To endorse Cancer Care Ontario's guideline on Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures ...for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations.
The Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The ASCO Endorsement Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations.
The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 2015, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifying statements. The Cancer Care Ontario recommendation regarding 5-alpha reductase inhibitors was not endorsed by the ASCO panel.
For most patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤ 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the recommended disease management strategy. Factors including younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into account when making management decisions. Select patients with low-volume, intermediate-risk (Gleason 3 + 4 = 7) prostate cancer may be offered active surveillance. Active surveillance protocols should include prostate-specific antigen testing, digital rectal examinations, and serial prostate biopsies. Ancillary radiologic and genomic tests are investigational but may have a role in patients with discordant clinical and/or pathologic findings. Patients who are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score ≥ 7) or who have significant increases in tumor volume on subsequent biopsies should be offered active therapy.
To update the 2005 Cancer Care Ontario practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of extradural malignant spinal cord compression ...(MESCC).
A review and analysis of data published from January 2004 to May 2011. The systematic literature review included published randomized control trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and prospective/retrospective studies.
An RCT of radiation therapy (RT) with or without decompressive surgery showed improvements in pain, ambulatory ability, urinary continence, duration of continence, functional status, and overall survival. Two RCTs of RT (30 Gy in eight fractions vs. 16 Gy in two fractions; 16 Gy in two fractions vs. 8 Gy in one fraction) in patients with a poor prognosis showed no difference in ambulation, duration of ambulation, bladder function, pain response, in-field failure, and overall survival. Retrospective multicenter studies reported that protracted RT schedules in nonsurgical patients with a good prognosis improved local control but had no effect on functional or survival outcomes.
If not medically contraindicated, steroids are recommended for any patient with neurologic deficits suspected or confirmed to have MESCC. Surgery should be considered for patients with a good prognosis who are medically and surgically operable. RT should be given to nonsurgical patients. For those with a poor prognosis, a single fraction of 8 Gy should be given; for those with a good prognosis, 30 Gy in 10 fractions could be considered. Patients should be followed up clinically and/or radiographically to determine whether a local relapse develops. Salvage therapies should be introduced before significant neurologic deficits occur.
In April 2017, the American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology released a joint evidence-based practice guideline on clinically ...localized prostate cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations.
The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations.
The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline except for two recommendations on cryosurgery. The two recommendations covering cryosurgery were not endorsed because the panel found that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of cryotherapy in this setting.
The ASCO Expert Panel endorsed all but two of the original guideline recommendations as written and offered a series of discussion points to guide practice.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines program employs a systematic review-based methodology to produce evidence-based guidelines. This is consistent with the stance of the ...Institute of Medicine on guideline development, which is that high-quality evidence syntheses form the basis for recommendation development. In the absence of high-quality evidence, recommendation development becomes more complex. One option is to provide no recommendations or withdraw a guideline topic. However, it is often the areas of greatest uncertainty in which the evidentiary base is incomplete, and thus, guidelines are needed most. To provide recommendations in such circumstances, an explicit methodology is needed to ensure that a credible process is undertaken, and rigorous, reliable advice is provided. In 2010, the ASCO Board of Directors approved development of guideline recommendations using consensus methodology. A modified Delphi approach to recommendation development, based on the best available data identified in a systematic review, was piloted with an ASCO guideline. Consensus was achieved through the rating of a series of recommendations by a large group of clinicians, including academic and community-based content and methodology experts. A prespecified threshold of agreement was determined to indicate when consensus was achieved. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥ 75% of raters. The formal consensus methodology used by ASCO enabled development of guideline recommendations on a challenging clinical issue based on limited evidence using a rigorous, transparent, and explicit method. This methodology is proposed for development of future ASCO guidelines on topics for which limited evidence is available.
Purpose To jointly update the Cancer Care Ontario guideline on brachytherapy for patients with prostate cancer to account for new evidence. Methods An Update Panel conducted a targeted systematic ...literature review and identified more recent randomized controlled trials comparing dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with brachytherapy in men with prostate cancer. Results Five randomized controlled trials provided the evidence for this update. Recommendations For patients with low-risk prostate cancer who require or choose active treatment, low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR) alone, EBRT alone, and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) should be offered to eligible patients. For patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer choosing EBRT with or without androgen-deprivation therapy, brachytherapy boost (LDR or high-dose rate HDR) should be offered to eligible patients. For low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (Gleason 7, prostate-specific antigen < 10 ng/mL or Gleason 6, prostate-specific antigen, 10 to 20 ng/mL), LDR brachytherapy alone may be offered as monotherapy. For patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving EBRT and androgen-deprivation therapy, brachytherapy boost (LDR or HDR) should be offered to eligible patients. Iodine-125 and palladium-103 are each reasonable isotope options for patients receiving LDR brachytherapy; no recommendation can be made for or against using cesium-131 or HDR monotherapy. Patients should be encouraged to participate in clinical trials to test novel or targeted approaches to this disease. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/Brachytherapy-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .
