Is moderate hypofractionation accepted as a new standard of care in north america for prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy? Survey of genitourinary expert radiation oncologists

ABSTRACT Introduction: Several recent randomized clinical trials have evaluated hypofractionated regimens against conventionally fractionated EBRT and shown similar effectiveness with conflicting toxicity results. The current view regarding hypofractionation compared to conventional EBRT among North American genitourinary experts for management of prostate cancer has not been investigated. Materials and Methods: A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision - making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to opinions regarding the default EBRT dose and fractionation for a hypothetical example of a favorable intermediate - risk prostate cancer (Gleason 3 + 4). Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher's exact test. Results: Forty - two respondents (48%) completed the survey. We excluded from analysis two respondents who selected radical hypofractionation with 5 - 12 fractions as a preferred treatment modality. Among the 40 analyzed respondents, 23 (57.5%) recommend conventional fractionation and 17 (42.5%) recommended moderate hypofractionation. No demographic factors were found to be associated with preference for a fractionation regimen. Support for brachytherapy as a first choice treatment modality for low - risk prostate cancer was borderline significantly associated with support for moderate hypofractionated EBRT treatment modality (p = 0.089). Conclusions: There is an almost equal split among North American GU expert radiation oncologists regarding the appropriateness to consider moderately hypofractionated EBRT as a new standard of care in management of patients with prostate cancer. Physicians who embrace brachytherapy may be more inclined to support moderate hypofractionated regimen for EBRT. It is unclear whether reports with longer follow-ups will impact this balance, or whether national care and reimbursement policies will drive the clinical decisions. In the day and age of patient - centered care delivery, patients should receive an objective recommendation based on available clinical evidence. The stark division among GU experts may influence the design of future clinical trials utilizing EBRT for patients with prostate cancer.

Dramatic polarization in genitourinary expert opinions regarding the clinical utility of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in prostate cancer

ABSTRACT Objectives: To ascertain the opinions of North American genitourinary (GU) experts regarding inclusion of technologies such as prostate - specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and C - 11 choline positron emission tomography (PET) into routine practice. Materials and Methods: A survey was distributed to North American GU experts. Questions pertained to the role of PSMA and C - 11 PET in PCa management. Participants were categorized as "supporters" or "opponents" of incorporation of novel imaging techniques. Opinions were correlated with practice patterns. Results: Response rate was 54% and we analyzed 42 radiation oncologist respondents. 17 participants (40%) have been in practice for > 20 years and 38 (90%) practice at an academic center. 24 (57%) were supporters of PSMA and 29 (69%) were supporters of C - 11. Supporters were more likely to treat pelvic nodes (88% vs. 56%, p < 01) and trended to be more likely to treat patients with moderate or extreme hypofractionation (58% vs. 28%, p = 065). Supporters trended to be more likely to offer brachytherapy boost (55% vs. 23%, p = 09), favor initial observation and early salvage over adjuvant radiation (77% vs. 55%, p = 09), and to consider themselves expert brachytherapists (69% vs. 39%, p = 09). Conclusions: There is a polarization among GU radiation oncology experts regarding novel imaging techniques. A correlation emerged between support of novel imaging and adoption of treatment approaches that are clinically superior or less expensive. Pre - existing biases among GU experts on national treatment - decision panels and leaders of cooperative group studies may affect the design of future studies and influence the adoption of these technologies in clinical practice.