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.
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.
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: 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: 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
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
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
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
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