Cargando…
Prostate brachytherapy utilization in the COVID-19 era: A cross-sectional study of radiation oncologists in the United States
PURPOSE: Despite advantages such as abbreviated treatment course, brachytherapy (BT) utilization rates for prostate cancer (PC) in the United States (US) are declining. We surveyed practicing US radiation oncologists (ROs) to determine the proportion who offer BT for PC and whether the COVID-19 pand...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9489987/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36347762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2022.08.016 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: Despite advantages such as abbreviated treatment course, brachytherapy (BT) utilization rates for prostate cancer (PC) in the United States (US) are declining. We surveyed practicing US radiation oncologists (ROs) to determine the proportion who offer BT for PC and whether the COVID-19 pandemic influenced practice patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July-October 2021, we surveyed practicing US ROs. Provider demographic and practice characteristics were collected. Questions assessing utilization of BT and external beam (EBRT) for patients of varying risk groups and the effect of the pandemic on practice patterns were administered. Descriptive statistics were reported. The bivariate relationships between provider characteristics and likelihood of offering BT were assessed using the Chi-square test (α < 0.05). RESULTS: Six percent of surveyed ROs responded, with 203 meeting inclusion criteria (72% male, 72% white, 53% non-academic, 69% >10 years in practice) and 156 (77%) treating PC. For low-risk, fewer providers offered BT (41% total; 25% low dose rate [LDR], 10% high dose rate [HDR], 6% both) than stereotactic body (SBRT) (54%) and moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (MHFRT) (83%). For favorable intermediate risk, fewer offered BT (37% total; 21% LDR, 10% HDR, 6% both) than SBRT (48%), MHFRT (87%), and conventionally fractionated EBRT (38%). For high (44%) and very-high (37%) risk, fewer offered EBRT+BT than EBRT alone. For every risk group, academic ROs were significantly more likely to offer BT (all p-values<0.05). <1% of respondents reported increased pandemic-related BT usage. CONCLUSIONS: US ROs, particularly in non-academic settings, do not routinely offer BT monotherapy or boost (<50%). Practice patterns were unaffected by COVID-19. Retraining may be critical to increasing utilization. |
---|