↓ Skip to main content

Utilization of Active Surveillance and Watchful Waiting for localized prostate cancer in the daily practice

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Utilization of Active Surveillance and Watchful Waiting for localized prostate cancer in the daily practice
Published in
World Journal of Urology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00345-018-2175-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Herden, Lothar Weissbach

Abstract

To analyze the utilization of Active Surveillance (AS) and Watchful Waiting (WW) in the daily routine setting, since both are non-invasive treatment options for localized prostate cancer (PCa), which are used in a curative (AS) or palliative (WW) setting. Since differentiation of both strategies is not always clear, patients were compared with respect to the inclusion criteria, frequency of follow-up examinations (Prostate Specific Antigen = PSA tests, rebiopsies), and initiation of a deferred treatment. HAROW is a non-interventional, health-service research study on the management of localized PCa in the community setting. Of 3169 patients, prospectively enrolled from 2008 to 2013 with a mean follow-up of 28.2 months, 468 chose AS and 126 WW. Treating urologists reported clinical variables, information on therapy and clinical course of disease. AS patients were significantly younger and had more low-risk tumors. No differences were seen in the number of PSA tests during follow-up: mean number of PSA tests was 6.08 for AS- and 5.18 for WW patients, more than four PSA tests were reported in 63.9% AS- and 59.5% WW patients (p = 0.136). At least one re-biopsy was performed in 39.7% AS- and 9.5% WW patients (p < 0.001). Discontinuation rates were 23.9% (n = 112) for AS and 11.9% (n = 15) for WW. Most of the AS patients opted for a curative treatment (prostatectomy = 65, radiotherapy = 30), whereas 12 WW patients received a palliative hormone therapy and three patients received radiotherapy. Physicians seem to distinguish clearly between AS and WW in terms of inclusion criteria and deferred therapy, whereas this differentiation tends to become indistinct in terms of follow-up examinations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 6 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,459,801
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,931
of 2,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#379,343
of 443,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#59
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.