Perceptions of Prostate MRI and Fusion Biopsy of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists for Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer: Results from a National Survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Bukavina ◽  
Jon C. Tilburt ◽  
Badrinath Konety ◽  
Nilay D. Shah ◽  
Cary P. Gross ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 2099-2108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Gershman ◽  
Paul Maroni ◽  
Jon C. Tilburt ◽  
Robert J. 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 ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 237-244
Author(s):  
Eugenio Martorana ◽  
◽  
Giacomo Maria Pirola ◽  
Maria Cristina Aisa ◽  
Pietro Scialpi ◽  
...  

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