A national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists on prediction tools and nomograms for localized prostate cancer

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 perfo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:World journal of urology 2019-10, Vol.37 (10), p.2099-2108
Hauptverfasser: Gershman, Boris, Maroni, Paul, Tilburt, Jon C., Volk, Robert J., Konety, Badrinath, Bennett, Charles L., Kutikov, Alexander, Smaldone, Marc C., Chen, Victor, Kim, Simon P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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  
ISSN:0724-4983
1433-8726
DOI:10.1007/s00345-019-02637-6