Shifting tides: A survey analysis of urologists' evolving attitudes toward focal therapy for prostate cancer.

IF 1.3 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Jason Koehler, Alon Lazarovich, Shima Tayebi, Vijay Viswanath, Arvin George, Wei-Wen Hsu, Abhinav Sidana
{"title":"Shifting tides: A survey analysis of urologists' evolving attitudes toward focal therapy for prostate cancer.","authors":"Jason Koehler, Alon Lazarovich, Shima Tayebi, Vijay Viswanath, Arvin George, Wei-Wen Hsu, Abhinav Sidana","doi":"10.4103/iju.iju_239_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Focal therapy (FT) is emerging as an alternative to radical treatment for prostate cancer (CaP). The purpose of this study is to assess the current perceptions of FT amongst urologists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 22-item questionnaire was e-mailed to members of the American Urological Association. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of FT utilization. Results were compared to a previous survey from 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and sixty-four responses were recorded. Less than half (115/264, 43.6%) of respondents utilize FT; among them, 42% perform FT on more than 10 patients/year. Reasons for avoiding FT included: lack of experience (51.8%), belief that CaP is multifocal (46.0%), and lack of infrastructure (43.1%). The most common modalities for FT were high-intensity focused ultrasound (63.4%) and cryoablation (47.3%). Preferred patients for FT were primarily unilateral/anterior only Gleason Grade Group 2 (95/110, 86.4%). A fellowship training in urologic oncology (odds ratio [OR] = 2.86, <i>P</i> = 0.008) and seeing more than 10 CaP patients per month (OR = 2.46, <i>P</i> = 0.002) were associated with greater utilization of FT. Most respondents (85.4%) cited better imaging methods as a factor that has increased FT utilization. Compared to a previous survey, a higher number of respondents (43% vs. 24%) utilize FT and more respondents believe in the \"index lesion theory.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Less than half of the respondents utilize FT in their practice. Fellowship training in urologic oncology and a higher volume of CaP patients were correlated with FT utilization. As urologists gain more experience, the trend of further utilization of FT for CaP may continue.</p>","PeriodicalId":47352,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Urology","volume":"41 1","pages":"59-65"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11778692/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_239_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Focal therapy (FT) is emerging as an alternative to radical treatment for prostate cancer (CaP). The purpose of this study is to assess the current perceptions of FT amongst urologists.

Methods: A 22-item questionnaire was e-mailed to members of the American Urological Association. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of FT utilization. Results were compared to a previous survey from 2019.

Results: Two hundred and sixty-four responses were recorded. Less than half (115/264, 43.6%) of respondents utilize FT; among them, 42% perform FT on more than 10 patients/year. Reasons for avoiding FT included: lack of experience (51.8%), belief that CaP is multifocal (46.0%), and lack of infrastructure (43.1%). The most common modalities for FT were high-intensity focused ultrasound (63.4%) and cryoablation (47.3%). Preferred patients for FT were primarily unilateral/anterior only Gleason Grade Group 2 (95/110, 86.4%). A fellowship training in urologic oncology (odds ratio [OR] = 2.86, P = 0.008) and seeing more than 10 CaP patients per month (OR = 2.46, P = 0.002) were associated with greater utilization of FT. Most respondents (85.4%) cited better imaging methods as a factor that has increased FT utilization. Compared to a previous survey, a higher number of respondents (43% vs. 24%) utilize FT and more respondents believe in the "index lesion theory."

Conclusions: Less than half of the respondents utilize FT in their practice. Fellowship training in urologic oncology and a higher volume of CaP patients were correlated with FT utilization. As urologists gain more experience, the trend of further utilization of FT for CaP may continue.

潮流变迁:泌尿科医师对前列腺癌局灶治疗态度演变的调查分析。
局灶治疗(FT)正在成为前列腺癌根治性治疗(CaP)的替代方案。本研究的目的是评估泌尿科医生目前对FT的看法。方法:通过电子邮件向美国泌尿学会会员发送一份共22项的调查问卷。多变量logistic回归分析用于确定FT利用的预测因素。结果与2019年的一项调查进行了比较。结果:共记录了264份问卷。不到一半(115/264,43.6%)的受访者使用金融时报;其中42%的患者每年进行10例以上的FT手术。避免FT的原因包括:缺乏经验(51.8%),认为CaP是多焦点(46.0%),缺乏基础设施(43.1%)。FT最常见的治疗方式是高强度聚焦超声(63.4%)和冷冻消融(47.3%)。首选的FT患者主要是单侧/仅前路Gleason分级2组(95/110,86.4%)。泌尿肿瘤学的奖学金培训(优势比[OR] = 2.86, P = 0.008)和每月超过10例CaP患者(OR = 2.46, P = 0.002)与FT的更高利用率相关。大多数受访者(85.4%)认为更好的成像方法是提高FT利用率的一个因素。与之前的调查相比,更多的受访者(43%对24%)使用FT,更多的受访者相信“指数病变理论”。结论:不到一半的受访者在实践中使用金融时报。泌尿肿瘤学的研究员培训和CaP患者数量的增加与FT的使用相关。随着泌尿科医生获得更多的经验,进一步使用FT治疗CaP的趋势可能会继续下去。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Indian Journal of Urology
Indian Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
33 weeks
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Urology-IJU (ISSN 0970-1591) is official publication of the Urological Society of India. The journal is published Quarterly. Bibliographic listings: The journal is indexed with Abstracts on Hygiene and Communicable Diseases, CAB Abstracts, Caspur, DOAJ, EBSCO Publishing’s Electronic Databases, Excerpta Medica / EMBASE, Expanded Academic ASAP, Genamics JournalSeek, Global Health, Google Scholar, Health & Wellness Research Center, Health Reference Center Academic, Hinari, Index Copernicus, IndMed, OpenJGate, PubMed, Pubmed Central, Scimago Journal Ranking, SCOLOAR, SCOPUS, SIIC databases, SNEMB, Tropical Diseases Bulletin, Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信