Top

Published in:

01-11-2015 | Original Article

Differences in practice patterns between urologists and radiation oncologists in the management of localized prostate cancer: a cross-sectional survey

Authors: Mehdi Mokhtar Ariane, Guillaume Ploussard, Xavier Rebillard, Bernard Malavaud, Pascal Rischmann, Christophe Hennequin, Pierre Mongiat-Artus

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 11/2015

Abstract

Introduction

Through a cross-sectional survey, we tried to assess whether practices of urologists and radiation oncologists are uniform when faced with similar clinical situations.

Materials and Methods

A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all French urologists and radiation oncologists. Respondents were asked about their practices through 11 case scenarios. The scenarios cover most of localized prostate cancer situations and were gradually organized depending on prostate cancer progression risk and the age of the patient. The eight first scenarios address the situation of treatment-naive patients, and the last cases were about the management of patients after radical prostatectomy. Physicians were asked to choose a treatment modality for each case. The responses were first stratified according to the intention to treat: either curative-intent treatment or palliative. The curative-treatment modality chosen were afterward assessed. The responses to clinical scenarios were compared between the two specialties.

Results

Concerning the intention to treat, practice patterns were overall consistent except in one case. Indeed, a higher rate of radiation oncologists prefer curative-intent treatment for intermediate-risk prostate cancer in aged patients: 57.4 versus 14.6 % (p < 0.001). Each medical specialist prefers the treatment that he himself delivers (p < 0.005). For intermediate-risk prostate cancer in 65-year-old patient: 96.5 % of urologists chose radical prostatectomy versus 37.7 % of radiation oncologists (p < 0.001). Fewer urologists (almost 14 %) compared to radiation oncologists (47.5 %) would prescribe adjuvant treatment after radical prostatectomy for T3a R0 prostate cancer with post-operative PSA undetectable (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Significant differences were found in therapeutic approach between the two main specialties that deal with localized prostate cancer.

Available only for authorised users

Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90CrossRefPubMed

Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ (2009) Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 59:225–249CrossRefPubMed

Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71CrossRefPubMed

Horwich A, Parker C, Bangma C, Kataja V (2010) Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 21(Suppl 5):v129–v133CrossRefPubMed

Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR et al (2008) Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 112:2664–2670CrossRefPubMed

Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2010) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:126–131CrossRefPubMed

Van den Bergh RCN, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Aus G, Hugosson J, Rannikko AS et al (2009) Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 55:1–8CrossRefPubMed

Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63:597–603CrossRefPubMed

Klein EA, Ciezki J, Kupelian PA, Mahadevan A (2009) Outcomes for intermediate risk prostate cancer: are there advantages for surgery, external radiation, or brachytherapy? Urol Oncol 27:67–71CrossRefPubMed

10.

Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan K-H, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS et al (2013) Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 368:436–445PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

11.

D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974CrossRefPubMed

12.

Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID et al (2002) AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRef

13.

Soulié M, Beuzeboc P, Cornud F, Eschwege P, Gaschignard N, Grosclaude P et al (2007) Prostatic cancers. Prog Urol 17:1159–1230CrossRefPubMed

14.

Moore MJ, O’Sullivan B, Tannock IF (1988) How expert physicians would wish to be treated if they had genitourinary cancer. J Clin Oncol 6:1736–1745PubMed

15.

Jang TL, Bekelman JE, Liu Y, Bach PB, Basch EM, Elkin EB et al (2010) Physician visits prior to treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med 170:440–450PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

16.

Keating NL, Landrum MB, Ayanian JZ, Winer EP, Guadagnoli E (2003) Consultation with a medical oncologist before surgery and type of surgery among elderly women with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:4532–4539CrossRefPubMed

17.

Fowler FJ, McNaughton Collins M, Albertsen PC, Zietman A, Elliott DB, Barry MJ (2000) Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 283:3217–3222CrossRefPubMed

18.

Johansson J-E, Andrén O, Andersson S-O, Dickman PW, Holmberg L, Magnuson A et al (2004) Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 291:2713–2719CrossRefPubMed

19.

Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M (2010) Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 58:831–835CrossRefPubMed

20.

Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW et al (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29:2185–2190CrossRefPubMed

21.

Spencer BA, Miller DC, Litwin MS, Ritchey JD, Stewart AK, Dunn RL et al (2008) Variations in quality of care for men with early-stage prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:3735–3742CrossRefPubMed

22.

Article O (2003) Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 12:18–23CrossRef

23.

Aning JJ, Wassersug RJ, Goldenberg SL (2012) Patient preference and the impact of decision-making aids on prostate cancer treatment choices and post-intervention regret. Curr Oncol 19:S37–S44PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

24.

Lin GA, Aaronson DS, Knight SJ, Carroll PR, Dudley RA (2009) Patient decision aids for prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of the literature. CA Cancer J Clin 59:379–390CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kim SP, Gross CP, Nguyen PL, Smaldone MC, Shah ND, Jeffrey James R et al (2014) Perceptions of active surveillance and treatment recommendations for low-risk prostate cancer. Med Care 52:579–585CrossRefPubMed

Title: Differences in practice patterns between urologists and radiation oncologists in the management of localized prostate cancer: a cross-sectional survey
Authors: Mehdi Mokhtar Ariane
Guillaume Ploussard
Xavier Rebillard
Bernard Malavaud
Pascal Rischmann
Christophe Hennequin
Pierre Mongiat-Artus
Publication date: 01-11-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 11/2015
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1543-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Differences in practice patterns between urologists and radiation oncologists in the management of localized prostate cancer: a cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2015

An examination of prostate cancer trends in Australia, England, Canada and USA: Is the Australian death rate too high?

Predictive role of free prostate-specific antigen in a prospective active surveillance program (PRIAS)

GPX2 underexpression indicates poor prognosis in patients with urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract and urinary bladder

Utilization of a novel valveless trocar system during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

Robotic-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: frequency of nodal metastases and oncological outcomes

Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review