Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36347762›Full record

ArticleBrachytherapy

Prostate brachytherapy utilization in the COVID-19 era: A cross-sectional study of radiation oncologists in the United States.

Rahul N Prasad, Yevgeniya Gokun, Alex R Ritter, Sachin R Jhawar, Sundari Vudatala, Shang-Jui Wang, Douglas Martin, Dayssy A Diaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brachytherapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Rahul N PrasadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210.
Yevgeniya GokunCenter for Biostatistics, Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, 43210.
Alex R RitterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210.
Sachin R JhawarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210.
Sundari VudatalaRecruitment, Intervention, and Survey Shared Resource, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210.
Shang-Jui WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210.
Douglas MartinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210.
Dayssy A DiazDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43210. Electronic address: dayssy.diazpardo@osumc.edu.

Funding

The Ohio State University Center for clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR001070 · NCATS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JACKSON, REBECCA D · 2013 to 2017
$22.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite advantages such as abbreviated treatment course, brachytherapy (BT) utilization rates for prostate cancer (PC) in the United States (US) are declining. We surveyed practicing US radiation oncologists (ROs) to determine the proportion who offer BT for PC and whether the COVID-19 pandemic influenced practice patterns. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom July-October 2021, we surveyed practicing US ROs. Provider demographic and practice characteristics were collected. Questions assessing utilization of BT and external beam (EBRT) for patients of varying risk groups and the effect of the pandemic on practice patterns were administered. Descriptive statistics were reported. The bivariate relationships between provider characteristics and likelihood of offering BT were assessed using the Chi-square test (α < 0.05).

resultsSix percent of surveyed ROs responded, with 203 meeting inclusion criteria (72% male, 72% white, 53% non-academic, 69% >10 years in practice) and 156 (77%) treating PC. For low-risk, fewer providers offered BT (41% total; 25% low dose rate [LDR], 10% high dose rate [HDR], 6% both) than stereotactic body (SBRT) (54%) and moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (MHFRT) (83%). For favorable intermediate risk, fewer offered BT (37% total; 21% LDR, 10% HDR, 6% both) than SBRT (48%), MHFRT (87%), and conventionally fractionated EBRT (38%). For high (44%) and very-high (37%) risk, fewer offered EBRT+BT than EBRT alone. For every risk group, academic ROs were significantly more likely to offer BT (all p-values<0.05). <1% of respondents reported increased pandemic-related BT usage.

conclusionsUS ROs, particularly in non-academic settings, do not routinely offer BT monotherapy or boost (<50%). Practice patterns were unaffected by COVID-19. Retraining may be critical to increasing utilization.

Indexed as

BrachytherapyCOVID-19Prostatic NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMalePandemicsProstateRadiation OncologistsRadiotherapy DosageReactive Oxygen SpeciesUnited StatesReactive Oxygen SpeciesBrachytherapyCross-sectional studyObservational studyPractice patternsProstate cancerSurvey study

Identifiers

PMID36347762
PMCPMC9489987

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.