Literature DB >> 9334616

Current trends in prostate cancer diagnosis and staging among United States urologists.

M W Plawker1, J M Fleisher, E M Vapnek, R J Macchia.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We analyzed current practice patterns and determined whether urologists are diagnosing and staging prostate cancer in accordance with one another and with available literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was mailed to 1,500 randomly selected practicing American Urological Association members throughout the United States, categorized according to practice setting and decade of residency training completion.
RESULTS: There were 624 respondents (41.6%). Annual routine prostate cancer detection is being aimed toward the right of the age spectrum. More than half of respondents use age specific prostate specific antigen (PSA), while fewer than half use PSA density in determining need for biopsy. The vast majority will perform radical prostatectomy on patients whose age suggests that they will not benefit from surgery. High PSA values and Gleason scores often are disregarded as independent precluding factors when deciding to perform radical prostatectomy. Computerized tomography and radionuclide bone imaging are used routinely far in excess of what the literature suggests is appropriate. Regardless of preoperative staging results, most urologists still perform lymphadenectomy with all radical prostatectomies.
CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies exist in practice patterns between urologists as well as inconsistencies in logic within individuals. There is little variation between individuals in different practice settings. Our results reflect the often confusing and conflicting data published during the last decade.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9334616     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)64145-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  6 in total

1.  Prostate-specific antigen testing in Ontario: reasons for testing patients without diagnosed prostate cancer.

Authors:  P S Bunting; V Goel; J I Williams; N A Iscoe
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-01-12       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Prostate-specific antigen test result interpretation when combined with risk factors for recommendation of biopsy: a survey of urologist's practice patterns.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk; Nikhil Daljeet; Clement Ma; Karen Hersey; Alexandre Zlotta; Neil Fleshner
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2010-06-12       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 3.  Quality of life and economic considerations in the management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Marco Turini; Alberto Redaelli; Paola Gramegna; Davide Radice
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Prostate-specific antigen and related isoforms in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Alexander Haese; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Inverse probability of treatment-weighted competing risks analysis: an application on long-term risk of urinary adverse events after prostate cancer treatments.

Authors:  Charlotte A Bolch; Haitao Chu; Stephanie Jarosek; Stephen R Cole; Sean Elliott; Beth Virnig
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Classification of focal prostatic lesions on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and the accuracy of TRUS to diagnose prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ho Yun Lee; Hak Jong Lee; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee; Sung Kyu Hong; Seung Hyup Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 3.500

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.