OBJECTIVES: This study describes urologist recommendations for treatment among local-stage prostate cancer patients presenting for initial management consultations versus second opinions. We hypothesized that urologists present a wider range of management recommendations and are less likely to consider the patient preference during the initial consultation. METHODS: Newly diagnosed local-stage prostate cancer patients and their urologists participated in a survey at urology practices in three states. The urologist's survey included questions about the patient's clinical status, treatments discussed and recommended, and factors that influenced the urologist's recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 238 eligible patients, 95 men presented for an initial consultation, and 143 men presented for a second opinion. In multivariate analysis, urologists recommended 0.52 more treatments (standard error 0.19, P<0.001) during an initial consultation as opposed to a second opinion. The proportion recommending surgery increased from 71-91% (initial consultation versus second opinion setting). Among initial consultations, 59% had low-risk disease, and urologists' recommendations included surgery (80%), external radiation (38%), brachytherapy (seeds) (52%), and active surveillance (25%). Of the 54% with low-risk disease in a second opinion consultation, urologists' recommendations included surgery (90%), external radiation (16%), brachytherapy (14%), and active surveillance (16%). CONCLUSIONS: In second opinion settings urologists discussed fewer treatment options and recommended surgery more often. These findings also applied to men with low-risk prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVES: This study describes urologist recommendations for treatment among local-stage prostate cancerpatients presenting for initial management consultations versus second opinions. We hypothesized that urologists present a wider range of management recommendations and are less likely to consider the patient preference during the initial consultation. METHODS: Newly diagnosed local-stage prostate cancerpatients and their urologists participated in a survey at urology practices in three states. The urologist's survey included questions about the patient's clinical status, treatments discussed and recommended, and factors that influenced the urologist's recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 238 eligible patients, 95 men presented for an initial consultation, and 143 men presented for a second opinion. In multivariate analysis, urologists recommended 0.52 more treatments (standard error 0.19, P<0.001) during an initial consultation as opposed to a second opinion. The proportion recommending surgery increased from 71-91% (initial consultation versus second opinion setting). Among initial consultations, 59% had low-risk disease, and urologists' recommendations included surgery (80%), external radiation (38%), brachytherapy (seeds) (52%), and active surveillance (25%). Of the 54% with low-risk disease in a second opinion consultation, urologists' recommendations included surgery (90%), external radiation (16%), brachytherapy (14%), and active surveillance (16%). CONCLUSIONS: In second opinion settings urologists discussed fewer treatment options and recommended surgery more often. These findings also applied to men with low-risk prostate cancer.
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Carol M Moinpour; David K Blough; David F Penson; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Donatus U Ekwueme; Ian M Thompson; Thomas E Keane; Scott D Ramsey Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Thomas L Jang; Justin E Bekelman; Yihai Liu; Peter B Bach; Ethan M Basch; Elena B Elkin; Michael J Zelefsky; Peter T Scardino; Colin B Begg; Deborah Schrag Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-03-08
Authors: Mary McNaughton Collins; Michael J Barry; Anthony Zietman; Peter C Albertsen; James A Talcott; Elizabeth Walker Corkery; Diana B Elliott; Floyd J Fowler Journal: Urology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Benjamin D Sommers; Clair J Beard; Anthony V D'Amico; Irving Kaplan; Jerome P Richie; Richard J Zeckhauser Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Grace A Lin; David S Aaronson; Sara J Knight; Peter R Carroll; R Adams Dudley Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2009-10-19 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Timothy J Wilt; Roderick MacDonald; Indulis Rutks; Tatyana A Shamliyan; Brent C Taylor; Robert L Kane Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Dana Ruetters; Christian Keinki; Sarah Schroth; Patrick Liebl; Jutta Huebner Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Karen E Hoffman; Jiangong Niu; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; John W Davis; Jeri Kim; Deborah A Kuban; George H Perkins; Jay B Shah; Grace L Smith; Robert J Volk; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ann S Hamilton; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Joseph Lipscomb; Steven T Fleming; Mary Lo; Dian Wang; Michael Goodman; Alex Ho; Jean B Owen; Chandrika Rao; Robert R German Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2012-12
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Donatus U Ekwueme; Catherine R Fedorenko; Karma Kreizenbeck; Aasthaa Bansal; Ian M Thompson; David F Penson Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Vivien Chen; Matthew Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; John J Graff; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann Hamilton; Karen Hoffman; Sherrie Kaplan; Tatsuki Koyama; Alicia Morgans; Lisa E Paddock; Sharon Phillips; Matthew J Resnick; Antoinette Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Jeri Kim; James Ebertowski; Matthew Janiga; Jorge Arzola; Gayle Gillespie; Michael Fountain; Douglas Soderdahl; Edith Canby-Hagino; Sally Elsamanoudi; Jennifer Gurski; John W Davis; Patricia A Parker; Douglas D Boyd Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Judith Lee Smith; Lori A Pollack; Juan L Rodriguez; Nikki A Hawkins; Tenbroeck Smith; Ruth Rechis; Andy Miller; Anne Willis; Helen Miller; Ingrid J Hall; Temeika L Fairley; Brenda Stone-Wiggins Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 4.442