McClelland Shearwood, Sandler Kiri A, Degnin Catherine, Chen Yiyi, Mitin Timur
Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Can Urol Assoc J. 2019 May;13(5):E132-E134. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.5470. Epub 2018 Oct 15.
The management of patients with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy (RP) is controversial. Level 1 evidence demonstrates that adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) improves survival compared to no treatment; however, it may overtreat up to 30% of patients, as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using salvage RT on observation arms failed to reveal a survival advantage of adjuvant RT. We, therefore, sought to determine the current view of adjuvant vs. salvage RT among North American genitourinary (GU) radiation oncology experts.
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 adjuvant vs. salvage RT for this patient population. Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher's exact test.
Forty-two of 88 radiation oncologists completed the survey; 23 (54.8%) recommended adjuvant RT and 19 (45.2%) recommended salvage RT. Recommendation of active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease was a significant predictor of salvage RT recommendation (p=0.034), and monthly patient volume approached significance for recommendation of adjuvant over salvage RT; those seeing <15 patients/month trended towards recommending adjuvant over salvage RT (p=0.062). No other demographic factors approached significance.
There is dramatic polarization among North American GU experts regarding optimal management of patients with high-risk features after RP. Ongoing RCTs will determine whether adjuvant RT improves survival over salvage RT. Until then, the almost 50/50 division seen from this analysis should encourage practicing clinicians to discuss the ambiguity with their patients.
根治性前列腺切除术(RP)后具有高危特征患者的管理存在争议。一级证据表明,与不治疗相比,辅助放疗(RT)可提高生存率;然而,它可能会过度治疗高达30%的患者,因为在观察组使用挽救性放疗的随机临床试验(RCT)未能揭示辅助放疗的生存优势。因此,我们试图确定北美泌尿生殖系统(GU)放射肿瘤学专家对辅助放疗与挽救性放疗的当前看法。
向北美88名在合作组研究组织决策委员会任职的执业GU医生发放了一份调查问卷。问题涉及对该患者群体辅助放疗与挽救性放疗的看法。使用Fisher精确检验将治疗建议与实践模式相关联。
88名放射肿瘤学家中有42人完成了调查;23人(54.8%)推荐辅助放疗,19人(45.2%)推荐挽救性放疗。对Gleason 3+4疾病推荐积极监测是推荐挽救性放疗的一个重要预测因素(p=0.034),每月患者数量接近辅助放疗优于挽救性放疗推荐的显著性水平;每月看诊患者少于15人的医生倾向于推荐辅助放疗而非挽救性放疗(p=0.062)。没有其他人口统计学因素接近显著性水平。
北美GU专家在RP后具有高危特征患者的最佳管理方面存在巨大分歧。正在进行的RCT将确定辅助放疗是否比挽救性放疗更能提高生存率。在此之前,从本次分析中看到的近50/50的分歧应促使执业临床医生与患者讨论这种不确定性。