Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part III: Salvage Therapy After Radiotherapy or Focal Therapy, Pelvic Nodal Recurrence and Oligometastasis, and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part III of a three-part series focusing on evaluation and management of suspected non-metastatic recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, evaluation and management of regional recurrence, management for molecular imaging metastatic recurrence, and future directions. Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and deliberate efforts for multidisciplinary care in prostate cancer will be required to optimize and improve the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients treated with salvage therapies in the future.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part I: Introduction and Treatment Decision-Making at the Time of Suspected Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part I of a three-part series focusing on treatment decision-making at the time of suspected biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic BCR after RP and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing work in the area of diagnostic tools (particularly imaging), biomarkers, radiation delivery, and biological manipulation with the evolving armamentarium of therapeutic agents will undoubtedly present new opportunities for patients to experience long-term control of their cancer while minimizing toxicity.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part II: Treatment Delivery for Non-metastatic Biochemical Recurrence After Primary Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part II of a three-part series focusing on treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing and personalizing the approach to salvage therapy remains an ongoing area of work in the field of genitourinary oncology and represents an area of research and clinical care that requires well-coordinated, multi-disciplinary efforts.

Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children 5 Years or Younger: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Children with speech and language difficulties are at risk for learning and behavioral problems. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for speech and language delay or disorders in children 5 years or younger to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, ERIC, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts (ProQuest), and trial registries through January 17, 2023; surveillance through November 24, 2023. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening test accuracy, trials or cohort studies comparing screening vs no screening; randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of interventions. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and data extraction; results were narratively summarized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screening test accuracy, speech and language outcomes, school performance, function, quality of life, and harms. Results: Thirty-eight studies in 41 articles were included (N = 9006). No study evaluated the direct benefits of screening vs no screening. Twenty-one studies (n = 7489) assessed the accuracy of 23 different screening tools that varied with regard to whether they were designed to be completed by parents vs trained examiners, and to screen for global (any) language problems vs specific skills (eg, expressive language). Three studies assessing parent-reported tools for expressive language skills found consistently high sensitivity (range, 88%-93%) and specificity (range, 88%-85%). The accuracy of other screening tools varied widely. Seventeen RCTs (n = 1517) evaluated interventions for speech and language delay or disorders, although none enrolled children identified by routine screening in primary care. Two RCTs evaluating relatively intensive parental group training interventions (11 sessions) found benefit for different measures of expressive language skills, and 1 evaluating a less intensive intervention (6 sessions) found no difference between groups for any outcome. Two RCTs (n = 76) evaluating the Lidcombe Program of Early Stuttering Intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists featuring parent training found a 2.3% to 3.0% lower proportion of syllables stuttered at 9 months compared with the control group when delivered in clinic and via telehealth, respectively. Evidence on other interventions was limited. No RCTs reported on the harms of interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: No studies directly assessed the benefits and harms of screening. Some parent-reported screening tools for expressive language skills had reasonable accuracy for detecting expressive language delay. Group parent training programs for speech delay that provided at least 11 parental training sessions improved expressive language skills, and a stuttering intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists reduced stuttering frequency.

