MP44-17 A NATIONAL SURVEY OF RADIATION ONCOLOGISTS AND UROLOGISTS ON PREDICTION TOOLS AND NOMOGRAMS FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER (2019)

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making III (MP44)1 Apr 2019MP44-17 A NATIONAL SURVEY OF RADIATION ONCOLOGISTS AND UROLOGISTS ON PREDICTION TOOLS AND NOMOGRAMS FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER Boris Gershman, Paul Maroni, Jon Tilburt, Robert Volk, PhD Badrinath Konety, MD Alexander Kutikov, MD Marc Smaldone, Marc Smaldone, Victor Chen, and Simon Kim* Boris GershmanBoris Gershman More articles by this author , Paul MaroniPaul Maroni More articles by this author , Jon TilburtJon Tilburt More articles by this author , Robert VolkRobert Volk More articles by this author , Badrinath KonetyBadrinath Konety More articles by this author , Alexander KutikovAlexander Kutikov More articles by this author , Marc SmaldoneMarc Smaldone More articles by this author , Marc SmaldoneMarc Smaldone More articles by this author , Victor ChenVictor Chen More articles by this author , and Simon Kim*Simon Kim* More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556260.17883.48AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Integration of prediction tools for prostate cancer (PCa) is essential to high quality treatment decisions and shared decision-making. Yet, 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 surveyed 940 URO and 911 RO to query their confidence in and use of the Dâ€™Amico criteria, Kattan Nomogram, and CAPRA score from a 4-wave mailing. The statistical analysis involved bivariate association and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify physician characteristics associated with survey response and use of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk PCa. RESULTS: Overall, 691 (37.3%) specialists completed the surveys with similar response rates from RO and URO (35.7% vs. 38.7%; p=.18). Two thirds (Range: 65.6% - 68.4%) of respondents reported being â€œsomewhat confidentâ€, but only a fifth selected â€œvery confidentâ€ 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). Lack of using prediction tools was also associated with low use of AS (<5%) in their low-risk PCa patients (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. Source of Funding: Conquer Cancer Foundation Providence, RI; Denver, CO; Rochester, MN; Houston, TX; Minneapolis, MN; Philadelphia, PA; Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e635-e636 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Boris Gershman More articles by this author Paul Maroni More articles by this author Jon Tilburt More articles by this author Robert Volk More articles by this author Badrinath Konety More articles by this author Alexander Kutikov More articles by this author Marc Smaldone More articles by this author Marc Smaldone More articles by this author Victor Chen More articles by this author Simon Kim* More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...