The impact of physician's characteristics on decision-making inhead and neck oncology: Results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify the socio-professional and behavioral factors influencing decision-making between surgical and non-surgical treatment in Upper AeroDigestive Tract (UADT) oncology among surgeons and oncologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nationwide online survey among surgeons and medical or radiation oncologists treating head and neck cancer patients in France. The questionnaire collected physicians' demographics, type of practice, individual behavioral characteristics (attitudes toward risk and uncertainty) and data on decision-making via clinical case scenarios. RESULTS: In total, 197 questionnaires were usable. Clinical case scenarios were grouped into three categories according to the prognostic and functional impact of the choice between surgical or non-surgical treatment. For clinical case scenarios where evidence-based medicine considered surgery as the best option, surgeons were significantly more likely to offer surgery in multivariable analysis. When surgery and non-surgical treatment were equivalent, multivariable analysis showed that the tendency to offer surgery increased with the physician's age, and decreased as the number of patients treated per year increased. When non-surgical treatment was the best option because of very high surgical morbidity, multivariable analysis showed a higher propensity to opt for surgery for the age group 40 - 59 versus 25 - 39, and a lower likelihood of choosing surgery among oncologists. CONCLUSION: This study sheds light on the physicians' socio-professional and behavioral factors influencing decision-making in UADT oncology. These mechanisms, poorly studied and probably underestimated, partly explain the variability of the decisions taken when confronted with clinical situations that are subject to debate. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT03663985.

Physician practice variation in head and neck cancer therapy: Results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: Choice between surgical or medical treatments in head and neck cancer depends of many patient-related and disease-related factors. We investigated how patients' socioeconomic status and practitioners' specialty could affect medical decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online, nationwide survey, send to surgeons, oncologists and radiotherapists specialized in head and neck oncology. We collected data on medical decision-making for seven clinical scientific scenarios involving head and neck carcinoma and physicians' demographic data. Patients' gender and socioeconomic position were distributed across scientific scenarios using a Latin square design. The scientific scenarios were grouped into several categories according to the prognostic and functional impact of the therapeutic choice. RESULTS: We obtained 206 assessable answers. Surgeons seemed to propose surgery in 49% of cases, whereas oncologists and radiotherapists opted for it in 34% of cases only. This was particularly relevant when the oncological result of surgery and the medical approach were equivalent, and when the surgery appeared to be superior in terms of curative potential but was burdened by a large functional impact. Patient's socioeconomic position also influence therapeutic decision. Among surgeons, the "single male manager" had significantly more chance of being offered surgery than the "married male blue-collar worker". Among oncologists and radiotherapists, the "single male blue-collar worker" had the lowest probability of being proposed surgery. Regarding gender, surgeons tended to offer surgical management more to women regardless of their clinical profile. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' sex, marital status, socioeconomic status, practitioners' specialty affect therapeutic management decisions in head and neck oncology.

Diagnostic value and relative weight of sequence-specific magnetic resonance features in characterizing clinically significant prostate cancers.

PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic weight of sequence-specific magnetic resonance features in characterizing clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a prospective database of 262 patients who underwent T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging before prostatectomy. For each lesion, two independent readers (R1, R2) prospectively defined nine features: shape, volume (V_Max), signal abnormality on each pulse sequence, number of pulse sequences with a marked (S_Max) and non-visible (S_Min) abnormality, likelihood of extracapsular extension (ECE) and PSA density (dPSA). Overall likelihood of malignancy was assessed using a 5-level Likert score. Features were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). csPCa was defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer (csPCa-A), Gleason ≥7(4+3) cancer (csPCa-B) or Gleason ≥7 cancer with histological extraprostatic extension (csPCa-C). RESULTS: For csPCa-A, the Signal1 model (S_Max+S_Min) provided the best combination of signal-related variables, for both readers. The performance was improved by adding V_Max, ECE and/or dPSA, but not shape. All models performed better with DCE findings than without. When moving from csPCa-A to csPCa-B and csPCa-C definitions, the added value of V_Max, dPSA and ECE increased as compared to signal-related variables, and the added value of DCE decreased. For R1, the best models were Signal1+ECE+dPSA (AUC = 0,805 [95%CI:0,757-0,866]), Signal1+V_Max+dPSA (AUC = 0.823 [95%CI:0.760-0.893]) and Signal1+ECE+dPSA [AUC = 0.840 (95%CI:0.774-0.907)] for csPCa-A, csPCA-B and csPCA-C respectively. The AUCs of the corresponding Likert scores were 0.844 [95%CI:0.806-0.877, p = 0.11], 0.841 [95%CI:0.799-0.876, p = 0.52]) and 0.849 [95%CI:0.811-0.884, p = 0.49], respectively. For R2, the best models were Signal1+V_Max+dPSA (AUC = 0,790 [95%CI:0,731-0,857]), Signal1+V_Max (AUC = 0.813 [95%CI:0.746-0.882]) and Signal1+ECE+V_Max (AUC = 0.843 [95%CI: 0.781-0.907]) for csPCa-A, csPCA-B and csPCA-C respectively. The AUCs of the corresponding Likert scores were 0. 829 [95%CI:0.791-0.868, p = 0.13], 0.790 [95%CI:0.742-0.841, p = 0.12]) and 0.808 [95%CI:0.764-0.845, p = 0.006]), respectively. CONCLUSION: Combination of simple variables can match the Likert score's results. The optimal combination depends on the definition of csPCa.

Accuracy of Elastic Fusion of Prostate Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images under Routine Conditions: A Prospective Multi-Operator Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate in unselected patients imaged under routine conditions the co-registration accuracy of elastic fusion between magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) images obtained by the Koelis Urostation™. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively included 15 consecutive patients referred for placement of intraprostatic fiducials before radiotherapy and who gave written informed consent by signing the Institutional Review Board-approved forms. Three fiducials were placed in the prostate under US guidance in standardized positions (right apex, left mid-gland, right base) using the Koelis Urostation™. Patients then underwent prostate MR imaging. Four operators outlined the prostate on MR and US images and an elastic fusion was retrospectively performed. Fiducials were used to measure the overall target registration error (TRE3D), the error along the antero-posterior (TREAP), right-left (TRERL) and head-feet (TREHF) directions, and within the plane orthogonal to the virtual biopsy track (TRE2D). RESULTS: Median TRE3D and TRE2D were 3.8-5.6 mm, and 2.5-3.6 mm, respectively. TRE3D was significantly influenced by the operator (p = 0.013), fiducial location (p = 0.001) and 3D axis orientation (p<0.0001). The worst results were obtained by the least experienced operator. TRE3D was smaller in mid-gland and base than in apex (average difference: -1.21 mm (95% confidence interval (95%CI): -2.03; -0.4) and -1.56 mm (95%CI: -2.44; -0.69) respectively). TREAP and TREHF were larger than TRERL (average difference: +1.29 mm (95%CI: +0.87; +1.71) and +0.59 mm (95%CI: +0.1; +0.95) respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Registration error values were reasonable for clinical practice. The co-registration accuracy was significantly influenced by the operator's experience, and significantly poorer in the antero-posterior direction and at the apex.