Abstract
Introduction: Through a cross-sectional survey, we tried to assess whether practices of urologists and radiation oncologists are uniform when faced with similar clinical situations.Materials and methods: A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all French urologists and radiation oncologists. Respondents were asked about their practices through 11 case scenarios. The scenarios cover most of localized prostate cancer situations and were gradually organized depending on prostate cancer progression risk and the age of the patient. The eight first scenarios address the situation of treatment-naive patients, and the last cases were about the management of patients after radical prostatectomy. Physicians were asked to choose a treatment modality for each case. The responses were first stratified according to the intention to treat: either curative-intent treatment or palliative. The curative-treatment modality chosen were afterward assessed. The responses to clinical scenarios were compared between the two specialties.Results: Concerning the intention to treat, practice patterns were overall consistent except in one case. Indeed, a higher rate of radiation oncologists prefer curative-intent treatment for intermediate-risk prostate cancer in aged patients: 57.4 versus 14.6 % (p < 0.001). Each medical specialist prefers the treatment that he himself delivers (p < 0.005). For intermediate-risk prostate cancer in 65-year-old patient: 96.5 % of urologists chose radical prostatectomy versus 37.7 % of radiation oncologists (p < 0.001). Fewer urologists (almost 14 %) compared to radiation oncologists (47.5 %) would prescribe adjuvant treatment after radical prostatectomy for T3a R0 prostate cancer with post-operative PSA undetectable (p < 0.001).Conclusion: Significant differences were found in therapeutic approach between the two main specialties that deal with localized prostate cancer.