Erschienen in:
22.01.2019 | Original Article
A national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists on prediction tools and nomograms for localized prostate cancer
verfasst von:
Boris Gershman, Paul Maroni, Jon C. Tilburt, Robert J. Volk, Badrinath Konety, Charles L. Bennett, Alexander Kutikov, Marc C. Smaldone, Victor Chen, Simon P. Kim
Erschienen in:
World Journal of Urology
|
Ausgabe 10/2019
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
Purpose
Although prediction tools for prostate cancer (PCa) are essential for high-quality treatment decision-making, little is known about the degree of confidence in existing tools and whether they are used in clinical practice from radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (URO). Herein, we performed a national survey of specialists about perceived attitudes and use of prediction tools.
Methods
In 2017, we invited 940 URO and 911 RO in a national survey to query their confidence in and use of the D’Amico criteria, Kattan Nomogram, and CAPRA score. The statistical analysis involved bivariate association and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify physician characteristics (age, gender, race, practice affiliation, specialty, access to robotic surgery, ownership of linear accelerator and number of prostate cancer per week) associated with survey responses and use of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk PCa.
Results
Overall, 691 (37.3%) specialists completed the surveys. Two-thirds (range 65.6–68.4%) of respondents reported being “somewhat confident”, but only a fifth selected “very confident” for each prediction tool (18.0–20.1%). 19.1% of specialists in the survey reported not using any prediction tools in clinical practice, which was higher amongst URO than RO (23.9 vs. 13.4%; p < 0.001). Respondents who reported not using prediction tools were also associated with low utilization of AS in their low-risk PCa patients (adjusted OR 2.47; p = 0.01).
Conclusions
While a majority of RO and URO view existing prediction tools for localized PCa with some degree of confidence, a fifth of specialists reported not using any such tools in clinical practice. Lack of using such tools was associated with low utilization of AS for low-risk PCa.