Active Surveillance in Europe: Challenges and Heterogeneity "Presentation" - Derya Tilki
July 24, 2024
At the CAncer or Not Cancer: Evaluating and Reconsidering GG1 prostate cancer (CANCER-GG1?) Symposium, Derya Tilki challenges the notion that Europe doesn't have issues with active surveillance uptake for prostate cancer, highlighting the heterogeneity across European countries. Dr. Tilki specifically mentions Germany, where only about 30% of eligible patients opt for active surveillance, partly due to extremely strict guidelines.
Biographies:
Derya Tilki, MD, Associate Professor of Urology, Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, Hamburg, Germany
Biographies:
Derya Tilki, MD, Associate Professor of Urology, Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, Hamburg, Germany
Related Content:
Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: Rethinking Grade Group 1 "Presentation" - Daniel Lin
Active Surveillance Challenges in Prostate Cancer Management "Presentation" - Laurence Klotz
Active Surveillance vs. Watchful Waiting in Prostate Cancer Management "Presentation" - Caroline Moore
Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: Rethinking Grade Group 1 "Presentation" - Daniel Lin
Active Surveillance Challenges in Prostate Cancer Management "Presentation" - Laurence Klotz
Active Surveillance vs. Watchful Waiting in Prostate Cancer Management "Presentation" - Caroline Moore
Read the Full Video Transcript
Derya Tilki: Europe was also given today as a good example, which doesn't have a problem. I don't agree with this. It's very heterogeneous in Europe. While there are definitely countries with a very high uptake of active surveillance, there are a lot of countries that don't. Unfortunately, Germany is among them. About 30% of patients fulfilling the criteria for active surveillance still get treatment, and this number is much higher if we look at low-risk patients overall, because in the German guidelines, the criteria for active surveillance are extremely strict. It is only recommended for patients who have a maximum of two cores of Gleason 3+3, so almost no patients fulfill that.
What implications would renaming have? I agree with Theo and Adam that it might lead to over-calling cancer. My question, therefore, for the future is how AI can change this problem of potentially over-calling cancers.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Derya Tilki: Europe was also given today as a good example, which doesn't have a problem. I don't agree with this. It's very heterogeneous in Europe. While there are definitely countries with a very high uptake of active surveillance, there are a lot of countries that don't. Unfortunately, Germany is among them. About 30% of patients fulfilling the criteria for active surveillance still get treatment, and this number is much higher if we look at low-risk patients overall, because in the German guidelines, the criteria for active surveillance are extremely strict. It is only recommended for patients who have a maximum of two cores of Gleason 3+3, so almost no patients fulfill that.
What implications would renaming have? I agree with Theo and Adam that it might lead to over-calling cancer. My question, therefore, for the future is how AI can change this problem of potentially over-calling cancers.
Speaker 2: Thank you.