablation. CONCLUSION Substantial variation exists in management of localized prostate cancer that is not explained by measurable factors. A critical need exists for high-quality comparative effectiveness research in localized prostate cancer to help guide treatment decision making.

Purpose-Multivariate prognostic instruments aim to predict risk of recurrence among patients with localized prostate cancer. We sought to devise a novel risk assessment tool which would be a strong predictor of outcome across various levels of risk, and which could be easily applied and intuitively understood.Materials and Methods-We studied 1,439 men who had undergone radical prostatectomy and were followed in the CaPSURE database (a longitudinal, community-based disease registry of prostate cancer patients) diagnosed between 1992 and 2001 were included. Disease recurrence was defined as prostate specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.2 ng/ml on 2 consecutive occasions following prostatectomy, or a second cancer treatment more than six months after surgery. The UCSF-CAPRA score was developed using pre-operative PSA, Gleason score, clinical T-stage, biopsy results, and age. The index was developed and validated using Cox proportional hazards and life table analyses.Results-210 patients (15%) recurred, 145 by PSA criteria and 65 by second treatment. Based on the results of the Cox analysis, points were assigned based on PSA (0-4 points), Gleason score (0-3), T stage (0-1), age (0-1), and biopsy data (0-1). The CAPRA score range is 0 to 10, with roughly double the risk of recurrence for each 2-point increase in score. Recurrence-free survival at 5 years ranged from 85% for a CAPRA score of 0-1 (95% CI 73-92%) to 8% for a score of 7-10 (95% CI 0-28%). The concordance index for the CAPRA score was 0.66. Conclusions-The UCSF-CAPRA score is a straightforward yet powerful preoperative risk assessment tool. It must be externally validated in future studies.

Please visit www.eu-acme.org/ europeanurology to read and answer questions on-line. The EU-ACME credits will then be attributed automatically. AbstractContext: Prostate cancer (PCa) remains an increasingly common malignancy worldwide. The optimal management of clinically localized, early-stage disease remains unknown, and profound quality of life issues surround PCa interventions. Objective: To systematically summarize the current literature on the management of low-risk PCa with active surveillance (AS), with a focus on patient selection, outcomes, and future research needs.