Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline.
Chang, Sam S; Boorjian, Stephen A; Chou, Roger; Clark, Peter E; Daneshmand, Siamak; Konety, Badrinath R; Pruthi, Raj; Quale, Diane Z; Ritch, Chad R; Seigne, John D; Skinner, Eila Curlee; Smith, Norm D; McKiernan, James M.
Afiliación
  • Chang SS; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Boorjian SA; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Chou R; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Clark PE; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Daneshmand S; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Konety BR; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Pruthi R; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Quale DZ; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Ritch CR; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Seigne JD; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Skinner EC; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • Smith ND; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
  • McKiernan JM; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland.
J Urol ; 196(4): 1021-9, 2016 Oct.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27317986
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Although associated with an overall favorable survival rate, the heterogeneity of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) affects patients' rates of recurrence and progression. Risk stratification should influence evaluation, treatment and surveillance. This guideline attempts to provide a clinical framework for the management of NMIBC. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

A systematic review utilized research from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and additional supplementation by the authors and consultant methodologists. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strength 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.(1)

RESULTS:

A risk-stratified approach categorizes patients into broad groups of low-, intermediate-, and high-risk. Importantly, the evaluation and treatment algorithm takes into account tumor characteristics and uniquely considers a patient's response to therapy. The 38 statements vary in level of evidence, but none include Grade A evidence, and many were Grade C.

CONCLUSION:

The intensity and scope of care for NMIBC should focus on 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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Sociedades Médicas / Urología / Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria / Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Urol Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Sociedades Médicas / Urología / Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria / Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Urol Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article