Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30177030›Full record

ArticlePractical radiation oncology

Contemporary prostate cancer radiation therapy in the United States: Patterns of care and compliance with quality measures.

Daniel J Lee, Daniel A Barocas, Zhiguo Zhao, Li-Ching Huang, Tatsuki Koyama, Matthew J Resnick, Ralph Conwill, Dan McCollum, Matthew R Cooperberg, Michael Goodman and 9 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Practical radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel J LeeDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic address: daniel.lee.1@vanderbilt.edu.
Daniel A BarocasDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Zhiguo ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Li-Ching HuangDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Tatsuki KoyamaDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Matthew J ResnickDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Ralph ConwillProstate Cancer Patient Advocate, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dan McCollumProstate Cancer Patient Advocate, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Matthew R CooperbergDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Michael GoodmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sheldon GreenfieldCenter for Health Policy Research and Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, California.
Ann S HamiltonDepartment of Preventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Mia HashibeDepartment of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Sherrie H KaplanHealth Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine, California.
Lisa E PaddockRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Antoinette M StroupRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Xiao-Cheng WuSchool of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
David F PensonTennessee Valley Veterans Administration Health System, Nashville, Tennessee.
Karen E HoffmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer CenterEmory University · USLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of California San Francisco Medical Center · USUniversity of Southern California · USUniversity of Utah · USVA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System · US

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS019356AHRQ HHS R01 HS022640
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeQuality measures represent the standards of appropriate treatment agreed upon by experts in the field and often supported by data. The extent to which providers in the community adhere to quality measures in radiation therapy (RT) is unknown. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with clinically localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012. Patients completed surveys and medical records were reviewed. Patients were risk-stratified according to D'Amico classification criteria. Patterns of care and compliance with 8 quality measures as endorsed by national consortia as of 2011 were assessed.

resultsOverall, 926 men underwent definitive RT (69% external beam radiation therapy [EBRT]), 17% brachytherapy (BT), and 14% combined EBRT and BT with considerable variation in radiation techniques across risk groups. Most men who received EBRT had dose-escalated EBRT (>75 Gy; 93%) delivered with conventional fractionation (<2 Gy; 95%), intensity modulated RT (76%), and image guided RT (85%). Most men treated with BT received I125 (77%). Overall, 73% of the men received EBRT that was compliant with the quality measures (dose-escalation, image-guidance, appropriate use of androgen deprivation therapy, and appropriate treatment target) but only 60% of men received BT that was compliant with quality measures (postimplant dosimetry and appropriate dose). African-American men (64%) and other minorities (62%) were less likely than white men (77%) to receive EBRT that was compliant with quality measures.

conclusionsMost men who received RT for localized prostate cancer were treated with an appropriately high dose and received image guidance and intensity modulated RT. However, compliance with some nationally recognized quality measures was relatively low and varied by race. There are significant opportunities to improve the delivery of RT and especially for men of a minority race.

Indexed as

Quality ControlAgedBrachytherapyDose Fractionation, RadiationGuideline AdherenceHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRadiation OncologyRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-Guided

Identifiers

PMID30177030
PMCPMC7492101
OpenAlexW2889488217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.