A national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists on prediction tools and nomograms for localized prostate cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 2099-2108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Gershman ◽  
Paul Maroni ◽  
Jon C. Tilburt ◽  
Robert J. Volk ◽  
Badrinath Konety ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 201 (Supplement 4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Gershman ◽  
Paul Maroni ◽  
Jon Tilburt ◽  
Robert Volk ◽  
Badrinath Konety ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 133-133
Author(s):  
Albert Kim ◽  
Robert Abouassaly ◽  
Simon P. Kim

133 Background: Due to the growing concerns about over-diagnosis and overtreatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa), active surveillance (AS) has become an integral part of clinical practice guidelines. However, many men with low-risk PCa still receive primary therapy with surgery or radiation. Little is known about the barriers regarding the use of AS in clinical practice. To address this, we performed a national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists assessing the current attitudes and treatment for patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa. Methods: From January to July of 2017, 915 radiation oncologists and 940 urologists were surveyed about perceptions of AS for low-risk PCa. The survey queried respondents about their opinions and attitudes towards AS and treatment recommendations for a patient having low-risk PCa with clinical factors varying from patient age (55, 65 and 75 years old), PSA (4 and 8 ng per dl), and tumor volume for Gleason 3+3 disease (2, 4 and 6 cores). Pearson chi-square and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify respondent differences in treatment recommendations for low-risk PCa. Results: Overall, the response rate was 37.3% (n = 691) and similar for radiation oncologists and urologists (35.7% vs. 38.7%; p = 0.18). While both radiation oncologists and urologists viewed AS as effective for low-risk PCa (86.5% vs. 92.0%; p = 0.04), radiation oncologists were more likely to respond that AS increases patient anxiety (49.5% vs. 29.5%; p < 0.001). Overall, recommendations varied markedly based on patient age, PSA, number of cores positive for Gleason 3+3 prostate cancer and respondent specialty. For a 55-year-old male patient with a PSA 8 and 6 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, recommendations of AS were low for both radiation oncologists and urologists (4.4 % vs. 5.2%; adjusted OR: 0.6; p = 0.28). For a 75-year-old patient with a PSA 4 and 2 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, radiation oncologists and urologists most often recommended AS (89.6% vs. 83.4%; adjusted OR: 0.5; p = 0.07). Conclusions: While both radiation oncologists and urologists consider AS effective in the clinical management of low-risk PCa, its use varies markedly by patient age, PCa volume, PSA and physician specialty.


2014 ◽  
Vol 113 (5b) ◽  
pp. E106-E111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon P. Kim ◽  
R. Jeffrey Karnes ◽  
Paul L. Nguyen ◽  
Jeanette Y. Ziegenfuss ◽  
R. Houston Thompson ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6507-6507 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E. Bekelman ◽  
M. J. Zelefsky ◽  
T. L. Jang ◽  
E. M. Basch ◽  
D. Schrag

6507 Background: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is a commonly used for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Yet, secular trends in the delivery of this highly technical therapy have received little attention. Methods: Using data from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare program, we evaluated trends in five EBRT quality measures among 23,018 patients age 65 or older diagnosed from 1994 to 2002 with clinically localized prostate cancer and treated with primary EBRT. Using tumor registry data from SEER and Medicare claims, we excluded 6,956 patients who received brachytherapy and 7,009 patients who received combination EBRT and brachytherapy. We identified treating radiation oncologists via unique physician identification numbers reported on claims and obtained board certifications from the AMA Masterfile. We assessed the five EBRT quality measures proposed by a RAND expert panel that were amenable to analysis using SEER-Medicare data: 1) use of conformal radiotherapy treatment planning; 2) use of high-energy (=10MV) photons; 3) use of custom immobilization; 4) radiation oncologist board certification; and 5) completion of two follow-up visits with a radiation oncologist in the year following therapy. Results: As shown in the table , conformal radiotherapy increased over the study period. Approximately one-third of patients received consistent follow-up from a radiation oncologist in the year following therapy. Notably, however, claims data revealed that 80% of patients completed at least two follow-up visits with either urologists or radiation oncologists. Conclusions: Conformal radiotherapy is now routine for elderly men with localized prostate cancer. Observed practice patterns deviate from the RAND metric for patient follow-up, suggesting that this measure merits clarification. Future research should examine whether variation in receipt of these quality measures affects important clinical outcomes. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]


2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 226-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Almudena Zapatero ◽  
◽  
José López-Torrecilla ◽  
Ismael Herruzo ◽  
Felipe A. Calvo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document