Determinants of the combined use of external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy for low-risk localized prostate cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16039-e16039
Author(s):  
Ruben G. W. Quek ◽  
Viraj A. Master ◽  
Kevin C. Ward ◽  
Chun Chieh Lin ◽  
Katherine S. Virgo ◽  
...  

e16039 Background: Prostate cancer treatment patterns have been shown to vary by physician and patient characteristics. For low-risk localized prostate cancer patients, we examined the association between their region of residence and their radiation oncologists’ practice affiliations with medical schools on the likelihood they would receive both external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT) – a treatment regimen that is at variance with clinical guidelines and has not been shown to improve survival or other patient centered outcomes. Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results – Medicare linked database and the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4,479 patients aged 66 years or older who were diagnosed between 2004-2007 with low-risk localized prostate cancer, and the 401 radiation oncologists who saw them. Multilevel regression analyses were used to evaluate the influence of patients’ region of residence and radiation oncologists’ practice affiliations with medical schools on the combined use of EBRT and BT on patients within 6 months of diagnosis. Results: Overall, 231 (5.2%) patients received combined EBRT and BT. After adjusting for patient, tumor and radiation oncologist characteristics, patients who saw radiation oncologists with no practice affiliation with medical schools were significantly more likely to receive combined EBRT and BT (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.50-6.59, p = 0.003). Regional variations were also observed; the odds of receiving combined therapy for patients residing in California (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.03-0.33, p<0.0001) were significantly less than those in Georgia (OR, 1.0; referent). Conclusions: Low-risk localized prostate cancer patients residing in Georgia were significantly more likely to receive combined EBRT and BT when compared to those in other SEER Regions. Radiation oncologists without practice affiliations with medical schools were significantly more likely to treat patients with combined therapy; such treatment patterns are not consistent with clinical guidelines and unlikely to have significant survival benefit.

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Pearce ◽  
Chris Newcomb ◽  
Siraj Husain

Objective: Previous work has shown that urologists and radiation oncologists prefer the treatment that they themselves deliver when treating clinically localized prostate cancer. Our objective was to determine whether Canadian radiation oncologists and urologists have similar biases in favour of the treatments that they themselves deliver for localized prostate cancer.Methods: We developed a survey to poll the beliefs that Canadian radiation oncologists and urologists held toward prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening, survival benefits of treatment, recommendations for treatment of prostate cancer and the likelihood of side effects with each therapy.Results: Urologists were more likely to recommend routine PSA screening for men up to age 70 (p < 0.001), while radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend PSA screening for men over age 80 (p < 0.04). More urologists felt that there was “definitely” a survival advantage with radical prostatectomy (RP) (60% v. 21%, p < 0.001). More radiation oncologists recommend external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) (p < 0.01) or brachytherapy (p < 0.03) to treat low-risk prostate cancer. More urologists than radiation oncologists recommend RP for intermediate-risk patients (98% v. 70%, p < 0.001).Conclusion: Most Canadian urologists and radiation oncologists recommend routine PSA screening for men aged 50 to 70. A significant preference was detected among both urologists and radiation oncologists for the treatment that they themselves deliver. While both urologists and radiation oncologists recommend prostatectomy for the treatment of low-risk localized prostate cancer, urologist sare significantly less likely to recommend EBRT. Conversely, when patients present with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, radiation oncologists were significantly less likely than urologists to recommend a prostatectomy.


2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 376-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan J. Donnelly ◽  
John C. Saliken ◽  
Penny Brasher ◽  
Scott Ernst ◽  
Harold Lau ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document