C.I. Villeda-Sandoval, J.A. Rivera-Ramírez, G. Romero-Veléz, A. Lisker-Cervantes, R.A. Castillejos-Molina, M.S. de Zavaleta
{"title":"PCUMex survey: Controversies in the management of prostate cancer among Mexican urologists","authors":"C.I. Villeda-Sandoval, J.A. Rivera-Ramírez, G. Romero-Veléz, A. Lisker-Cervantes, R.A. Castillejos-Molina, M.S. de Zavaleta","doi":"10.1016/j.uromx.2015.12.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Prostate cancer is the first cause of mortality related to malignancy in Mexican men. Common clinical practice has to be evaluated in order to gain a picture of reality apart from the guidelines.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To analyze clinical practice among urologists in Mexico in relation to prostate cancer management and to compare the results with current recommendations and guidelines.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We collected the data from 600 urologists, members of the <em>Sociedad Mexicana de Urología</em>, who were invited by email to answer a survey on their usual decisions when managing controversial aspects of prostate cancer patients.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Quinolones were the most common antibiotic used as prophylaxis in prostate biopsy (75.51%); 10–12 cores were taken in more than 65% of prostate biopsies; and 18.27% of the participants performed limited pelvic lymphadenectomy. Treatment results showed that 10.75% of the urologists surveyed preferred radical prostatectomy as monotherapy in high-risk patients with extraprostatic extension and 60.47% used complete androgen deprivation in metastatic prostate cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There are many areas of opportunity for improvement in our current clinical practice for the management of patients with prostate cancer.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34909,"journal":{"name":"Revista mexicana de urologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.uromx.2015.12.007","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista mexicana de urologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2007408516000185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background
Prostate cancer is the first cause of mortality related to malignancy in Mexican men. Common clinical practice has to be evaluated in order to gain a picture of reality apart from the guidelines.
Aim
To analyze clinical practice among urologists in Mexico in relation to prostate cancer management and to compare the results with current recommendations and guidelines.
Methods
We collected the data from 600 urologists, members of the Sociedad Mexicana de Urología, who were invited by email to answer a survey on their usual decisions when managing controversial aspects of prostate cancer patients.
Results
Quinolones were the most common antibiotic used as prophylaxis in prostate biopsy (75.51%); 10–12 cores were taken in more than 65% of prostate biopsies; and 18.27% of the participants performed limited pelvic lymphadenectomy. Treatment results showed that 10.75% of the urologists surveyed preferred radical prostatectomy as monotherapy in high-risk patients with extraprostatic extension and 60.47% used complete androgen deprivation in metastatic prostate cancer.
Conclusions
There are many areas of opportunity for improvement in our current clinical practice for the management of patients with prostate cancer.
期刊介绍:
Revista Mexicana de Urología (RMU) [Mexican Journal of Urology] (ISSN: 0185-4542 / ISSN electronic: 2007-4085) is bimonthly publication that disseminates research by academicians and professionals of the international medical community interested in urological subjects, in the format of original articles, clinical cases, review articles brief communications and letters to the editor. Owing to its nature, it is publication with international scope that disseminates contributions in Spanish and English that are rigorously reviewed by peers under the double blind modality. Neither journalistic documents nor those that lack rigorous medical or scientific support are suitable for publication.