Real-world implementation and guideline adherence at inclusion of active surveillance for men with prostate cancer: a population-based study from the Cancer Registry of Norway
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.45023Keywords:
Active surveillance, prostate cancer, guideline adherence, Norway, time trends, regional variationsAbstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of and adherence to national guidelines at inclusion amongst men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) managed with active surveillance (AS) in Norway.
Materials and methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study using data from the Norwegian Prostate Cancer Registry, encompassing all men diagnosed with PCa and managed with AS from 2009 to 2022. We assessed guideline adherence based on AS inclusion criteria defined in the national guidelines and analysed the factors associated with adherence. Non-adherence was defined as inclusion in AS despite not meeting formal criteria.
Results: Among 69,996 men diagnosed with PCa, 11 449 (16.4%) were managed with AS. Overall adherence to national guidelines for AS inclusion was 64%, rising from 60% in 2009 to 77% in 2022, with a notable increase after the 2020 guideline update. Higher adherence was associated with more recent diagnoses, younger age, lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and evaluation by a private specialist. Significant regional variations in guidelines adherence were observed.
Conclusions: While the use of AS for localised PCa increased in Norway over time, only two in three men were eligible for AS and regional variations persisted. This study highlights the need for strategies to standardise AS implementation across healthcare settings to ensure uniform and evidence-based management of patients with localised PCa nationwide.
Downloads
References
Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, et al. Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcino-ma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1664–1669. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65174-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65174-9
Uroweb. Guidelines on prostate cancer: treatment [Internet]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer/chapter/treatment. [Accessed 8 June 2025]
Bruinsma SM, Roobol MJ, Carroll PR, et al. Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer—results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure. Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14(5):312–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2017.26 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2017.26
Klotz L. Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2020;125(3):346–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14935 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14935
Lam TBL, MacLennan S, Willemse P-PM, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guideline panel consensus statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study). Eur Urol. 2019;76(6):790–813. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020
Klotz L. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27(3):225–230. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000393 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000393
Komisarenko M, Martin LJ, Finelli A. Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(2):243–55. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2018.03.02 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2018.03.02
Ahmad AE, Richard PO, Leão R, et al. Does time spent on active surveillance adversely affect the pathological and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing delayed radical prostatectomy? J Urol. 2020;204(3):476–482. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001070
Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, et al. Follow-up in active surveillance for prostate cancer: strict protocol adher-ence remains important for PRIAS-ineligible patients. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2(5):483–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.01.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.01.010
Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer in a real-life cohort: comparing outcomes for PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible patients. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1(3):231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.015
Helsedirektoratet. Behandling med kurativ intensjon (Utsatt behandling) 2023 [Internet]. [updated 2024 Oct 2]. Available from: https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/prostatakreft- handlingsprogram/behandling-med-kurativ-intensjon/utsatt- behandling.
Folkehelseinstituttet (FHI). Årsrapport 2022: Nasjonalt kvalitetsregister for prostatakreft. Folkehelseinstituttet (FHI); 2023: Oslo, Norway. Contract No.: 05 April.
Sørensen JB, Klee M, Palshof T, et al. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study. Br J Cancer. 1993;67(4):773–775. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1993.140 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1993.140
Nilssen Y, Strand TE, Wiik R, et al. Utilizing national patient-register data to control for comorbidity in prognostic studies. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:395–404. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S70742 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S70742
Maljkovic J, Bill-Axelson A, Hållberg H, et al. Time trends for the use of active surveillance and deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer in Sweden: a nationwide study. Scand J Urol. 2024;59:200–206. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.40123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.40123
Orrason AW, Scilipoti P, Garmo H, et al. Improved adherence to prostate cancer guidelines concomitant with public reporting. Nationwide population-based study. Scand J Urol. 2025;60:50–58. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43107
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. Fifteen-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(17):1547–1558. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2214122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2214122
Drost F-JH, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, et al. Can active surveillance really reduce the harms of overdiagnosing prostate cancer? A reflection of real life clinical practice in the PRIAS study. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(1):98–105. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.28 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.28
Kalapara AA, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, et al. Adherence to active surveillance protocols for low-risk prostate cancer: results of the movember foundation’s global action plan prostate cancer active surveillance initiative. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(1):80–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.014
Blagden SP, Charman SC, Sharples LD, et al. Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree? Br J Cancer. 2003;89(6):1022–1027. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601231
Westerberg M, Irenaeus S, Garmo H, et al. Development and validation of a multi-dimensional diagnosis-based comorbidity index that improves prediction of death in men with prostate cancer: nationwide, population-based register study. PLoS One. 2024;19(1):e0296804. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296804 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296804
Ventimiglia E, Gedeborg R, Orrason AW, et al. A comparison of comorbidity indices and estimates of life expectancy for men with prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2025;60:105–107. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43810 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.43810
Timilshina N, Komisarenko M, Martin LJ, et al. Factors associated with discontinuation of active surveillance among men with low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based study. J Urol. 2021;206(4):903–913. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001903
Haug ES, Myklebust T, Juliebø-Jones P, et al. Impact of prebiopsy MRI on prostate cancer staging: results from the Norwegian Prostate Cancer Registry. BJUI Compass. 2023;4(3):331–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.214
European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology; 2018: Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Cooperberg MR, Meeks W, Fang R, et al. Time trends and variation in the use of active surveillance for management of low-risk prostate cancer in the US. JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(3):e231439-e. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1439 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1439
Stattin P. How to improve cancer care by use of guidelines and quality registers. Scand J Urol. 2024;59:190–192. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42272 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42272
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ingrid Hannestad, Tor Åge Myklebust, Sophie D. Fosså, Stig Müller, Kirsti Aas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
