Shearwood McClelland1,2, Kiri A Sandler3, Catherine Degnin4, Yiyi Chen4, Timur Mitin1. 1. Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, United States. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States. 4. Biostatistics Shared Resource, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The management of patients with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy (RP) is controversial. Level 1 evidence demonstrates that adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) improves survival compared to no treatment; however, it may overtreat up to 30% of patients, as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using salvage RT on observation arms failed to reveal a survival advantage of adjuvant RT. We, therefore, sought to determine the current view of adjuvant vs. salvage RT among North American genitourinary (GU) radiation oncology experts. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision-making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to opinions regarding adjuvant vs. salvage RT for this patient population. Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Forty-two of 88 radiation oncologists completed the survey; 23 (54.8%) recommended adjuvant RT and 19 (45.2%) recommended salvage RT. Recommendation of active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease was a significant predictor of salvage RT recommendation (p=0.034), and monthly patient volume approached significance for recommendation of adjuvant over salvage RT; those seeing <15 patients/month trended towards recommending adjuvant over salvage RT (p=0.062). No other demographic factors approached significance. CONCLUSIONS: There is dramatic polarization among North American GU experts regarding optimal management of patients with high-risk features after RP. Ongoing RCTs will determine whether adjuvant RT improves survival over salvage RT. Until then, the almost 50/50 division seen from this analysis should encourage practicing clinicians to discuss the ambiguity with their patients.
INTRODUCTION: The management of patients with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy (RP) is controversial. Level 1 evidence demonstrates that adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) improves survival compared to no treatment; however, it may overtreat up to 30% of patients, as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using salvage RT on observation arms failed to reveal a survival advantage of adjuvant RT. We, therefore, sought to determine the current view of adjuvant vs. salvage RT among North American genitourinary (GU) radiation oncology experts. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision-making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to opinions regarding adjuvant vs. salvage RT for this patient population. Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Forty-two of 88 radiation oncologists completed the survey; 23 (54.8%) recommended adjuvant RT and 19 (45.2%) recommended salvage RT. Recommendation of active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease was a significant predictor of salvage RT recommendation (p=0.034), and monthly patient volume approached significance for recommendation of adjuvant over salvage RT; those seeing <15 patients/month trended towards recommending adjuvant over salvage RT (p=0.062). No other demographic factors approached significance. CONCLUSIONS: There is dramatic polarization among North American GU experts regarding optimal management of patients with high-risk features after RP. Ongoing RCTs will determine whether adjuvant RT improves survival over salvage RT. Until then, the almost 50/50 division seen from this analysis should encourage practicing clinicians to discuss the ambiguity with their patients.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Michel Bolla; Hein van Poppel; Bertrand Tombal; Kris Vekemans; Luigi Da Pozzo; Theo M de Reijke; Antony Verbaeys; Jean-François Bosset; Roland van Velthoven; Marc Colombel; Cees van de Beek; Paul Verhagen; Alphonsus van den Bergh; Cora Sternberg; Thomas Gasser; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Pierre Scalliet; Karin Haustermans; Laurence Collette Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-10-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michel Bolla; Hein van Poppel; Laurence Collette; Paul van Cangh; Kris Vekemans; Luigi Da Pozzo; Theo M de Reijke; Antony Verbaeys; Jean-François Bosset; Roland van Velthoven; Jean-Marie Maréchal; Pierre Scalliet; Karin Haustermans; Marianne Piérart Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Aug 13-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Jorge Paradelo; M Scott Lucia; Gary Miller; Dean Troyer; Edward Messing; Jeffrey Forman; Joseph Chin; Gregory Swanson; Edith Canby-Hagino; E David Crawford Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maria Pearse; Carol Fraser-Browne; Ian D Davis; Gillian M Duchesne; Richard Fisher; Mark Frydenberg; Annette Haworth; Chakiath Jose; David J Joseph; Tee S Lim; John Matthews; Jeremy Millar; Mark Sidhom; Nigel A Spry; Colin I Tang; Sandra Turner; Scott G Williams; Kirsty Wiltshire; Henry H Woo; Andrew Kneebone Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Jorge Paradelo; M Scott Lucia; Gary Miller; Dean Troyer; Edward Messing; Jeffrey Forman; Joseph Chin; Gregory Swanson; Edith Canby-Hagino; E David Crawford Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Chris Parker; Matthew R Sydes; Charles Catton; Howard Kynaston; John Logue; Claire Murphy; Rachel C Morgan; Kilian Mellon; Chris Morash; Wendy Parulekar; Mahesh K B Parmar; Heather Payne; Colleen Savage; Jim Stansfeld; Noel W Clarke Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-04-08 Impact factor: 5.588