Perceptions of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists on Sources and Type of Evidence to Inform Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions
- Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (United States)
- Department of Urology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (United States)
- HealthPartners, Minneapolis, Minnesota (United States)
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (United States)
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (United States)
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
- Cancer Outcomes and Public Policy Effectiveness Research Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (United States)
- Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC (Canada)
- Division of Urology, Alfred Hospital, Prahran, Melbourne, Victoria (Australia)
Purpose: To perform a national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists about the type of resources used and the level of evidence needed to change clinical practice in localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: From a random sample, 1422 physicians were mailed a survey assessing the types of information used and what level of evidence could alter their clinical practice in prostate cancer. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify differences in physician characteristics for each outcome. Results: Survey response rates were similar for radiation oncologists and urologists (44% vs 46%; P=.46). Specialty-specific journals represented the most commonly used resource for informing the clinical practice for radiation oncologists (65%) and urologists (70%). Relative to radiation oncologists, urologists were less likely to report utilizing top-tier medical journals (25% vs 39%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.50; P=.01) or cancer journals (22% vs 51%; adjusted OR 0.50; P<.001) but more likely to rely on clinical guidelines (46% vs 38%; adjusted OR 1.6; P=.006). Both radiation oncologists and urologists most commonly reported large randomized, clinical trials as the level of evidence to change treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer (85% vs 77%; P=.009). Conclusions: Both specialties rely on their own specialty-specific journals and view randomized, clinical trials as the level of evidence needed to change clinical practice. Our study provides a context on meaningful ways of disseminating evidence for localized prostate cancer.
- OSTI ID:
- 22416573
- Journal Information:
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 89, Issue 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2014 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0360-3016
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Physician Beliefs and Practices for Adjuvant and Salvage Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy
Treatment Recommendations for Locally Advanced, Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Influence of Physician and Patient Factors