PURPOSE: Despite results of randomized trials that support adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer with adverse pathologic features (APF), many clinicians favor selective use of salvage RT. This survey was conducted to evaluate the beliefs and practices of radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (U) regarding RT after RP. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We designed a Web-based survey of post-RP RT beliefs and policies. Survey invitations were e-mailed to a list of 926 RO and 591 U. APF were defined as extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, or positive surgical margin. Differences between U and RO in adjuvant RT recommendations were evaluated by comparative statistics. Multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate factors predictive of adjuvant RT recommendation. RESULTS: Analyzable surveys were completed by 218 RO and 92 U (overallresponse rate, 20%). Adjuvant RT was recommended based on APF by 68% of respondents (78% RO, 44% U, p <0.001). U were less likely than RO to agree that adjuvant RT improves survival and/or biochemical control (p < 0.0001). PSA thresholds for salvage RT were higher among U than RO (p < 0.001). Predicted rates of erectile dysfunction due to RT were higher among U than RO (p <0.001). On multivariate analysis, respondent specialty was the only predictor of adjuvant RT recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: U are less likely than RO to recommend adjuvant RT. Future research efforts should focus on defining the toxicities of post-RP RT and on identifying the subgroups of patients who will benefit from adjuvant vs. selective salvage RT.
PURPOSE: Despite results of randomized trials that support adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer with adverse pathologic features (APF), many clinicians favor selective use of salvage RT. This survey was conducted to evaluate the beliefs and practices of radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (U) regarding RT after RP. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We designed a Web-based survey of post-RP RT beliefs and policies. Survey invitations were e-mailed to a list of 926 RO and 591 U. APF were defined as extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, or positive surgical margin. Differences between U and RO in adjuvant RT recommendations were evaluated by comparative statistics. Multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate factors predictive of adjuvant RT recommendation. RESULTS: Analyzable surveys were completed by 218 RO and 92 U (overallresponse rate, 20%). Adjuvant RT was recommended based on APF by 68% of respondents (78% RO, 44% U, p <0.001). U were less likely than RO to agree that adjuvant RT improves survival and/or biochemical control (p < 0.0001). PSA thresholds for salvage RT were higher among U than RO (p < 0.001). Predicted rates of erectile dysfunction due to RT were higher among U than RO (p <0.001). On multivariate analysis, respondent specialty was the only predictor of adjuvant RT recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: U are less likely than RO to recommend adjuvant RT. Future research efforts should focus on defining the toxicities of post-RP RT and on identifying the subgroups of patients who will benefit from adjuvant vs. selective salvage RT.
Authors: Dirk Verellen; Mark De Ridder; Nadine Linthout; Koen Tournel; Guy Soete; Guy Storme Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Theodore L DeWeese; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sameer K Nath; Ajay P Sandhu; Brent S Rose; Daniel R Simpson; Polly D Nobiensky; Jia-Zhu Wang; Fred Millard; Christopher J Kane; J Kellogg Parsons; Arno J Mundt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laura D'Alimonte; Kaitlin Koo; Emily Chen; Deb Feldman-Stewart; Arlene Court; Margaret Fitch; Lisa Di Prospero; John Maamoun; Alex Kiss; Ewa Szumacher Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Ji Eun Heo; Jee Soo Park; Jong Soo Lee; Jongchan Kim; Won Sik Jang; Nam Hoon Cho; Koon Ho Rha; Young Deuk Choi; Sung Joon Hong; Won Sik Ham Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Nitin Ohri; Xinglei Shen; Robert B Den; Adam P Dicker; Edouard J Trabulsi; Timothy N Showalter Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Marco Lupattelli; Matthew Alcusky; Cynthia Aristei; Rita Bellavita; Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa; John McAna; Timothy N Showalter; Vittorio Maio Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jennifer Mason Lobo; Adam P Dicker; Christine Buerki; Elai Daviconi; R Jeffrey Karnes; Robert B Jenkins; Nirav Patel; Robert B Den; Timothy N Showalter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Edwin F Crandley; Sarah E Hegarty; Terry Hyslop; David D Wilson; Adam P Dicker; Timothy N Showalter Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 4.452