Low back pain-driven inpatient stays in the United States: a nationwide repeated cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP)-driven inpatient stays are resource-intensive and costly, yet data on contemporary national trends are limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used repeated cross-sectional analyses through a nationally representative sample (US National Inpatient Sample, 2016-2019). Outcomes included the rate of LBP-driven inpatient stays; the resource utilization (the proportion of receiving surgical treatments and hospital costs) and prognosis (hospital length of stay and the proportion of nonroutine discharge) among LBP-driven inpatient stays. LBP was classified as overall, nonspecific, and specific (i.e. cancer, cauda equina syndrome, vertebral infection, vertebral compression fracture, axial spondyloarthritis, radicular pain, and spinal canal stenosis). Analyses were further stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: 292 987 LBP-driven inpatient stays (weighted number: 1 464 690) were included, with 269 080 (91.8%) of these for specific LBP and 23 907 (8.2%) for nonspecific LBP. The rate of LBP-driven inpatient stays varied a lot across demographic groups and LBP subtypes (e.g. for overall LBP, highest for non-Hispanic White 180.4 vs. lowest for non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander 42.0 per 100 000 population). Between 2016 and 2019, the rate of nonspecific LBP-driven inpatient stays significantly decreased (relative change: 46.9%); however, substantial variations were found within subcategories of specific LBP-significant increases were found for vertebral infection (relative change: 17.2%), vertebral compression fracture (relative change: 13.4%), and spinal canal stenosis (relative change: 19.9%), while a significant decrease was found for radicular pain (relative change: 12.6%). The proportion of receiving surgical treatments also varied a lot (e.g. for overall LBP, highest for non-Hispanic White 74.4% vs. lowest for non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander 62.8%), and significantly decreased between 2016 and 2019 (e.g. for nonspecific LBP, relative change: 28.6%). Variations were also observed for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In the US, the burden of LBP-driven inpatient stays (i.e. rates of LBP-driven inpatient stays, resource utilization, and prognosis among LBP-driven inpatient stays) is enormous. More research is needed to understand why the burden varies considerably according to the LBP subtype (i.e. nonspecific and specific LBP as well as subcategories of specific LBP) and the subpopulation concerned (i.e. stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity).

Screening, Referral, Behavioral Counseling, and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Children and Adolescents Aged 5 to 17 Years: A Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Dental caries is common in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years and potentially amenable to primary care screening and prevention. Objective: To systematically review the evidence on primary care screening and prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to October 3, 2022); surveillance through July 21, 2023. Study Selection: Diagnostic accuracy of primary care screening instruments and oral examination; randomized and nonrandomized trials of screening and preventive interventions and systematic reviews of such studies; cohort studies on primary care oral health screening and preventive intervention harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for fluoride supplements and xylitol; for other preventive interventions, pooled estimates were used from good-quality systematic reviews. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dental caries, morbidity, functional status, quality of life, harms; diagnostic test accuracy. Results: Three systematic reviews (total 20 684 participants) and 19 randomized clinical trials, 3 nonrandomized trials, and 1 observational study (total 15 026 participants) were included. No study compared screening vs no screening. When administered by dental professionals or in school settings, fluoride supplements compared with placebo or no intervention were associated with decreased change from baseline in the number of decayed, missing, or filled permanent teeth (DMFT index) or decayed or filled permanent teeth (DFT index) (mean difference, -0.73 [95% CI, -1.30 to -0.19]) at 1.5 to 3 years (6 trials; n = 1395). Fluoride gels were associated with a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.09-0.27) at outcomes closest to 3 years (4 trials; n = 1525), fluoride varnish was associated with a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.11-0.76) at 1 to 4.5 years (5 trials; n = 3902), and resin-based sealants were associated with decreased risk of carious first molars (odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.28]) at 48 to 54 months (4 trials; n = 440). No trial evaluated primary care counseling or dental referral. Evidence on screening accuracy, silver diamine fluoride, xylitol, and harms was very limited, although serious harms were not reported. Conclusions and Relevance: Administration of fluoride supplements, fluoride gels, varnish, and sealants in dental or school settings improved caries outcomes. Research is needed on the effectiveness of oral health preventive interventions in primary care settings and to determine the benefits and harms of screening.

Diagnosis and Management of Non-Metastatic Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: AUA/SUO Guideline.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based diagnoses and management of non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). MATERIALS/METHODS: The Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center of Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) team conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to March 3rd, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through January 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through January 2022). The searches were updated August 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 (Table 1).[Table: see text]Results:This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding diagnosis and management of non-metastatic UTUC including risk stratification, surveillance and survivorship. Treatments discussed include kidney sparing management, surgical management, lymph node dissection (LND), neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy. CONCLUSION: This standardized guideline seeks to improve clinicians' ability to evaluate and treat patients with UTUC based on available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support these statements for improving patient care. Updates will occur as the knowledge regarding disease biology, clinical behavior and new therapeutic options develop.

