Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLee, Lip W
dc.contributor.authorClarke, Noel W
dc.contributor.authorRamani, Vijay A C
dc.contributor.authorCowan, Richard A
dc.contributor.authorWylie, James P
dc.contributor.authorLogue, John P
dc.date.accessioned2009-07-29T13:57:28Z
dc.date.available2009-07-29T13:57:28Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.citationAdjuvant and salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy: current practice in the UK. 2005, 8 (3):229-34 Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis.en
dc.identifier.issn1365-7852
dc.identifier.pmid15999120
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/sj.pcan.4500816
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/75879
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To survey UK urologists and radiation oncologists in the evaluation and treatment of localised prostate cancer in the adjuvant and salvage setting. METHODS: Postal questionnaires were mailed to 292 urologists and 98 radiation oncologists in the UK. RESULTS: In all, 188 (48%) questionnaires were returned. In total, 72/128 (56%) of the urologist respondents and 58/60 (97%) of the oncologist respondents perform routine radical prostate treatment. Among 43 (60%) of the urologist, 40 (69%) recommended adjuvant treatment, which could be radiotherapy, hormonal treatment or combined hormonal and radiation treatment. There is no significant difference between the modality of treatment recommended. The poor prognostic factors that would influence the decision to offer adjuvant treatment include a detectable postoperative PSA, seminal vesicle involvement, positive margins, Gleason score>8 and pathological T3. With regard to the choice of hormonal treatment, most urologists preferred antiandrogens, whereas most oncologists prefer lutienising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue (P=0.03). Regarding salvage treatment, there is a wide variation in the PSA threshold and number of PSA rises before initiation of investigations and treatment. Significantly more urologists recommended salvage radiotherapy (P=0.02), whereas oncologists recommended combined hormonal radiation therapy (P=0.03). There is a wide variation of practice regarding the duration of hormonal treatment, the type of investigations initiated, range of radiotherapy doses and treatment volumes. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variation in practice among UK clinicians.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectProstatic Canceren
dc.subject.meshChemotherapy, Adjuvant
dc.subject.meshGonadotropin-Releasing Hormone
dc.subject.meshGreat Britain
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshMale
dc.subject.meshPrognosis
dc.subject.meshProstate
dc.subject.meshProstate-Specific Antigen
dc.subject.meshProstatic Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshQuestionnaires
dc.subject.meshRadiotherapy
dc.subject.meshSalvage Therapy
dc.subject.meshSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subject.meshTime Factors
dc.titleAdjuvant and salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy: current practice in the UK.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentClinical Oncology, Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalProstate Cancer and Prostatic Diseasesen
html.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To survey UK urologists and radiation oncologists in the evaluation and treatment of localised prostate cancer in the adjuvant and salvage setting. METHODS: Postal questionnaires were mailed to 292 urologists and 98 radiation oncologists in the UK. RESULTS: In all, 188 (48%) questionnaires were returned. In total, 72/128 (56%) of the urologist respondents and 58/60 (97%) of the oncologist respondents perform routine radical prostate treatment. Among 43 (60%) of the urologist, 40 (69%) recommended adjuvant treatment, which could be radiotherapy, hormonal treatment or combined hormonal and radiation treatment. There is no significant difference between the modality of treatment recommended. The poor prognostic factors that would influence the decision to offer adjuvant treatment include a detectable postoperative PSA, seminal vesicle involvement, positive margins, Gleason score>8 and pathological T3. With regard to the choice of hormonal treatment, most urologists preferred antiandrogens, whereas most oncologists prefer lutienising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue (P=0.03). Regarding salvage treatment, there is a wide variation in the PSA threshold and number of PSA rises before initiation of investigations and treatment. Significantly more urologists recommended salvage radiotherapy (P=0.02), whereas oncologists recommended combined hormonal radiation therapy (P=0.03). There is a wide variation of practice regarding the duration of hormonal treatment, the type of investigations initiated, range of radiotherapy doses and treatment volumes. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variation in practice among UK clinicians.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record