A National Survey of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists on Perceived Attitudes and Recommendations of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Simon P. Kim, Jon C. Tilburt, Nilay D. Shah, James B. Yu, Badrinath Konety, Paul L. Nguyen, Robert Abouassaly, Stephen Williams, Cary P. Gross

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Background: Clinical factors and barriers affecting adoption of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain poorly understood. We performed a national survey of radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (URO) about the perceptions and recommendations of AS for low-risk PCa. Materials and Methods: In 2017, we surveyed 915 RO and 940 URO about AS for low-risk PCa in the United States. Survey items queried respondents about their attitudes toward AS and recommendations of AS for low-risk PCa. Pearson chi-square and multivariable logistic regression identified clinical and physician factors related toward AS for low-risk PCa. Results: Overall, the response rate was 37.3% (n = 691) and was similar for RO and URO (35.7% vs. 38.7%; P =.18). RO were less likely to consider AS effective for low-risk PCa (86.5% vs. 92.0%; P =.04) and more likely to rate higher patient anxiety on AS (49.5% vs. 29.5%; P <.001) than URO. Recommendations of AS varied modestly on the basis of age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and number of cores positive for Gleason 3 + 3 PCa. For a 55-year-old man with PSA 8 with 6 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, both RO and URO infrequently recommended AS (4.4% vs. 5.2%; adjusted odds ratio = 0.6; P =.28). For a 75-year-old patient with PSA 4 with 2 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, URO and RO most often recommended AS (89.6% vs. 83.4%; adjusted odds ratio = 0.5; P =.07). Conclusion: RO and URO consider AS to be effective in the clinical management of low-risk PCa, but this varies by clinical and physician factors. While active surveillance (AS) represents the preferred initial strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), understanding the barriers to its use is essential. In our national survey, recommendations of AS from case presentations varied by clinical factors and physician specialty. Fewer specialists recommended AS for younger age, higher prostate-specific antigen, or greater number of positive cores of Gleason 6 PCa.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    JournalClinical Genitourinary Cancer
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

    Fingerprint

    Prostatic Neoplasms
    Prostate-Specific Antigen
    Physicians
    Radiation Oncologists
    Urologists
    Surveys and Questionnaires
    Odds Ratio
    Risk Management
    Anxiety
    Logistic Models

    Keywords

    • Active surveillance
    • Physician bias
    • Prostate cancer
    • Survey

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Oncology
    • Urology

    Cite this

    A National Survey of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists on Perceived Attitudes and Recommendations of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. / Kim, Simon P.; Tilburt, Jon C.; Shah, Nilay D.; Yu, James B.; Konety, Badrinath; Nguyen, Paul L.; Abouassaly, Robert; Williams, Stephen; Gross, Cary P.

    In: Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, 01.01.2019.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Kim, Simon P. ; Tilburt, Jon C. ; Shah, Nilay D. ; Yu, James B. ; Konety, Badrinath ; Nguyen, Paul L. ; Abouassaly, Robert ; Williams, Stephen ; Gross, Cary P. / A National Survey of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists on Perceived Attitudes and Recommendations of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. In: Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. 2019.
    @article{cb10cc152a5b4d719d5171d0078478a5,
    title = "A National Survey of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists on Perceived Attitudes and Recommendations of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer",
    abstract = "Background: Clinical factors and barriers affecting adoption of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain poorly understood. We performed a national survey of radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (URO) about the perceptions and recommendations of AS for low-risk PCa. Materials and Methods: In 2017, we surveyed 915 RO and 940 URO about AS for low-risk PCa in the United States. Survey items queried respondents about their attitudes toward AS and recommendations of AS for low-risk PCa. Pearson chi-square and multivariable logistic regression identified clinical and physician factors related toward AS for low-risk PCa. Results: Overall, the response rate was 37.3{\%} (n = 691) and was similar for RO and URO (35.7{\%} vs. 38.7{\%}; P =.18). RO were less likely to consider AS effective for low-risk PCa (86.5{\%} vs. 92.0{\%}; P =.04) and more likely to rate higher patient anxiety on AS (49.5{\%} vs. 29.5{\%}; P <.001) than URO. Recommendations of AS varied modestly on the basis of age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and number of cores positive for Gleason 3 + 3 PCa. For a 55-year-old man with PSA 8 with 6 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, both RO and URO infrequently recommended AS (4.4{\%} vs. 5.2{\%}; adjusted odds ratio = 0.6; P =.28). For a 75-year-old patient with PSA 4 with 2 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, URO and RO most often recommended AS (89.6{\%} vs. 83.4{\%}; adjusted odds ratio = 0.5; P =.07). Conclusion: RO and URO consider AS to be effective in the clinical management of low-risk PCa, but this varies by clinical and physician factors. While active surveillance (AS) represents the preferred initial strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), understanding the barriers to its use is essential. In our national survey, recommendations of AS from case presentations varied by clinical factors and physician specialty. Fewer specialists recommended AS for younger age, higher prostate-specific antigen, or greater number of positive cores of Gleason 6 PCa.",
    keywords = "Active surveillance, Physician bias, Prostate cancer, Survey",
    author = "Kim, {Simon P.} and Tilburt, {Jon C.} and Shah, {Nilay D.} and Yu, {James B.} and Badrinath Konety and Nguyen, {Paul L.} and Robert Abouassaly and Stephen Williams and Gross, {Cary P.}",
    year = "2019",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.clgc.2019.01.008",
    language = "English (US)",
    journal = "Clinical Genitourinary Cancer",
    issn = "1558-7673",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - A National Survey of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists on Perceived Attitudes and Recommendations of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