Purpose Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is widely used to confirm the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The technique has been associated with significant morbidity in a small proportion of ...patients. Materials and Methods We conducted a population based study of 75,190 men who underwent a transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy in Ontario, Canada, between 1996 and 2005. We used hospital and cancer registry administrative databases to estimate the rates of hospital admission and mortality due to urological complications associated with the procedure. Results Of the 75,190 men who underwent transrectal ultrasound biopsy 33,508 (44.6%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 41,682 (55.4%) did not have prostate cancer. The hospital admission rate for urological complications within 30 days of the procedure for men without cancer was 1.9% (781/41,482). The 30-day hospital admission rate increased from 1.0% in 1996 to 4.1% in 2005 (p for trend <0.0001). The majority of hospital admissions (72%) were for infection related reasons. The probability of being admitted to hospital within 30 days of having the procedure increased 4-fold between 1996 and 2005 (OR 3.7, 95% CI 2.0–7.0, p <0.0001). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.09% but did not change during the study period. Conclusions The hospital admission rates for complications following transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy have increased dramatically during the last 10 years primarily due to an increasing rate of infection related complications.
The aim of this guideline is to present recommendations regarding moderately hypofractionated (240-340 cGy per fraction) and ultrahypofractionated (500 cGy or more per fraction) radiation therapy for ...localized prostate cancer.
The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 8 key questions on appropriate indications and dose-fractionation for moderately and ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy, as well as technical issues, including normal tissue dose constraints, treatment volumes, and use of image guided and intensity modulated radiation therapy. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and Society-approved tools for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength.
Based on high-quality evidence, strong consensus was reached for offering moderate hypofractionation across risk groups to patients choosing external beam radiation therapy. The task force conditionally recommends ultrahypofractionated radiation may be offered for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer but strongly encourages treatment of intermediate-risk patients on a clinical trial or multi-institutional registry. For high-risk patients, the task force conditionally recommends against routine use of ultrahypofractionated external beam radiation therapy. With any hypofractionated approach, the task force strongly recommends image guided radiation therapy and avoidance of nonmodulated 3-dimensional conformal techniques.
Hypofractionated radiation therapy provides important potential advantages in cost and convenience for patients, and these recommendations are intended to provide guidance on moderate hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation for localized prostate cancer. The limits in the current evidentiary base-especially for ultrahypofractionation-highlight the imperative to support large-scale randomized clinical trials and underscore the importance of shared decision making between clinicians and patients.
An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to the ASCO membership after publication or presentation of potentially ...practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the screening of men for prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States. The rationale for screening men for prostate cancer is the potential to reduce the risk of death through early detection.
Evidence from a 2011 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality systematic review primarily informs this PCO on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening. An update search was conducted to March 16, 2012, for additional evidence related to the topic.
In one randomized trial, PSA testing in men who would not otherwise have been screened resulted in reduced death rates from prostate cancer, but it is uncertain whether the size of the effect was worth the harms associated with screening and subsequent unnecessary treatment. Although there are limitations to the existing data, there is evidence to suggest that men with longer life expectancy may benefit from PSA testing. Adverse events associated with prostate biopsy are low for the majority of men; however, several population-based studies have shown increasing rates of infectious complications after prostate biopsy, which is a concern.
The aim of this guideline is to present recommendations regarding moderately hypofractionated (240-340 cGy per fraction) and ultrahypofractionated (500 cGy or more per fraction) radiation therapy for ...localized prostate cancer.
The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 8 key questions on appropriate indications and dose-fractionation for moderately and ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy, as well as technical issues, including normal tissue dose constraints, treatment volumes, and use of image guided and intensity modulated radiation therapy. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and Society-approved tools for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength.
Based on high-quality evidence, strong consensus was reached for offering moderate hypofractionation across risk groups to patients choosing external beam radiation therapy. The task force conditionally recommends ultrahypofractionated radiation may be offered for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer but strongly encourages treatment of intermediate-risk patients on a clinical trial or multi-institutional registry. For high-risk patients, the task force conditionally recommends against routine use of ultrahypofractionated external beam radiation therapy. With any hypofractionated approach, the task force strongly recommends image guided radiation therapy and avoidance of nonmodulated 3-dimensional conformal techniques.
Hypofractionated radiation therapy provides important potential advantages in cost and convenience for patients, and these recommendations are intended to provide guidance on moderate hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation for localized prostate cancer. The limits in the current evidentiary base-especially for ultrahypofractionation-highlight the imperative to support large-scale randomized clinical trials and underscore the importance of shared decision making between clinicians and patients.
PDF
