| Revista: | International braz j urol |
| Base de datos: | PERIÓDICA |
| Número de sistema: | 000434865 |
| ISSN: | 1677-5538 |
| Autors: | Sandler, Kiri A1 McClelland III, Shearwood2 Degnin, Catherine4 Chen, Yiyi4 Mitin, Timur3 |
| Institucions: | 1University of California at Los Angeles, Department of Radiation Oncology, Los Angeles, California. Estados Unidos de América 2Indiana University, School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. Estados Unidos de América 3Oregon Health and Science University, Department of Radiation Medicine, Portland, Oregon. Estados Unidos de América 4Oregon Health and Science University, Biostatistics Shared Resource, Portland, Oregon. Estados Unidos de América |
| Any: | 2019 |
| Període: | Ene-Feb |
| Volum: | 45 |
| Número: | 1 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Tipo de documento: | Artículo |
| Enfoque: | Analítico, descriptivo |
| Resumen en inglés | 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 |
| Disciplines | Medicina |
| Paraules clau: | Oncología, Urología, Diagnóstico, Neoplasias, Próstata, Tomografía por emisión de positrones, Radioterapia |
| Keyword: | Oncology, Urology, Diagnosis, Neoplasms, Prostate, Positron emission tomography, Radiotherapy |
| Text complet: | Texto completo (Ver HTML) Texto completo (Ver PDF) |
