PURPOSE: Although clinical guidelines recommend assessing quality of life, cancer aggressiveness and life expectancy for making localized prostate cancer treatment decisions, it is unknown whether instruments that objectively measure such outcomes have disseminated into clinical practice. In this context we determined whether quality of life and prediction instruments for prostate cancer have been adopted by radiation oncologists and urologists in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a nationally representative mail survey of 1,422 prostate cancer specialists in the United States, we queried about self-reported clinical implementation of quality of life instruments, prostate cancer nomograms and life expectancy prediction tools in late 2011. The Pearson chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression were used to determine differences in the use of each instrument by physician characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 313 radiation oncologists and 328 urologists completed the survey for a 45% response rate. Although 55% of respondents reported using prostate cancer nomograms, only 27% and 23% reported using quality of life and life expectancy prediction instruments, respectively. On multivariate analysis urologists were less likely to use quality of life instruments than radiation oncologists (OR 0.40, p <0.001). Physicians who spent 30 minutes or more counseling patients were consistently more likely to use quality of life instruments (OR 2.57, p <0.001), prostate cancer nomograms (OR 1.83, p = 0.009) and life expectancy prediction tools (OR 1.85, p = 0.02) than those who spent less than 15 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Although prostate cancer nomograms have been implemented into clinical practice to some degree, the use of quality of life and life expectancy tools has been more limited. Increased attention to implementing validated instruments into clinical practice may facilitate shared decision making for patients with prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: Although clinical guidelines recommend assessing quality of life, cancer aggressiveness and life expectancy for making localized prostate cancer treatment decisions, it is unknown whether instruments that objectively measure such outcomes have disseminated into clinical practice. In this context we determined whether quality of life and prediction instruments for prostate cancer have been adopted by radiation oncologists and urologists in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a nationally representative mail survey of 1,422 prostate cancer specialists in the United States, we queried about self-reported clinical implementation of quality of life instruments, prostate cancer nomograms and life expectancy prediction tools in late 2011. The Pearson chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression were used to determine differences in the use of each instrument by physician characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 313 radiation oncologists and 328 urologists completed the survey for a 45% response rate. Although 55% of respondents reported using prostate cancer nomograms, only 27% and 23% reported using quality of life and life expectancy prediction instruments, respectively. On multivariate analysis urologists were less likely to use quality of life instruments than radiation oncologists (OR 0.40, p <0.001). Physicians who spent 30 minutes or more counseling patients were consistently more likely to use quality of life instruments (OR 2.57, p <0.001), prostate cancer nomograms (OR 1.83, p = 0.009) and life expectancy prediction tools (OR 1.85, p = 0.02) than those who spent less than 15 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Although prostate cancer nomograms have been implemented into clinical practice to some degree, the use of quality of life and life expectancy tools has been more limited. Increased attention to implementing validated instruments into clinical practice may facilitate shared decision making for patients with prostate cancer.
Authors: Boris Gershman; Paul Maroni; Jon C Tilburt; Robert J Volk; Badrinath Konety; Charles L Bennett; Alexander Kutikov; Marc C Smaldone; Victor Chen; Simon P Kim Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Gregory T Chesnut; Amy L Tin; Katherine A Fleshner; Nicole E Benfante; Andrew J Vickers; James A Eastham; Daniel D Sjoberg; Sigrid V Carlsson Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Ericka M Sohlberg; I-Chun Thomas; Jaden Yang; Kristopher Kapphahn; Timothy J Daskivich; Ted A Skolarus; Jeremy B Shelton; Danil V Makarov; Jonathan Bergman; Christine Ko Bang; Mary K Goldstein; Todd H Wagner; James D Brooks; Manisha Desai; John T Leppert Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: E Charles Osterberg; Thomas W Gaither; Mohannad A Awad; Amjad Alwaal; Bradley A Erickson; Jack W McAninch; Benjamin N Breyer Journal: Urology Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: David D Thiel; Andrew J Davidiuk; Gregory A Broderick; Michelle Arnold; Nancy Diehl; Andrea Tavlarides; Kaitlynn Custer; Alexander S Parker Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 2.264