The urological community's opinion over focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) has never been assessed. Our aim was to investigate the current opinion on FT in the European urological community. A 25-item questionnaire was devised according to the Cherries checklist and distributed through SurveyMonkey using a web link from November 2016 to October 2017. After a pilot validation (n = 40 urologists), the survey was sent through EAU and 9 other national European urological societies mailing list. Twitter was also used. RESULTS: We received 484 replies from 51 countries. Almost half (44.8%, n = 217) stated FT would represent a step forward, and 52.0% (n = 252) would suggest FT to a patient. Almost three-quarters (70.8%, n = 343) agreed FT will become a standard option after improvements in patient selection (n = 66) or when its effectiveness will be proven (n = 78), or both (n = 199). Most frequently used definition of FT was treatment of all significant (life-threatening) cancer foci whilst leaving untreated the rest of the gland (39.3%, n = 190). FT use was considered as an alternative to whole-gland treatments by 29.7% (n = 144), and to AS by 25.0% (n = 121). On multivariate analysis, FT availability and publications were associated with a positive opinion on FT. Conversely, attending International congresses, treating high PCa volumes and high percentages of high-risk PCa was associated with a negative opinion. CONCLUSIONS: FT is considered as an attractive option for PCa treatment by the European urological community sampled by our survey. FT availability positively influences these thoughts. The present survey suggests whilst some early adopters already embraced FT, the relative majority of the urological community is prone to embrace FT in the near future, once current areas of debate are solved.
Focal therapy in localised prostate cancer: Real-world urological perspective explored in a cross-sectional European survey
Marra, Giancarlo;Gontero, Paolo;
2018-01-01
Abstract
The urological community's opinion over focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) has never been assessed. Our aim was to investigate the current opinion on FT in the European urological community. A 25-item questionnaire was devised according to the Cherries checklist and distributed through SurveyMonkey using a web link from November 2016 to October 2017. After a pilot validation (n = 40 urologists), the survey was sent through EAU and 9 other national European urological societies mailing list. Twitter was also used. RESULTS: We received 484 replies from 51 countries. Almost half (44.8%, n = 217) stated FT would represent a step forward, and 52.0% (n = 252) would suggest FT to a patient. Almost three-quarters (70.8%, n = 343) agreed FT will become a standard option after improvements in patient selection (n = 66) or when its effectiveness will be proven (n = 78), or both (n = 199). Most frequently used definition of FT was treatment of all significant (life-threatening) cancer foci whilst leaving untreated the rest of the gland (39.3%, n = 190). FT use was considered as an alternative to whole-gland treatments by 29.7% (n = 144), and to AS by 25.0% (n = 121). On multivariate analysis, FT availability and publications were associated with a positive opinion on FT. Conversely, attending International congresses, treating high PCa volumes and high percentages of high-risk PCa was associated with a negative opinion. CONCLUSIONS: FT is considered as an attractive option for PCa treatment by the European urological community sampled by our survey. FT availability positively influences these thoughts. The present survey suggests whilst some early adopters already embraced FT, the relative majority of the urological community is prone to embrace FT in the near future, once current areas of debate are solved.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