Ultrasound Follow-Up of Benign Thyroid Nodules: A Scoping Review.

Background: For cytologically benign thyroid nodules with very low to intermediate suspicion ultrasound patterns, optimal ultrasound follow-up intervals and outcomes of discontinuing follow-up are unclear. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched through August 2022 for studies comparing different ultrasound follow-up intervals and discontinuation versus continuation of ultrasound follow-up. The population was patients with cytologically benign thyroid nodules and very low to intermediate suspicion ultrasound patterns, and the primary outcome was missed thyroid cancers. Utilizing a scoping approach, we also included studies that were not restricted to very low to intermediate suspicion ultrasound patterns or evaluated additional outcomes such as thyroid cancer-related mortality rate, nodule growth, and subsequent procedures. Quality assessment was performed, and evidence was synthesized qualitatively. Results: One retrospective cohort study (n = 1254; 1819 nodules) compared different first follow-up ultrasound intervals for cytologically benign thyroid nodules. There was no difference between >4- versus 1- to 2-year intervals to first follow-up ultrasound in the likelihood of malignancy (0.4% [1/223] vs. 0.3% [2/715]), and no cancer-related deaths occurred. Follow-up ultrasound at >4 years was associated with increased likelihood of ≥50% nodule growth (35.0% [78/223] vs. 15.1% [108/715]), repeat fine needle aspiration (19.3% [43/223] vs. 5.6% [40/715]), and thyroidectomy (4.0% [9/223] vs. 0.8% [6/715]). The study did not describe ultrasound patterns or control for confounders, and analyses were based on interval to first follow-up ultrasound only. Other methodological limitations were not controlling for variability in follow-up duration and unclear attrition. The certainty of evidence was very low. No study compared discontinuation of ultrasound follow-up versus continuation. Conclusions: This scoping review found that evidence comparing different ultrasound follow-up intervals in patients with benign thyroid nodules is limited to one observational study, but suggests that the subsequent development of thyroid malignancies is very uncommon regardless of follow-up interval. Longer follow-up may be associated with more repeat biopsies and thyroidectomies, which could be related to more interval nodule growth that meets thresholds for further evaluation. Research is needed to clarify optimal ultrasound follow-up intervals for low to intermediate suspicion cytologically benign thyroid nodules and outcomes of discontinuing ultrasound follow-up for very low suspicion nodules.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022.

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are medications with anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties. Systemic corticosteroids administered through the oral, intravenous, or intramuscular routes have been used to treat various types of low back pain, including radicular back pain (not due to spinal stenosis), non-radicular back pain, and spinal stenosis. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid for radicular low back pain, non-radicular low back pain, and symptomatic spinal stenosis in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was September 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials in adults of systematic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. The major outcomes were pain, function, need for surgery, serious adverse effect, and presence of hyperglycemia. The minor outcomes were quality of life, successful outcomes, non-serious adverse events, and withdrawal due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1047 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Nine trials included participants with radicular low back pain, two trial with low back pain, and two trials with spinal stenosis. All trials blinded participants to receipt of systemic corticosteroids. Seven trials were at low risk of bias, five at unclear risk, and one at high risk of selection bias. Two trials were at high risk of attrition bias. Doses and duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy varied. Radicular low back pain For radicular low back pain, moderate-certainty evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly decrease pain versus placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.56 points better, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 0.04 on a 0 to 10 scale) and may slightly increase the likelihood of experiencing improvement in pain at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.66; absolute effect 5% better (95% CI 5% worse to 15% better). Systemic corticosteroids may not improve function at short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.14 better; range 0.49 better to 0.21 worse) and probably increase the likelihood of improvement in function at short-term follow-up (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; absolute effect 19% better, 95% CI 8% better to 30% better). Systemic corticosteroids were associated with greater improvement in function versus placebo at long-term follow-up (MD -7.40, 95% CI -12.55 to -2.25 on the 0 to 100 Oswestry Disability Index) and greater likelihood of functional improvement (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56), based on a single trial. There was no difference in likelihood of surgery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47). Evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids (administered as a single dose or as a short course of therapy) are not associated with increased risk of any adverse event, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, or hyperglycemia, but estimates were imprecise as some trials did not report harms, and harms reporting was suboptimal in trials that did provide data. Limitations included variability across trials in interventions (e.g. corticosteroid used, dose and duration of treatment), clinical settings, and participants (e.g. duration of symptoms, methods for diagnosis); limited utility of subgroup analyses due to small numbers of trials; methodologic limitations or suboptimal reporting of methods by some trials; and too few trials to formally assess for publication bias using graphical or statistical tests for small sample effects. Non-radicular low back pain Evidence on systemic corticosteroids versus placebo for non-radicular pain was limited and suggested that systemic corticosteroids may be associated with slightly worse short-term pain but slightly better function. Spinal stenosis For spinal stenosis, limited evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids are probably no more effective than placebo for short-term pain or function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids appear to be slightly effective at improving short-term pain and function in people with radicular low back pain not due to spinal stenosis, and might slightly improve long-term function. The effects of systemic corticosteroids in people with non-radicular low back pain are unclear and systemic corticosteroids are probably ineffective for spinal stenosis. A single dose or short course of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain does not appear to cause serious harms, but evidence is limited.

