Schulam, Peter G.

167 Background: Physicians have a variety of resources available about the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Yet, it is largely unknown what resources and evidence radiation oncologists and urologists commonly use to inform patients and possibly alter clinical practice. In this national survey study, we assessed the types of resources prostate cancer specialists’ use and the level of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations in localized prostate cancer. Methods: From a random sample, 1,422 physicians were sent a mail survey assessing what type of information was used to guide prostate cancer treatment. The survey also queried what level of evidence could alter recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify for differences in physician characteristics for each outcome. Results: Survey response rates were similar for radiation oncologists and urologists (44% vs. 46%; p=0.46). Specialty-specific journals represented the most commonly used resource to inform the clinical practice for radiation oncologists (65%) and urologists (70%). Relative to radiation oncologists, urologists were less likely to utilize medical journals (25% vs. 38.7%, OR: 0.50; p=0.01), cancer journals (21.7% vs. 50.8%, OR: 0.50; p<0.001), but more likely to rely on clinical guidelines (46.3% vs. 37.7%,OR: 1.6; p=0.006). Radiation oncologists and urologists both viewed RCT’s as the most likely source of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations (85% vs. 77%). Conclusions: Both specialties most commonly rely on their specialty-specific journals to inform their clinical practice and view RCT’s as the level of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer. Radiation oncologists embraced greater diversity in literature, while urologists were more likely to use clinical guidelines. Utilizing this information may overcome barriers to the dissemination and adoption of new treatment paradigms for localized prostate cancer.

Objective To evaluate the relationship between partial nephrectomy ( PN ) and hospital availability of robot‐assisted surgery from a population‐based cohort in the USA . Methods After merging the Nationwide Inpatient Sample ( NIS ) and the A merican Hospital Association survey from 2006 to 2008, we identified 21 179 patients who underwent either PN or radical nephrectomy ( RN ) for renal cell carcinoma ( RCC ). The primary outcome assessed was the type of nephrectomy performed. Multivariable logistic regression identified the patient and hospital characteristics associated with receipt of PN . Results We identified 4832 (22.8%) and 16 347 (77.2%) patients who were treated for RCC with PN and RN , respectively. On multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive PN at academic centres (odds ratio [ OR ] 2.77; P < 0.001), urban centres ( OR 3.66; P < 0.001) and A merican College of Surgeons ( ACOS )‐designated cancer centres ( OR : 1.10; P < 0.05) compared with non‐academic, rural and non‐ ACOS ‐designated cancer centre hospitals, respectively. Robot‐assisted surgery availability at a hospital was also associated with a higher adjusted odds of PN compared with centres without that availability ( OR 1.28; P < 0.001). Conclusions Although academic and urban locations are establi s hed factors that affect the receipt of PN for RCC , the availability of robot‐assisted surgery at a hospital was also independently associated with higher use of PN . Our results are informative in identifying other key hospital characteristics which may facilitate greater adoption of PN .