Perceptions of Prostate MRI and Fusion Biopsy of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists for Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer: Results from a National Survey

Laura Bukavina, Jon C Tilburt, Badrinath Konety, Nilay D Shah, Cary P. Gross, James B. Yu, Frederick Schumacher, Alexander Kutikov, Marc C. Smaldone, Simon P. Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate and fusion biopsy have been advanced to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Yet, frequency of their use and contemporary attitudes among radiation oncologists (ROs) and urologists (UROs) remain largely unknown. Objective: We performed a national survey of UROs and ROs to assess the perceived attitudes towards and frequency of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a national survey of 915 ROs and 940 UROs about prostate MRI and fusion biopsy in 2017. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The survey queried respondents about perceptions of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy and inquired about self-reported utilization. Pearson chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify physician characteristics associated with survey responses. Results and limitations: The overall response rate was 37% (n = 691). Both UROs and ROs demonstrated similar positive views that MRI with fusion biopsy improves PCa risk stratification (67% vs 71%; p = 0.19) and fusion biopsy increases the confidence recommending active surveillance (55% vs 60%; p = 0.18). Yet, only a quarter of both specialties reported frequent use of prostate MRI for treatment decisions for low- and intermediate-risk PCa. Compared with respondents practicing in community practices, those in academic practices were more likely to report using prostate MRI for low- (44% vs 19%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 3.96; p < 0.001) and intermediate-risk PCa (42% vs 24%; adjusted OR: 2.49; p < 0.001). Our study was limited by a modestly lower response rate. Conclusions: While both specialties have perceived value in favor of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy, only a quarter of respondents report their use in clinical practice. Physicians practicing in academic medical centers had greater self-reported use. Patient summary: Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and targeted biopsies have growing evidence of their use as a superior diagnostic methodology for prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions. Our survey study found that a majority of radiation oncologists and urologists view both favorably in improving prostate cancer detection and treatment decisions. Yet, only a quarter report using it in routine clinical practice for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. In our national survey, a majority of radiation oncologists and urologists perceive prostate magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies as improving risk stratification for prostate cancer and confident in recommending active surveillance. However, only a quarter of respondents self-report using it in clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalEuropean Urology Focus
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Biopsy
Odds Ratio
Surveys and Questionnaires
Radiation Oncologists
Urologists
Physicians
Chi-Square Distribution
Self Report
Therapeutics
Logistic Models

Keywords

  • Active surveillance
  • Advanced imaging
  • Biopsy prostate cancer
  • Survey

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Perceptions of Prostate MRI and Fusion Biopsy of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists for Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer : Results from a National Survey. / Bukavina, Laura; Tilburt, Jon C; Konety, Badrinath; Shah, Nilay D; Gross, Cary P.; Yu, James B.; Schumacher, Frederick; Kutikov, Alexander; Smaldone, Marc C.; Kim, Simon P.

In: European Urology Focus, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bukavina, Laura ; Tilburt, Jon C ; Konety, Badrinath ; Shah, Nilay D ; Gross, Cary P. ; Yu, James B. ; Schumacher, Frederick ; Kutikov, Alexander ; Smaldone, Marc C. ; Kim, Simon P. / Perceptions of Prostate MRI and Fusion Biopsy of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists for Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer : Results from a National Survey. In: European Urology Focus. 2018.
@article{724a4a25828143c3a57e4411c2a6ce70,
title = "Perceptions of Prostate MRI and Fusion Biopsy of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists for Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer: Results from a National Survey",
abstract = "Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate and fusion biopsy have been advanced to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Yet, frequency of their use and contemporary attitudes among radiation oncologists (ROs) and urologists (UROs) remain largely unknown. Objective: We performed a national survey of UROs and ROs to assess the perceived attitudes towards and frequency of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a national survey of 915 ROs and 940 UROs about prostate MRI and fusion biopsy in 2017. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The survey queried respondents about perceptions of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy and inquired about self-reported utilization. Pearson chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify physician characteristics associated with survey responses. Results and limitations: The overall response rate was 37{\%} (n = 691). Both UROs and ROs demonstrated similar positive views that MRI with fusion biopsy improves PCa risk stratification (67{\%} vs 71{\%}; p = 0.19) and fusion biopsy increases the confidence recommending active surveillance (55{\%} vs 60{\%}; p = 0.18). Yet, only a quarter of both specialties reported frequent use of prostate MRI for treatment decisions for low- and intermediate-risk PCa. Compared with respondents practicing in community practices, those in academic practices were more likely to report using prostate MRI for low- (44{\%} vs 19{\%}; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 3.96; p < 0.001) and intermediate-risk PCa (42{\%} vs 24{\%}; adjusted OR: 2.49; p < 0.001). Our study was limited by a modestly lower response rate. Conclusions: While both specialties have perceived value in favor of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy, only a quarter of respondents report their use in clinical practice. Physicians practicing in academic medical centers had greater self-reported use. Patient summary: Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and targeted biopsies have growing evidence of their use as a superior diagnostic methodology for prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions. Our survey study found that a majority of radiation oncologists and urologists view both favorably in improving prostate cancer detection and treatment decisions. Yet, only a quarter report using it in routine clinical practice for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. In our national survey, a majority of radiation oncologists and urologists perceive prostate magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies as improving risk stratification for prostate cancer and confident in recommending active surveillance. However, only a quarter of respondents self-report using it in clinical practice.",
keywords = "Active surveillance, Advanced imaging, Biopsy prostate cancer, Survey",
author = "Laura Bukavina and Tilburt, {Jon C} and Badrinath Konety and Shah, {Nilay D} and Gross, {Cary P.} and Yu, {James B.} and Frederick Schumacher and Alexander Kutikov and Smaldone, {Marc C.} and Kim, {Simon P.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.euf.2018.09.002",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "European Urology Focus",
issn = "2405-4569",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Perceptions of Prostate MRI and Fusion Biopsy of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists for Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer

