Abstract Purpose This multi-disciplinary, evidence-based guideline for clinically non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer focuses on the evaluation, treatment, and surveillance of ...muscle-invasive bladder cancer guided toward curative intent. Materials and Methods A systematic review utilizing research from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) as well as additional supplementation by the authors and consultant methodologists was used to develop the guideline. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strengths Grade A, B, or C and were designated as Strong, Moderate, and Conditional Recommendations with additional statements presented in the form of Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions. (Table 1) Results For the first time, for any type of malignancy, the American Urological Association (AUA), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) have formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk-stratified clinical framework for the management of muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer. This document is designed to be used in conjunction with the associated treatment algorithm. Conclusions The intensity and scope of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer should focus on the patient, disease, and treatment response characteristics. This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to evaluate and treat each patient, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve level of care for these patients.
Proton beam therapy, the most common form of heavy-particle radiation therapy, is not a new invention, but it has gained considerable public attention because of the high cost of installing and ...operating the rapidly increasing number of treatment centers. This article reviews the physical properties of proton beam therapy and focuses on the up-to-date clinical evidence comparing proton beam therapy with the more standard and widely available radiation therapy treatment alternatives. In a cost-conscious era of health care, the hypothetical benefits of proton beam therapy will have to be supported by demonstrable clinical gains. Proton beam therapy represents, through its scale and its cost, a battleground for the policy debate around managing expensive technology in modern medicine.
The Red Journal's Top Downloads of 2019 Zietman, Anthony L
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics,
06/2020, Letnik:
107, Številka:
2
Journal Article
The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing prognostic and treatment recommendations for patients ...with biochemical recurrence without metastatic disease after exhaustion of local treatment options as well as those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Please refer to Part II for discussion of the management of castration-resistant disease.
The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1998 to January Week 5 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through December 2018), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 through February 6, 2019). An updated search was conducted prior to publication through January 20, 2020. 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 Advanced Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Such statements are summarized in figure 1Figure: see text and detailed herein.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients.
In April 2018, the New York Times ran an article documenting the exuberant overexpansion of proton beam therapy centres in the USA.1 Twenty-seven centres have opened, and a comparable number are in ...the planning stages; yet, over a third of these are in deep financial trouble, with mounting losses, debt restructuring, and bankruptcies. How did such a promising and exciting medical technology expand so far and then contract so fast? Was this due to problems in the technology itself, or aspects of healthcare financing unique to the USA? How did a technology expand so far ahead of its supportive evidence? And what are the implications for the UK as it stands on the threshold of its own proton age?
The Red Journal's Top Downloads of 2018 Zietman, Anthony L
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics,
11/2019, Letnik:
105, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Purpose The guideline purpose is to provide the urologist with a framework for the early detection of prostate cancer in asymptomatic average risk men. Materials and Methods A systematic review was ...conducted and summarized evidence derived from over 300 studies that addressed the predefined outcomes of interest (prostate cancer incidence/mortality, quality of life, diagnostic accuracy and harms of testing). In addition to the quality of evidence, the panel considered values and preferences expressed in a clinical setting (patient-physician dyad) rather than having a public health perspective. Guideline statements were organized by age group in years (age <40; 40 to 54; 55 to 69; ≥70). Results Except prostate specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening, there was minimal evidence to assess the outcomes of interest for other tests. The quality of evidence for the benefits of screening was moderate, and evidence for harm was high for men age 55 to 69 years. For men outside this age range, evidence was lacking for benefit, but the harms of screening, including over diagnosis and overtreatment, remained. Modeled data suggested that a screening interval of two years or more may be preferred to reduce the harms of screening. Conclusions The Panel recommended shared decision-making for men age 55 to 69 years considering PSA-based screening, a target age group for whom benefits may outweigh harms. Outside this age range, PSA-based screening as a routine could not be recommended based on the available evidence. The entire guideline is available at www.AUAnet.org/education/guidelines/prostate-cancer-detection.cfm.