Daniel J Lama1, Matthew Kasson1, Connor Hoge1, Tian Guan1, Marepalli Rao1, Timothy Struve2, Sadhna Verma3, Abhinav Sidana1. 1. Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States. 3. Department of Radiology Section of Abdominal Imaging, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary cancer clinic (MDC) is an evaluation option for the management of prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of MDC is to provide the patient with a comprehensive assessment and risk/benefit discussion of all pertinent treatment options. Our objective was to obtain a contemporary measure and analysis of urologists' opinion regarding PCa MDC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We created a 14-item questionnaire for respondent baseline characteristics, subjective and objective inquiries regarding MDC for PCa management. The survey was distributed through email to members of the Society of Urologic Oncology and the Endourological Society. Data were analyzed using R (R Core team, 2017). RESULTS: One hundred and seven (51%) respondents reported participation in MDC; the majority of which were male (97.6%), academic (61.4%) urologists with urologic oncology fellowship training (50%), and >20 years in practice (40.3%). MDC patients were most commonly referrals (78.5%) and with high-risk disease (Gleason sum 8-10) (83.2%). A majority of the respondents felt that MDC was very or extremely beneficial for PCa research (45% and 19%, respectively) and treatment (35% and 20%, respectively). Responses dissuading the use of MDC included lack of infrastructure (41%) and time commitment (21%). On multivariate analysis, urologists with >10 years in practice were less likely to find MDC beneficial in the management of PCa (11-20 years, P = 0.028 and >20 years P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: A contemporary sampling of urologists' opinion and practice patterns alludes to the benefits that advocate for and the resource demand that hinders routine use of MDC for PCa evaluation. Urologist training and practice environment can affect participation in PCa MDC.
OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary cancer clinic (MDC) is an evaluation option for the management of prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of MDC is to provide the patient with a comprehensive assessment and risk/benefit discussion of all pertinent treatment options. Our objective was to obtain a contemporary measure and analysis of urologists' opinion regarding PCa MDC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We created a 14-item questionnaire for respondent baseline characteristics, subjective and objective inquiries regarding MDC for PCa management. The survey was distributed through email to members of the Society of Urologic Oncology and the Endourological Society. Data were analyzed using R (R Core team, 2017). RESULTS: One hundred and seven (51%) respondents reported participation in MDC; the majority of which were male (97.6%), academic (61.4%) urologists with urologic oncology fellowship training (50%), and >20 years in practice (40.3%). MDC patients were most commonly referrals (78.5%) and with high-risk disease (Gleason sum 8-10) (83.2%). A majority of the respondents felt that MDC was very or extremely beneficial for PCa research (45% and 19%, respectively) and treatment (35% and 20%, respectively). Responses dissuading the use of MDC included lack of infrastructure (41%) and time commitment (21%). On multivariate analysis, urologists with >10 years in practice were less likely to find MDC beneficial in the management of PCa (11-20 years, P = 0.028 and >20 years P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: A contemporary sampling of urologists' opinion and practice patterns alludes to the benefits that advocate for and the resource demand that hinders routine use of MDC for PCa evaluation. Urologist training and practice environment can affect participation in PCa MDC.
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Ivo G Schoots; Baris Turkbey; Gianluca Giannarini; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Suzanne Biehn Stewart; Lionel L Bañez; Cary N Robertson; Stephen J Freedland; Thomas J Polascik; Donghua Xie; Bridget F Koontz; Zeljko Vujaskovic; W Robert Lee; Andrew J Armstrong; Phillip G Febbo; Daniel J George; Judd W Moul Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Chad A Reichard; Karen E Hoffman; Chad Tang; Stephen B Williams; Pamela K Allen; Mary F Achim; Deborah A Kuban; Brian F Chapin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Benjamin D Sommers; Clair J Beard; Anthony V D'Amico; Irving Kaplan; Jerome P Richie; Richard J Zeckhauser Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Debasish Sundi; Jason E Cohen; Alexander P Cole; Brian P Neuman; John Cooper; Farzana A Faisal; Ashley E Ross; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Prostate Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Ayal A Aizer; Jonathan J Paly; Anthony L Zietman; Paul L Nguyen; Clair J Beard; Sandhya K Rao; Irving D Kaplan; Andrzej Niemierko; Michelle S Hirsch; Chin-Lee Wu; Aria F Olumi; M Dror Michaelson; Anthony V D'Amico; Jason A Efstathiou Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Amir H Lebastchi; Arvin K George; Thomas J Polascik; Jonathan Coleman; Jean de la Rosette; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Michael A Gorin; Abhinav Sidana; Sangeet Ghai; Kae Jack Tay; John F Ward; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Berrend G Muller; Bernard Malavaud; Pierre Mozer; Sebastien Crouzet; Peter L Choyke; Osamu Ukimura; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 20.096