This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
Purpose The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate relevant newly-published literature to better provide a rational basis for the management of patients with castration-resistant prostate ...cancer. Materials and Methods The original systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature yielded 303 studies published from 1996 through 2013. This review informed the majority of the guideline statements. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidence. In April 2014, the CRPC guideline underwent amendment based on an additional literature search, which retrieved additional studies published between February 2013 and February 2014. Thirty-seven studies from this search provided data relevant to the specific treatment modalities for CRPC. In March 2015, the CRPC guideline underwent a second amendment, which incorporated 10 additional studies into the evidence base published through February 2015. Results Guideline statements based on six index patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice were amended appropriately. The additional literature provided the basis for an update of current supporting text as well as the incorporation of new guideline statements for multiple index patients. Conclusions Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient's treatment goals. Patients' preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies. This guideline will be continually updated as new literature emerges in the field.
The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based ...management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III).
The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles.
The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein.
This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.
The purpose of this American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline amendment is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based management of male lower urinary tract symptoms ...secondary/attributed to BPH (LUTS/BPH).
The Minnesota Evidence Review Team searched Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) database to identify studies relevant to the management of BPH. The guideline was updated in 2023 to capture eligible literature published between September 2020 and October 2022. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions.
The BPH amendment resulted in changes to statements/supporting text on combination therapy, photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT), laser enucleation, and prostate artery embolization (PAE). A new statement on temporary implanted prostatic devices (TIPD) was added. In addition, statements on transurethral needle ablation (TUNA) and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) were removed and information regarding these legacy technologies was added to the background section. References and the accompanying treatment algorithms were updated to align with the updated text.
This guideline seeks to improve clinicians' ability to evaluate and treat patients with BPH/LUTS based on currently available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support these statements to improve patient care.
The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical structure with which to approach the diagnosis, counseling, and treatment of female patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
The primary ...source of evidence for the 2017 version of the SUI guideline was the systematic literature review conducted by the ECRI Institute. The initial search spanned literature from January 2005 to December 2015, with an additional updated abstract search through September 2016. The current amendment represents the first update to the 2017 iteration and includes updated literature published through February 2022.
This guideline has been amended to reflect changes in and additions to the literature since 2017. The Panel maintained that the differentiation between index and non-index patients remained important. The index patient is a healthy female with minimal or no prolapse who desires surgical therapy for treatment of pure SUI or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence. Non-index patients have factors that may affect their treatment options and outcomes, such as high grade prolapse (grade 3 or 4), urgency-predominant mixed incontinence, neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, incomplete bladder emptying, dysfunctional voiding, SUI following anti-incontinence treatment, mesh complications, high body mass index, or advanced age.
While gains have been made in the field to support new methods for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with SUI, the field continues to expand. As such, future reviews of this guideline will take place to stay in keeping with the highest levels of patient care.
The summary presented herein represents Part II of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of active surveillance and ...surgery as well as follow-up for patients after primary treatment. Please refer to Parts I and III for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III).
The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles.
The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding active surveillance, surgical management, and patient follow-up are detailed.
This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.
The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer ...screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part I of a two-part series that focuses on prostate cancer screening. Please refer to Part II for discussion of initial and repeat biopsies as well as biopsy technique.
The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles.
The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsy, and biopsy technique.
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening in combination with shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. Current data regarding risk from population-based cohorts provide a basis for longer screening intervals and tailored screening, and the use of available online risk calculators is encouraged.
PDF