Talha Shaikh1, Lora Wang1, Karen Ruth2, Mark Hallman1, David Y Chen3, Richard E Greenberg3, Jinsheng Li1, Kevin Crawford1, Eric M Horwitz4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: eric.horwitz@fccc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the impact of fellow, resident, or medical student (MS) involvement on outcomes in patients undergoing permanent (125)I prostate seed implant. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of men with clinically localized low/intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with low-dose-rate permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Cases were stratified according to resident, fellow, MS, or attending involvement. Outcomes were compared using analysis of variance, logistic regression, and log rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 291 patients were evaluated. Fellows, residents, and MS were involved in 47 (16.2%), 231 (79.4%), and 34 (11.7%) cases, respectively. Thirteen (4.4%) cases were completed by an attending physician alone. There was no difference in freedom from biochemical failure when comparing the resident, fellow, or attending alone groups (p = 0.10). There was no difference in V100 (volume of the prostate receiving 100% of the prescription dose) outcomes when comparing resident cases to fellow cases (p = 0.72) or attending alone cases (p = 0.78). There was no difference in D90 (minimum dose covering 90% of the postimplant volume) outcomes when comparing resident cases to fellow cases (p = 0.74) or attending alone cases (p = 0.58). When examining treatment toxicity, fellow cases had higher rates of acute Grade 2 + GU toxicity (p = 0.028). With the exception of higher urethra D90 among PGY 2-3 cases (p = 0.02), dosimetric outcomes were similar to cases with PGY 4-5 resident participation. There was no difference in outcomes for cases with and without MS participation. CONCLUSIONS: Interstitial prostate seed implants can be safely performed by trainees with appropriate supervision. Hands-on brachytherapy training is effective and feasible for trainees.
PURPOSE: To determine the impact of fellow, resident, or medical student (MS) involvement on outcomes in patients undergoing permanent (125)I prostate seed implant. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of men with clinically localized low/intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with low-dose-rate permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Cases were stratified according to resident, fellow, MS, or attending involvement. Outcomes were compared using analysis of variance, logistic regression, and log rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 291 patients were evaluated. Fellows, residents, and MS were involved in 47 (16.2%), 231 (79.4%), and 34 (11.7%) cases, respectively. Thirteen (4.4%) cases were completed by an attending physician alone. There was no difference in freedom from biochemical failure when comparing the resident, fellow, or attending alone groups (p = 0.10). There was no difference in V100 (volume of the prostate receiving 100% of the prescription dose) outcomes when comparing resident cases to fellow cases (p = 0.72) or attending alone cases (p = 0.78). There was no difference in D90 (minimum dose covering 90% of the postimplant volume) outcomes when comparing resident cases to fellow cases (p = 0.74) or attending alone cases (p = 0.58). When examining treatment toxicity, fellow cases had higher rates of acute Grade 2 + GU toxicity (p = 0.028). With the exception of higher urethra D90 among PGY 2-3 cases (p = 0.02), dosimetric outcomes were similar to cases with PGY 4-5 resident participation. There was no difference in outcomes for cases with and without MS participation. CONCLUSIONS: Interstitial prostate seed implants can be safely performed by trainees with appropriate supervision. Hands-on brachytherapy training is effective and feasible for trainees.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Usama Mahmood; Thomas Pugh; Steven Frank; Lawrence Levy; Gary Walker; Waqar Haque; Matthew Koshy; William Graber; David Swanson; Karen Hoffman; Deborah Kuban; Andrew Lee Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 2.362
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: Jeffrey M Martin; Elizabeth A Handorf; Alexander Kutikov; Robert G Uzzo; Justin E Bekelman; Eric M Horwitz; Marc C Smaldone Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jason K Wang; Alejandro Schuler; Nigam H Shah; Michael T M Baiocchi; Jonathan H Chen Journal: AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc Date: 2018-05-18