Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Clinical Research

Specialty bias in treatment recommendations and quality of life among radiation oncologists and urologists for localized prostate cancer

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 08 April 2014

Abstract

Background:

Given the importance of physician attitudes about different treatments and the quality of life (QOL) in prostate cancer, we performed a national survey of specialists to assess treatment recommendations and perceptions of treatment-related survival and QOL.

Methods:

We mailed a self-administered survey instrument to a random sample of 1366 specialists in the US. Respondents were asked for treatment recommendations and survival that varied by PSA levels and Gleason scores and estimate QOL outcomes. Pearson’s chi-square and multivariable regression models were used to test for differences in each outcome.

Results:

Response rates were similar for radiation oncologists (52.6%) and urologists (52.3%; P=0.92). Across all risk strata, urologists were more likely to recommend surgery than were radiation oncologists, for conditions ranging from PSA>20 and Gleason score 8–10 (35.2 vs 0.2%; P<0.001) to PSA 4–10 and Gleason score 7 (87.5 vs 20.9%; P<0.001). Radiation oncologists were also more likely to recommend radiation therapy relative to urologists (all P<0.001). From low- to high-risk prostate cancer, radiation oncologists and urologists perceived their treatment as being better for improving survival (all P<0.001). Each specialty also viewed their treatment as having less urinary incontinence (all P<0.001).

Conclusions:

Radiation oncologists and urologists both prefer the treatment modalities they offer, perceive them to be more effective and to lead to a better QOL. Patients may be receiving biased information, and a truly informed consent process with shared decision-making may be possible only if they are evaluated by both specialties before deciding upon a treatment course.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

References

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62: 10–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR . Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1117–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Carroll PR . Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). J Urol 2003; 170 (6 Pt 2): S21–S25 discussion S26-27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mohler J, Babaian RJ, Bahnson RR, Boston B, D'Amico A, Eastham JA et al. Prostate cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2007; 5: 650–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007; 177: 2106–2131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, Kane RL . Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1250–1261.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Miller DC, Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Montie JE, Pimentel H, Sandler HM et al. Long-term outcomes among localized prostate cancer survivors: health-related quality-of-life changes after radical prostatectomy, external radiation, and brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2772–2780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, Ganz PA, Leake B, Leach GE et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1995; 273: 129–135.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 436–445.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Garmo H, Stark JR, Busch C et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1708–1717.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 203–213.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. American Medical Association. Getting the most for our health care dollars: Shared decision-making. 2010, http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/health-care-costs/shared-decision-making.pdf. Accessed 2013.

  14. Fowler FJ Jr., Gallagher PM, Bynum JP, Barry MJ, Lucas FL, Skinner JS . Decision-making process reported by Medicare patients who had coronary artery stenting or surgery for prostate cancer. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27: 911–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Couper MP, Singer E, Levin CA, Fowler Jr FJ, Ziniel S et al. The DECISIONS study: a nationwide survey of United States adults regarding 9 common medical decisions. Med Decis Making 2010; 30 (5 Suppl): 20S–34S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jang TL, Bekelman JE, Liu Y, Bach PB, Basch EM, Elkin EB et al. Physician visits prior to treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 440–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aizer AA, Paly JJ, Zietman AL, Nguyen PL, Beard CJ, Rao SK et al. Multidisciplinary care and pursuit of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 3071–3076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sommers BD, Beard CJ, D'Amico AV, Kaplan I, Richie JP, Zeckhauser RJ . Predictors of patient preferences and treatment choices for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2008; 113: 2058–2067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Moore MJ, O'Sullivan B, Tannock IF . How expert physicians would wish to be treated if they had genitourinary cancer. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6: 1736–1745.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Grimm P, Billiet I, Bostwick D, Dicker AP, Frank S, Immerzeel J et al. Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group. BJU Int 2012; 109 (Suppl 1): 22–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Bianco Jr FJ, Yossepowitch O, Vickers AJ et al. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4300–4305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Dotan ZA, Bianco Jr FJ, Lilja H et al. Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3973–3978.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Critz FA, Benton JB, Shrake P, Merlin ML . 25-year disease-free survival rate after irradiation for prostate cancer calculated with the prostate specific antigen definition of recurrence used for radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2013; 189: 878–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zietman AL, Bae K, Slater JD, Shipley WU, Efstathiou JA, Coen JJ et al. Randomized trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long-term results from proton radiation oncology group/american college of radiology 95-09. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1106–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Meng MV, Mehta SS, Carroll PR . The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2141–2149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer 2011. http://consensus.nih.gov/2011/prostategetinvolved.htm. Accessed, 1 February 2013.

  27. Jacobs BL, Zhang Y, Schroeck FR, Skolarus TA, Wei JT, Montie JE et al. Use of advanced treatment technologies among men at low risk of dying from prostate cancer. JAMA 2013; 309: 2587–2595.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Fowler FJ Jr., McNaughton Collins M, Albertsen PC, Zietman A, Elliott DB, Barry MJ . Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2000; 283: 3217–3222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim SP, Shah ND, Karnes RJ, Weight CJ, Shippee ND, Han LC et al. Hospitalization costs for radical prostatectomy attributable to robotic surgery. Eur Urol 2012; 64: 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA . Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 1129–1136.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR . Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res 2001; 35: 1347–1355.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Floyd J Fowler for helping with the development of our survey for this study. This study was funded by The Robert Derzon Award from the Medical Decisions Foundation, Boston, MA, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S P Kim.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, S., Gross, C., Nguyen, P. et al. Specialty bias in treatment recommendations and quality of life among radiation oncologists and urologists for localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 17, 163–169 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.3

Keywords

  • outcomes
  • quality of life
  • survey
  • treatment recommendations

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links