Real-world management of advanced prostate cancer: A Canadian comparison of academic specialists and community-based prostate cancer physicians.

Abstract

29 Background: The Canadian GU Research Consortium recently conducted a consensus development conference with 27 academic prostate cancer (PC) specialists leading to 31 consensus recommendations. We conducted a survey to compare community-based practice with the consensus recommendations on the management of metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Methods: An 87-item online questionnaire was sent to 600 Canadian community urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and general practitioner oncologists involved in the treatment of PC. Results: Seventy-two physicians responded to the questionnaire (12% response). A discordance of >25% was observed in 15 of 31 recommendations (48%). Among the areas of discordance were treatment approach for patients with nmCRPC and PSADT < 10 months who are negative for metastases on conventional imaging but metastatic on PET-based imaging. Of the academic physicians, 89% indicated treating with agents approved for nmCRPC compared to 50% of community physicians (p=0.0005). Important discrepancies were also observed across academic and community physicians for radiation to the prostate for low-volume mCSPC which was 74% vs 27%, (p<0.0001) respectively; criteria for stopping therapy in mCRPC in which 78% of academic physicians favored continuation of therapy in the event of PSA progression only, compared to 24% of community physicians. Sequencing of therapy after prior apalutamide for nmCRPC using subsequent docetaxel treatment was observed in 81% of academic physicians vs 35% of community physicians, (p<0.0001), and use of genetic testing was favored by 74% of academics vs 36% of community physicians, (p<0.0001) for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. Conclusions: The areas of discordance between a national sample of community-based PC physicians and academic consensus recommendations represent potential areas for education, practice tools and future research.