Patterns of referral, management and survival of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in Scotland during 1988 and 1993: results of a national, retrospective population‐based audit

Objectives To examine patterns of referral, management and survival of men with prostate cancer, and to document changes over time. Patients and methods All men registered with prostate cancer in 1988 and 1993 were identified from the Scottish Cancer Registry. Data were abstracted according to standard definitions from the available medical records of 930 men in 1988 and 1355 in 1993. Results There was limited evidence of multidisciplinary care, with only 8% of patients in 1988 being managed by both a urologist and a clinical oncologist within a year of diagnosis, increasing to 13% in 1993. Only a small proportion of patients were managed by clinical oncologists during the first year of care (14% in 1988 and 20% in 1993). Documentation of thorough staging information was poor, with a T stage being recorded in <30% of cases in both years. Documentation of metastatic status increased from 53% to 63% between 1988 and 1993, paralleling an increase in the use of bone scans. The proportion of cases with pathological grading obtained at diagnosis increased from 63% in 1988 to 68% by 1993. The use of PSA testing and core biopsies increased between the years while the use of transurethral prostatectomy decreased. More patients received radical radiotherapy within a year of diagnosis in 1993 than 1988, increasing from 6% to 9%, and more radical prostatectomies were also undertaken (0.2% to 2.3%). Nonetheless, most patients (81% in 1993) with no documented evidence of metastases received no active intervention (radical radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy, or ‘watchful waiting’). The survival at 5 years increased nonsignificantly from 34% for the 1988 cohort to 38% for the 1993 cohort. Conclusion This audit reveals considerable inconsistency in the management of men with prostate cancer in Scotland. Against a background of controversy about numerous aspects of the management of this disease, the need for a multidisciplinary approach, comprehensive staging and appropriate documentation is highlighted.