Dr. Todd Morgan

It was really hammered into us early on based on multiple different trials, including the Key Swag trial, that adjuvant radiation was really important for patients at high risk of local recurrence. You know, that was like, you find that on board exams, on early OCAD exams, I'm sure, patients with, you know, to repeat the PT3 disease or patients with positive margin, right?

It was really hammered into us early on based on multiple different trials, including the Key Swag trial, that adjuvant radiation was really important for patients at high risk of local recurrence. You know, that was like, you find that on board exams, on early OCAD exams, I'm sure, patients with, you know, to repeat the PT3 disease or patients with positive margin, right?

It was really hammered into us early on based on multiple different trials, including the Key Swag trial, that adjuvant radiation was really important for patients at high risk of local recurrence. You know, that was like, you find that on board exams, on early OCAD exams, I'm sure, patients with, you know, to repeat the PT3 disease or patients with positive margin, right?

These are patients who were guidelines said strongly consider, I forget the exact statement, but really like these are patients that should see radiation oncology for consideration of adjuvant radiation, of course, meaning in the absence of any evidence of biochemical recurrence. And that was hammered into us for years based on, again, very, very reasonable, excellent, high-level data.

These are patients who were guidelines said strongly consider, I forget the exact statement, but really like these are patients that should see radiation oncology for consideration of adjuvant radiation, of course, meaning in the absence of any evidence of biochemical recurrence. And that was hammered into us for years based on, again, very, very reasonable, excellent, high-level data.

These are patients who were guidelines said strongly consider, I forget the exact statement, but really like these are patients that should see radiation oncology for consideration of adjuvant radiation, of course, meaning in the absence of any evidence of biochemical recurrence. And that was hammered into us for years based on, again, very, very reasonable, excellent, high-level data.

And yet, when you look at the utilization of adjuvant radiation for those patients over the years, and there are lots of different studies that have looked at that, including we've looked at this in MUSIC, the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, and said, okay, of those patients,

And yet, when you look at the utilization of adjuvant radiation for those patients over the years, and there are lots of different studies that have looked at that, including we've looked at this in MUSIC, the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, and said, okay, of those patients,

And yet, when you look at the utilization of adjuvant radiation for those patients over the years, and there are lots of different studies that have looked at that, including we've looked at this in MUSIC, the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, and said, okay, of those patients,

who are recommended according to guidelines to strongly consider adjuvant radiation, how many actually get it? And the answer in every study is like 5% to 10%. So basically, nobody was actually getting adjuvant radiation. I'm sure more patients than that were seeing radiation oncology. Patients were opting against it. Docs were opting not to refer or docs were opting not to recommend.

who are recommended according to guidelines to strongly consider adjuvant radiation, how many actually get it? And the answer in every study is like 5% to 10%. So basically, nobody was actually getting adjuvant radiation. I'm sure more patients than that were seeing radiation oncology. Patients were opting against it. Docs were opting not to refer or docs were opting not to recommend.

who are recommended according to guidelines to strongly consider adjuvant radiation, how many actually get it? And the answer in every study is like 5% to 10%. So basically, nobody was actually getting adjuvant radiation. I'm sure more patients than that were seeing radiation oncology. Patients were opting against it. Docs were opting not to refer or docs were opting not to recommend.

So we had this recommendation that really ultimately wasn't being followed. And Bring that forward to the present day where we have new key trials we've been talking about for years. When's Radical's going to report? When's Rave's going to report?

So we had this recommendation that really ultimately wasn't being followed. And Bring that forward to the present day where we have new key trials we've been talking about for years. When's Radical's going to report? When's Rave's going to report?

So we had this recommendation that really ultimately wasn't being followed. And Bring that forward to the present day where we have new key trials we've been talking about for years. When's Radical's going to report? When's Rave's going to report?

Asking the question that we all want to know, I've always wanted to know, which is, okay, like, we know adjuvant works better than, you know, waiting a million years to actually give the salvage radiation. We're never giving salvage radiation, but it's adjuvant radiation better than early salvage radiation for patients who are at high risk of recurrence. And

Asking the question that we all want to know, I've always wanted to know, which is, okay, like, we know adjuvant works better than, you know, waiting a million years to actually give the salvage radiation. We're never giving salvage radiation, but it's adjuvant radiation better than early salvage radiation for patients who are at high risk of recurrence. And

Asking the question that we all want to know, I've always wanted to know, which is, okay, like, we know adjuvant works better than, you know, waiting a million years to actually give the salvage radiation. We're never giving salvage radiation, but it's adjuvant radiation better than early salvage radiation for patients who are at high risk of recurrence. And

And the answer is no, as far as we can tell. Now, you know, we can talk about, you know, maybe carve-outs for patients at really high risk of recurrence who maybe were undersampled in these studies. But really, you know, waiting until biochemical recurrence is totally appropriate, saves a ton of patients from unnecessary salvage treatment. And so that's where the field has moved, right?

And the answer is no, as far as we can tell. Now, you know, we can talk about, you know, maybe carve-outs for patients at really high risk of recurrence who maybe were undersampled in these studies. But really, you know, waiting until biochemical recurrence is totally appropriate, saves a ton of patients from unnecessary salvage treatment. And so that's where the field has moved, right?