Screening for Glaucoma in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Two 2013 systematic reviews to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to assess benefits and harms of screening for primary open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in adults. Objective: To update the 2013 reviews on screening for glaucoma, to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to February 2021); surveillance through January 21, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening, referral, and treatment; and studies of screening test diagnostic accuracy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Results: Eighty-three studies (N = 75 887) were included (30 trials and 53 diagnostic accuracy studies). One RCT (n = 616) found screening of frail elderly persons associated with no difference in vision outcomes vs no screening but with significantly greater falls risk (relative risk [RR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.13-1.50]). No study evaluated referral to an eye health professional. For glaucoma diagnosis, spectral domain optical coherence tomography (providing high-resolution cross-sectional imaging; 15 studies, n = 4242) was associated with sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.96) and the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (for perimetry, or measurement of visual fields; 6 studies, n = 11 244) with sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.69-0.95) and specificity 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-0.92); tonometry (for measurement of intraocular pressure; 13 studies, n = 32 892) had low sensitivity (0.48 [95% CI, 0.31-0.66]). Medical therapy for ocular hypertension and untreated glaucoma was significantly associated with decreased intraocular pressure and decreased likelihood of glaucoma progression (7 trials, n = 3771; RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.49-0.96]; absolute risk difference -4.2%) vs placebo, but 1 trial (n = 461) found no differences in visual acuity, quality of life, or function. Selective laser trabeculoplasty and medical therapy had similar outcomes (4 trials, n = 957). Conclusions and Relevance: This review found limited direct evidence on glaucoma screening, showing no association with benefits. Screening tests can identify persons with glaucoma and treatment was associated with a lower risk of glaucoma progression, but evidence of improvement in visual outcomes, quality of life, and function remains lacking.

Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: A 2016 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that effective treatments are available for refractive errors, cataracts, and wet (advanced neovascular) or dry (atrophic) age-related macular degeneration (AMD), but there were no differences between visual screening vs no screening on visual acuity or other outcomes. Objective: To update the 2016 review on screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults, to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to February 2021); surveillance through January 21, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and controlled observational studies on screening, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors (wet AMD), and antioxidant vitamins and minerals (dry AMD); studies on screening diagnostic accuracy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Results: Twenty-five studies (N = 33 586) were included (13 trials, 11 diagnostic accuracy studies, and 1 systematic review [19 trials]). Four trials (n = 4819) found no significant differences between screening vs no screening in visual acuity or other outcomes. Visual acuity tests (3 studies; n = 6493) and screening question (3 studies; n = 5203) were associated with suboptimal diagnostic accuracy. For wet AMD, 4 trials (n = 2086) found VEGF inhibitors significantly associated with greater likelihood of 15 or more letters visual acuity gain (risk ratio [RR], 2.92 [95% CI, 1.20-7.12]; I2 = 76%; absolute risk difference [ARD], 10%) and less than 15 letters visual acuity loss (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.22-1.75]; I2 = 80%; ARD, 27%) vs sham treatment, with no increased risk of serious harms. For dry AMD, a systematic review (19 trials) found antioxidant multivitamins significantly associated with decreased risk of progression to late AMD (3 trials, n = 2445; odds ratio [OR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.58-0.90]) and 3 lines or more visual acuity loss (1 trial, n = 1791; OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62-0.96]) vs placebo. Zinc was significantly associated with increased risk of genitourinary events and beta carotene with increased risk of lung cancer in former smokers; other serious harms were infrequent. Conclusions and Relevance: This review found that effective treatments are available for common causes of impaired visual acuity in older adults. However, direct evidence found no significant association between vision screening vs no screening in primary care and improved visual outcomes.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. Part III: Principles of Radiation and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part III of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of radiation and offering several future directions of further relevant study in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts I and II for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of active surveillance and surgery and follow-up (Part II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 management of patients using radiation therapy as well as important future directions of research are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management.

PURPOSE: 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). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: 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). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Serum Thyroglobulin Measurement Following Surgery Without Radioactive Iodine for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background: The utility of serum thyroglobulin (Tg) measurement following partial thyroidectomy or total/near-total thyroidectomy without radioactive iodine (RAI) for differentiated thyroid cancer is unclear. This systematic review examines the diagnostic accuracy of serum Tg measurement for persistent, recurrent, and/or metastatic cancer in these situations. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched in October 2021 for studies on Tg measurement following partial thyroidectomy or total/near-total thyroidectomy without or before RAI. Quality assessment was performed, and evidence was synthesized qualitatively. Results: Thirty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Four studies (N = 561) evaluated serum Tg measurement following partial thyroidectomy, five studies (N = 751) evaluated Tg measurement following total/near-total thyroidectomy without RAI, and 28 studies (N = 7618) evaluated Tg measurement following total or near-total thyroidectomy before RAI administration. Following partial thyroidectomy, Tg measurement was not accurate for diagnosing recurrence or metastasis, or estimates were imprecise. Following total/near-total thyroidectomy without RAI, evidence was limited due to few studies with very low rates of recurrence or metastasis, but indicated that Tg levels were usually stable and low. For Tg measurements before RAI administration, diagnostic accuracy for metastatic disease or persistence varied, although sensitivity appeared high (but specificity low) at a cutoff of >1 to 2.5 ng/mL. However, applicability to patients who do not undergo RAI is uncertain because patients selected for RAI are likely to represent a higher risk group. The evidence was very low quality for all scenarios. All studies had methodological limitations, and there was variability in the Tg thresholds evaluated, patient populations, outcomes assessed, and other factors. Conclusions: Very limited evidence suggests low utility of Tg measurement for identifying recurrent or metastatic disease following partial thyroidectomy. Following total/near-total thyroidectomy, Tg levels using a cutoff of 1-2.5 ng/mL might identify patients at low risk for persistent or metastatic disease. Additional research is needed to clarify the role of Tg measurement in these settings, determine optimal Tg thresholds, and determine appropriate measurement intervals.