    AU - Kim, Simon P.

    AU - Tilburt, Jon C.

    AU - Shah, Nilay D.

    AU - Yu, James B.

    AU - Konety, Badrinath

    AU - Nguyen, Paul L.

    AU - Abouassaly, Robert

    AU - Williams, Stephen

    AU - Gross, Cary P.

    PY - 2019/1/1

    Y1 - 2019/1/1

    N2 - Background: Clinical factors and barriers affecting adoption of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain poorly understood. We performed a national survey of radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (URO) about the perceptions and recommendations of AS for low-risk PCa. Materials and Methods: In 2017, we surveyed 915 RO and 940 URO about AS for low-risk PCa in the United States. Survey items queried respondents about their attitudes toward AS and recommendations of AS for low-risk PCa. Pearson chi-square and multivariable logistic regression identified clinical and physician factors related toward AS for low-risk PCa. Results: Overall, the response rate was 37.3% (n = 691) and was similar for RO and URO (35.7% vs. 38.7%; P =.18). RO were less likely to consider AS effective for low-risk PCa (86.5% vs. 92.0%; P =.04) and more likely to rate higher patient anxiety on AS (49.5% vs. 29.5%; P <.001) than URO. Recommendations of AS varied modestly on the basis of age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and number of cores positive for Gleason 3 + 3 PCa. For a 55-year-old man with PSA 8 with 6 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, both RO and URO infrequently recommended AS (4.4% vs. 5.2%; adjusted odds ratio = 0.6; P =.28). For a 75-year-old patient with PSA 4 with 2 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, URO and RO most often recommended AS (89.6% vs. 83.4%; adjusted odds ratio = 0.5; P =.07). Conclusion: RO and URO consider AS to be effective in the clinical management of low-risk PCa, but this varies by clinical and physician factors. While active surveillance (AS) represents the preferred initial strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), understanding the barriers to its use is essential. In our national survey, recommendations of AS from case presentations varied by clinical factors and physician specialty. Fewer specialists recommended AS for younger age, higher prostate-specific antigen, or greater number of positive cores of Gleason 6 PCa.

    AB - Background: Clinical factors and barriers affecting adoption of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain poorly understood. We performed a national survey of radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (URO) about the perceptions and recommendations of AS for low-risk PCa. Materials and Methods: In 2017, we surveyed 915 RO and 940 URO about AS for low-risk PCa in the United States. Survey items queried respondents about their attitudes toward AS and recommendations of AS for low-risk PCa. Pearson chi-square and multivariable logistic regression identified clinical and physician factors related toward AS for low-risk PCa. Results: Overall, the response rate was 37.3% (n = 691) and was similar for RO and URO (35.7% vs. 38.7%; P =.18). RO were less likely to consider AS effective for low-risk PCa (86.5% vs. 92.0%; P =.04) and more likely to rate higher patient anxiety on AS (49.5% vs. 29.5%; P <.001) than URO. Recommendations of AS varied modestly on the basis of age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and number of cores positive for Gleason 3 + 3 PCa. For a 55-year-old man with PSA 8 with 6 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, both RO and URO infrequently recommended AS (4.4% vs. 5.2%; adjusted odds ratio = 0.6; P =.28). For a 75-year-old patient with PSA 4 with 2 cores of Gleason 6 PCa, URO and RO most often recommended AS (89.6% vs. 83.4%; adjusted odds ratio = 0.5; P =.07). Conclusion: RO and URO consider AS to be effective in the clinical management of low-risk PCa, but this varies by clinical and physician factors. While active surveillance (AS) represents the preferred initial strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), understanding the barriers to its use is essential. In our national survey, recommendations of AS from case presentations varied by clinical factors and physician specialty. Fewer specialists recommended AS for younger age, higher prostate-specific antigen, or greater number of positive cores of Gleason 6 PCa.

    KW - Active surveillance

    KW - Physician bias

    KW - Prostate cancer

    KW - Survey

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062149203&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062149203&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.01.008

    DO - 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.01.008

    M3 - Article

    JO - Clinical Genitourinary Cancer

    JF - Clinical Genitourinary Cancer

    SN - 1558-7673

    ER -