Table 1.
Breakdown of survey responses among participants*
| Demographic characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 283 (69.2) |
| Female | 126 (30.8) |
| Time in clinical practice (y), mean (IQR) | 15 (9-25) |
| Practice setting | |
| Academic | 183 (44.0) |
| Community-based hospital practice | 136 (32.7) |
| Private practice | 90 (21.6) |
| Government (Veterans Administration) | 7 (1.7) |
| Central nervous system specialist | |
| Yes | 121 (29.2) |
| No | 293 (70.8) |
| Number of ROs in practice | |
| 1-5 | 175 (42.0) |
| 6-10 | 80 (19.2) |
| 11-20 | 84 (20.1) |
| >20 | 78 (18.7) |
| Census region (United States) | |
| Northeast | 86 (20.9) |
| Midwest | 107 (26.0) |
| South | 134 (32.6) |
| West | 84 (20.4) |
| Clinical characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Annual number of patients treated with WBRT | |
| 1-5 | 97 (23.5) |
| 6-10 | 144 (35.0) |
| 11-20 | 116 (28.2) |
| >20 | 55 (13.4) |
| Offer SRS for brain metastases | |
| Yes | 362 (86.8) |
| No | 55 (13.2) |
| Annual number of patients treated with SRS | |
| 1-5 | 53 (14.6) |
| 6-10 | 76 (21.0) |
| 11-20 | 107 (29.6) |
| >20 | 126 (34.8) |
| Offer memantine with WBRT | |
| Yes | 332 (79.6) |
| No | 85 (20.4) |
| What proportion of WBRT patients received memantine in the last year? | |
| 1%-25% | 60 (18.1) |
| 26%-50% | 63 (19.0) |
| 51%-75% | 51 (15.4) |
| 76%-100% | 158 (47.6) |
| Offer hippocampal-sparing WBRT | |
| Yes | 303 (72.7) |
| No | 114 (27.3) |
| What proportion of WBRT patients received hippocampal-sparing in the last year? | |
| 1%-25% | 123 (40.6) |
| 26%-50% | 79 (26.1) |
| 51%-75% | 62 (20.5) |
| 76%-100% | 39 (12.9) |
| Do you use any other approach to mitigate neurocognitive decline in WBRT patients? | |
| Yes | 28 (6.7) |
| No | 389 (93.3) |
| What proportion of WBRT patients received another approach in the last year? | |
| 1%-25% | 11 (39.3) |
| 26%-50% | 6 (21.4) |
| 51%-75% | 4 (14.3) |
| 76%-100% | 7 (25.0) |
| Do other ROs in your practice offer approaches to mitigate neurocognitive decline? | |
| Yes | 294 (70.5) |
| No | 123 (29.5) |
| Self-rated knowledge | |
|---|---|
| How familiar are you with the RTOG 0614 trial by Brown et al3 published in 2013? | |
| Not familiar | 17 (4.1) |
| Familiar | 361 (86.6) |
| Participated or enrolled patients | 39 (9.4) |
| How familiar are you with the RTOG 0933 trial by Gondi et al9 published in 2014? | |
| Not familiar | 23 (5.5) |
| Familiar | 355 (85.1) |
| Participated or enrolled patients | 39 (9.4) |
| How familiar are you with the trial by Brown et al4 published in 2020? | |
| Not familiar | 76 (18.2) |
| Familiar | 303 (72.7) |
| Participated or enrolled patients | 38 (9.1) |
| Awareness and future practice patterns | |
| Has this survey increased your awareness of potential neurocognitive-sparing options with WBRT? | |
| Yes | 146 (35.0) |
| No | 271 (65.0) |
| Will this survey influence your practice regarding approaches to mitigate neurocognitive decline with WBRT? | |
| Yes | 96 (23.0) |
| No | 321 (77.0) |
Abbreviations: IQR = interquartile range; ROs = radiation oncologists; RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; SRS = stereotactic radiosurgery; WBRT = whole brain radiation therapy.
⁎
Data are expressed as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.