Active Surveillance Versus Thyroid Surgery for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background: Active surveillance has been proposed as an appropriate management strategy for low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), due to the typically favorable prognosis of this condition. This systematic review examines the benefits and harms of active surveillance vs. immediate surgery for DTC, to inform the updated American Thyroid Association guidelines. Methods: A search on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted in July 2021 for studies on active surveillance vs. immediate surgery. Studies of surgery vs. no surgery for DTC were assessed separately to evaluate relevance to active surveillance. Quality assessment was performed, and evidence was synthesized narratively. Results: Seven studies (five cohort studies [N = 5432] and two cross-sectional studies [N = 538]) of active surveillance vs. immediate surgery, and seven uncontrolled treatment series of active surveillance (N = 1219) were included. One cross-sectional study was rated fair quality, and the remainder were rated poor quality. In patients with low risk (primarily papillary), small (primarily ≤1 cm) DTC, active surveillance, and immediate surgery were associated with similar, low risk of all-cause or cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, and recurrence after surgery. Uncontrolled treatment series reported no cases of mortality in low-risk DTC managed with active surveillance. Among patients managed with active surveillance, rates of tumor growth were low; rates of subsequent surgery varied and primarily occurred due to patient preference rather than tumor progression. Four cohort studies (N = 88,654) found that surgery associated with improved all-cause or thyroid cancer mortality compared with nonsurgical management, but findings were potentially influenced by patient age and tumor risk category and highly susceptible to confounding by indication; eligibility for, and receipt of, active surveillance; and timing of surgery was unclear. Conclusions: In patients with small low-risk (primarily papillary) DTC, active surveillance and immediate surgery may be associated with similar mortality, risk of recurrence, and other outcomes, but methodological limitations preclude strong conclusions. Studies of no surgery vs. surgery are difficult to interpret due to clinical heterogeneity and potential confounding factors and are unsuitable for assessing the utility of active surveillance. Research is needed to clarify the benefits and harms of active surveillance and determine outcomes in nonpapillary DTC, larger (>1 cm) cancers, and older patients.

A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas / The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews / Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas

RESUMO A declaração dos Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-análises (PRISMA), publicada em 2009, foi desenvolvida para ajudar revisores sistemáticos a relatar de forma transparente por que a revisão foi feita, os métodos empregados e o que os autores encontraram. Na última década, os avanços na metodologia e terminologia de revisões sistemáticas exigiram a atualização da diretriz. A declaração PRISMA 2020 substitui a declaração de 2009 e inclui novas orientações para relato que refletem os avanços nos métodos para identificar, selecionar, avaliar e sintetizar estudos. A estrutura e apresentação dos itens foram modificadas para facilitar a implementação. Neste artigo, apresentamos a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 de 27 itens, uma lista de checagem expandida que detalha as recomendações para relato para cada item, a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 para resumos e os fluxogramas revisados para novas revisões e para atualização de revisões.

ABSTRACT The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

RESUMEN La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.

Screening for Chlamydial and Gonococcal Infections: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement supported the effectiveness of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in asymptomatic, sexually active women 24 years or younger and in older women at increased risk for infection, although evidence for screening in men was insufficient. Objective: To update the 2014 USPSTF review on screening for chlamydial and gonococcal infection in adults and adolescents, including those who are pregnant. Data Sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Ovid MEDLINE (January 1, 2014, through May 28, 2020) with surveillance through May 21, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and observational studies of screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk stratification and alternative screening methods, accuracy of tests, and screening harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Main Outcomes and Measures: Complications of infection; infection transmission or acquisition; diagnostic accuracy of anatomical site-specific testing and collection methods; screening harms. Results: Twenty-seven studies were included (N = 179 515). Chlamydia screening compared with no screening was significantly associated with reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in 2 of 4 trials and with reduced hospital-diagnosed PID (0.24% vs 0.38%); relative risk, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-1.0]), but not clinic-diagnosed PID or epididymitis, in the largest trial. In studies of risk prediction instruments in asymptomatic women, age younger than 22 years demonstrated comparable accuracy to extensive criteria. Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men but lower at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men. Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods. Conclusions and Relevance: Screening for chlamydial infection was significantly associated with a lower risk of PID in young women. Risk prediction criteria demonstrated limited accuracy beyond age. Testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens. Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation.

Low Back Pain.

Low back pain is a common problem that is the leading cause of disability and is associated with high costs. Evaluation focuses on identification of risk factors indicating a serious underlying condition and increased risk for persistent disabling symptoms in order to guide selective use of diagnostic testing (including imaging) and treatments. Nonpharmacologic therapies, including exercise and psychosocial management, are preferred for most patients with low back pain and may be supplemented with adjunctive drug therapies. Surgery and interventional procedures are options in a minority of patients who do not respond to standard treatments.