Christopher Wallis1, Douglas Cheung2, Laurence Klotz2, Venu Chalasani3, Ricardo Leao2, Juan Garisto2, Gerard Morton4, Robert Nam2, Ian Tannock5, Raj Satkunasivam2. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Division of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the personal practices of urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists regarding prostate cancer screening and treatment using the physician surrogate method, which seeks to identify acceptable healthcare interventions by ascertaining interventions physicians select for themselves. METHODS: A hierarchical, contingent survey was developed through a consensus involving urologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists. It was piloted at the University of Toronto and then circulated to urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists through professional medical societies in the U.S., Canada, Central and South America, Australia, and New Zealand. The primary outcome was physicians' personal choices regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and the secondary outcome was treatment selection among those diagnosed with prostate cancer. RESULTS: A total of 869 respondents provided consent and completed the survey. Of these, there were 719 urologists, 89 radiation oncologists, nine medical oncologists, and 53 undisclosed specialists. Most (784 of 869 respondents; 90%) endorsed past or future screening for themselves (among male physicians) or for relatives (among female physicians). Among urologists and radiation oncologists making prostate cancer treatment decisions, there was a significant correlation between physician specialty and the treatment selected (Phi coefficient=0.61; p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who routinely treat prostate cancer are likely to undertake prostate cancer screening themselves or recommend it for immediate family members. Treatment choice is influenced by the well-recognized specialty bias.
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the personal practices of urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists regarding prostate cancer screening and treatment using the physician surrogate method, which seeks to identify acceptable healthcare interventions by ascertaining interventions physicians select for themselves. METHODS: A hierarchical, contingent survey was developed through a consensus involving urologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists. It was piloted at the University of Toronto and then circulated to urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists through professional medical societies in the U.S., Canada, Central and South America, Australia, and New Zealand. The primary outcome was physicians' personal choices regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and the secondary outcome was treatment selection among those diagnosed with prostate cancer. RESULTS: A total of 869 respondents provided consent and completed the survey. Of these, there were 719 urologists, 89 radiation oncologists, nine medical oncologists, and 53 undisclosed specialists. Most (784 of 869 respondents; 90%) endorsed past or future screening for themselves (among male physicians) or for relatives (among female physicians). Among urologists and radiation oncologists making prostate cancer treatment decisions, there was a significant correlation between physician specialty and the treatment selected (Phi coefficient=0.61; p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who routinely treat prostate cancer are likely to undertake prostate cancer screening themselves or recommend it for immediate family members. Treatment choice is influenced by the well-recognized specialty bias.
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Ruth Etzioni; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Lynn Greene; Lars Holmberg; Philip Kantoff; Badrinath R Konety; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David F Penson; Anthony L Zietman Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Simon P Kim; R Jeffrey Karnes; Paul L Nguyen; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; R Houston Thompson; Leona C Han; Nilay D Shah; Marc C Smaldone; Cary P Gross; Igor Frank; Christopher J Weight; Timothy J Beebe; Jon C Tilburt Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Michael Zettler; Brent Mollon; Vitor da Silva; Brett Howe; Mark Speechley; Chris Vinden Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Karen A Scherr; Angela Fagerlin; Timothy Hofer; Laura D Scherer; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Lillie D Williamson; Valerie C Kahn; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Kirsten L Greene; Biqi Zhang; Peter A Ubel Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: K C Cary; S Punnen; A Y Odisho; M S Litwin; C S Saigal; M R Cooperberg Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 5.554