Literature DB >> 23910088

Variation in treatment recommendations of adjuvant radiation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer by physician specialty.

Simon P Kim1, Jon C Tilburt, R Jeffrey Karnes, Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss, Leona C Han, Nilay D Shah, Igor Frank, Marc C Smaldone, Cary P Gross, James B Yu, Quoc-Dien Trinh, Maxine Sun, Rebecca L O'Malley, Paul L Nguyen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the treatment recommendations from a nationally representative sample of radiation oncologists and urologists on adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with pathologically advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.
METHODS: From a random sample of 1422 physicians (n = 711 radiation oncologists; n = 711 urologists) in the American Medical Association Masterfile, a mail survey queried treatment recommendations for adjuvant radiotherapy that varied by the following pathologic features: extraprostatic extension (pT3a) vs seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b), Gleason 7 vs Gleason 8-10, and margin negative (MN) vs margin positive (MP). Pearson chi-square and multivariable logistic regression were used to test for differences in treatment recommendations by physician specialty.
RESULTS: Response rates for radiation oncologists and urologists were similar (44% vs 46%; P = .42). Radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend adjuvant radiotherapy than urologists for all the varying pathologic scenarios from pT3a, Gleason 7, and MN (42.5% vs 9.7%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 7.82, P <.001) to pT3b, Gleason 8-10, and MP disease (94.5% vs 89.1%, adjusted OR: 2.46, P <.001). Compared with radiation oncologists, urologists were more likely to recommend salvage radiotherapy pT3a, Gleason 7, and MN (90.3% vs 57.7%; adjusted OR: 7.72, P <.001) to pT3b, Gleason 8-10, and MP disease (10.9% vs 5.5%; adjusted OR: 2.22, P <.001).
CONCLUSION: In this national survey, radiation oncologists and urologists have markedly different treatment recommendations for adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy. Patients with adverse pathologic features after radical prostatectomy should consult with both a urologist and radiation oncologist to hear a diversity of opinions to make the most informed decision possible.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23910088     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.04.060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  12 in total

1.  Postoperative biochemical recurrence of pathologically localized high-grade prostate cancer in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients.

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

2.  A national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists on prediction tools and nomograms for localized 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

Review 3.  Using implementation science to improve urologic oncology care.

Authors:  Ted A Skolarus; Anne E Sales
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-07-09       Impact factor: 3.498

4.  Variation in the use of postoperative radiotherapy among high-risk patients following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  T M Morgan; S R Hawken; K R Ghani; D C Miller; F Y Feng; S M Linsell; J A Salisz; Y Gao; J E Montie; M L Cher
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 5.554

5.  Factors associated with physicians' recommendations for managing low-risk papillary thyroid cancer.

Authors:  Alexandria D McDow; Benjamin R Roman; Megan C Saucke; Catherine B Jensen; Nick Zaborek; Jamia Linn Jennings; Louise Davies; Juan P Brito; Susan C Pitt
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 3.125

6.  The use of early postoperative prostate-specific antigen to stratify risk in patients with positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Stepan Vesely; Ladislav Jarolim; Katerina Duskova; Marek Schmidt; Pavel Dusek; Marko Babjuk
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 7.  Gaps between Evidence and Practice in Postoperative Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Focus on Toxicities and the Effects on Health-Related Quality of Life.

Authors:  Hamid Raziee; Alejandro Berlin
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Decipher correlation patterns post prostatectomy: initial experience from 2 342 prospective patients.

Authors:  R B Den; M Santiago-Jimenez; J Alter; M Schliekelman; J R Wagner; J F Renzulli Ii; D I Lee; C G Brito; K Monahan; B Gburek; N Kella; G Vallabhan; F Abdollah; E J Trabulsi; C D Lallas; L G Gomella; T L Woodlief; Z Haddad; L L C Lam; S Deheshi; Q Wang; V Choeurng; M du Plessis; J Jordan; B Parks; H Shin; C Buerki; K Yousefi; E Davicioni; V R Patel; N L Shah
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 5.554

9.  Effect of Preoperative Risk Group Stratification on Oncologic Outcomes of Patients with Adverse Pathologic Findings at Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Won Sik Jang; Lawrence H C Kim; Cheol Yong Yoon; Koon Ho Rha; Young Deuk Choi; Sung Joon Hong; Won Sik Ham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Predictors of adverse pathologic features after radical prostatectomy in low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jae Won Park; Dong Hoon Koh; Won Sik Jang; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Koon Ho Rha; Sung Joon Hong; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.