T2 - Results from a National Survey

AU - Bukavina, Laura

AU - Tilburt, Jon C

AU - Konety, Badrinath

AU - Shah, Nilay D

AU - Gross, Cary P.

AU - Yu, James B.

AU - Schumacher, Frederick

AU - Kutikov, Alexander

AU - Smaldone, Marc C.

AU - Kim, Simon P.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate and fusion biopsy have been advanced to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Yet, frequency of their use and contemporary attitudes among radiation oncologists (ROs) and urologists (UROs) remain largely unknown. Objective: We performed a national survey of UROs and ROs to assess the perceived attitudes towards and frequency of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a national survey of 915 ROs and 940 UROs about prostate MRI and fusion biopsy in 2017. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The survey queried respondents about perceptions of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy and inquired about self-reported utilization. Pearson chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify physician characteristics associated with survey responses. Results and limitations: The overall response rate was 37% (n = 691). Both UROs and ROs demonstrated similar positive views that MRI with fusion biopsy improves PCa risk stratification (67% vs 71%; p = 0.19) and fusion biopsy increases the confidence recommending active surveillance (55% vs 60%; p = 0.18). Yet, only a quarter of both specialties reported frequent use of prostate MRI for treatment decisions for low- and intermediate-risk PCa. Compared with respondents practicing in community practices, those in academic practices were more likely to report using prostate MRI for low- (44% vs 19%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 3.96; p < 0.001) and intermediate-risk PCa (42% vs 24%; adjusted OR: 2.49; p < 0.001). Our study was limited by a modestly lower response rate. Conclusions: While both specialties have perceived value in favor of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy, only a quarter of respondents report their use in clinical practice. Physicians practicing in academic medical centers had greater self-reported use. Patient summary: Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and targeted biopsies have growing evidence of their use as a superior diagnostic methodology for prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions. Our survey study found that a majority of radiation oncologists and urologists view both favorably in improving prostate cancer detection and treatment decisions. Yet, only a quarter report using it in routine clinical practice for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. In our national survey, a majority of radiation oncologists and urologists perceive prostate magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies as improving risk stratification for prostate cancer and confident in recommending active surveillance. However, only a quarter of respondents self-report using it in clinical practice.

AB - Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate and fusion biopsy have been advanced to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Yet, frequency of their use and contemporary attitudes among radiation oncologists (ROs) and urologists (UROs) remain largely unknown. Objective: We performed a national survey of UROs and ROs to assess the perceived attitudes towards and frequency of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a national survey of 915 ROs and 940 UROs about prostate MRI and fusion biopsy in 2017. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The survey queried respondents about perceptions of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy and inquired about self-reported utilization. Pearson chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify physician characteristics associated with survey responses. Results and limitations: The overall response rate was 37% (n = 691). Both UROs and ROs demonstrated similar positive views that MRI with fusion biopsy improves PCa risk stratification (67% vs 71%; p = 0.19) and fusion biopsy increases the confidence recommending active surveillance (55% vs 60%; p = 0.18). Yet, only a quarter of both specialties reported frequent use of prostate MRI for treatment decisions for low- and intermediate-risk PCa. Compared with respondents practicing in community practices, those in academic practices were more likely to report using prostate MRI for low- (44% vs 19%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 3.96; p < 0.001) and intermediate-risk PCa (42% vs 24%; adjusted OR: 2.49; p < 0.001). Our study was limited by a modestly lower response rate. Conclusions: While both specialties have perceived value in favor of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy, only a quarter of respondents report their use in clinical practice. Physicians practicing in academic medical centers had greater self-reported use. Patient summary: Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and targeted biopsies have growing evidence of their use as a superior diagnostic methodology for prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions. Our survey study found that a majority of radiation oncologists and urologists view both favorably in improving prostate cancer detection and treatment decisions. Yet, only a quarter report using it in routine clinical practice for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. In our national survey, a majority of radiation oncologists and urologists perceive prostate magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies as improving risk stratification for prostate cancer and confident in recommending active surveillance. However, only a quarter of respondents self-report using it in clinical practice.

KW - Active surveillance

KW - Advanced imaging

KW - Biopsy prostate cancer

KW - Survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053125190&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053125190&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.euf.2018.09.002

DO - 10.1016/j.euf.2018.09.002

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85053125190

JO - European Urology Focus

JF - European Urology Focus

SN - 2405-4569

ER -