Here’s an interesting article that a former boss of mine would call a “B.G.O.”—a blinding glimpse of the obvious.
If you go to a radiation oncologist, they’re likely to recommend radiation as your treatment option of choice, and if you go to a urologist, they’re more likely to recommend surgery. Doh!
This study was focused on treatment of patients with high risk prostate cancer. I’d be interested to see if the recommendations become a little more muddied for those of us with Gleason 3+4 or 4+3. I’d really like to see what their answers would be to the last question in the second table: Lowest PSA at which SRT is appropriate. That’s of obvious interest to me.
It was called “instrument bias” by Abraham Maslow and Abraham Kaplan, but for present purposes, we’ll call it “specialty bias” — over-reliance on the tool one is most familiar with.
Kishan et al. conducted a survey among urologists (“UROs”) and radiation oncologists (“ROs”) concerning their opinions about how best to treat high-risk prostate cancer patients in various situations from initial treatment to recurrence after initial treatment. They tabulated responses from 846 ROs and 407 UROs:
- 63 percent of ROs and 96 percent of UROs practiced in the US; the rest mainly in Australia and NZ.
- They had a median of > 10 years of experience.
- 41 percent of ROs and 51 percent of UROs were in private practice.
Initial Treatment of High-Risk Patients
ROs were five times more likely to believe that initial treatment with radiotherapy (RT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and with local salvage therapy, if needed, was…
View original post 1,296 more words