ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In 2023 the American Urological Association (AUA) requested an Update Literature Review (ULR) to incorporate new evidence generated since the 2020 publication of this Guideline. The resulting 2024 Guideline Amendment addresses updated recommendations to provide guidance on the appropriate evaluation and management of the male partner in an infertile couple. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2023, the Male Infertility Guideline was updated through the AUA amendment process in which newly published literature is reviewed and integrated into previously published guidelines. An updated literature search identified 4093 new abstracts. Following initial abstract screening, 125 eligible study abstracts met inclusion criteria. On data extraction, 22 studies of interest were included in the final evidence base to inform the Guideline amendment. RESULTS: The Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements based on an updated review to provide guidance on evaluation and management of male infertility. These updates are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This update provides several new insights, including revised thresholds for Y-chromosome microdeletion testing, indications for pelvic MRI imaging in infertile males, and guidance regarding the use of testicular sperm in nonazoospermic males. This Guideline will require further review as the diagnostic and treatment options in this space continue to evolve.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In 2023 the American Urological Association (AUA) requested an Update Literature Review (ULR) to incorporate new evidence generated since the 2019 publication of this Guideline. The resulting 2024 Guideline Amendment addresses updated recommendations to provide guidance for the care of patients with incontinence after prostate treatment (IPT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2023, the IPT Guideline was updated through the AUA amendment process in which newly published literature is reviewed and integrated into previously published guidelines. There were 82 studies of interest initially identified in preliminary abstract review. Following full-text review, 17 studies met inclusion criteria and ultimately informed the statements of interest. RESULTS: The Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements based on an updated review to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience IPT. These updates are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: As prostate treatments are refined, a decreasing incidence of incontinence is anticipated. This Guideline will require further review as the diagnostic and treatment options for patients with IPT continue to evolve.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Although representing approximately 25% of patients diagnosed with bladder cancer, muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) carries a significant risk of death that has not significantly changed in decades. Increasingly, clinicians and patients recognize the importance of multidisciplinary collaborative efforts that take into account survival and quality of life concerns. This guideline provides a risk-stratified, clinical framework for the management of muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer. METHODOLOGY/METHODS: In 2024, the MIBC guideline was updated through the AUA amendment process in which newly published literature is reviewed and integrated into previously published guidelines in an effort to maintain currency. The amendment allowed for the incorporation of additional literature released since the previous 2020 amendment. The updated search gathered literature from May 2020 to November 2023. This review identified 3739 abstracts, of which 46 met inclusion criteria.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. RESULTS: Updates were made regarding neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy, radical cystectomy, pelvic lymphadenectomy, multi-modal bladder preserving therapy, and future directions. Further revisions were made to the methodology and reference sections as appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline seeks to improve clinicians' ability to evaluate and treat patients with MIBC based on currently available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support or refine these statements to improve patient care.
Subject(s)
Neoplasm Invasiveness , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/therapy , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/pathology , Humans , Cystectomy/methods , Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/therapy , Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/pathology , Urology/standardsABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Salvage Therapy , Humans , Male , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/therapy , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Salvage Therapy/methods , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Salvage Therapy , Humans , Male , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/therapy , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/surgery , Prostate/pathology , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Salvage Therapy/methods , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Salvage Therapy , Humans , Male , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/surgery , Prostate/pathology , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this American Urological Association (AUA)/Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) guideline amendment is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based treatment strategies for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2023, the NMIBC guideline was updated through the AUA amendment process in which newly published literature is reviewed and integrated into previously published guidelines in an effort to maintain currency. The amendment allowed for the incorporation of additional literature released since the previous 2020 amendment. The updated search gathered literature from July 2019 to May 2023. This review identified 1918 abstracts, of which 75 met inclusion criteria.When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) in support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. RESULTS: Updates were made to statements on variant histologies, urine markers after diagnosis of bladder cancer, intravesical therapy, BCG maintenance, enhanced cystoscopy, and future directions. Further revisions were made to the methodology and reference sections as appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline seeks to improve clinicians' ability to evaluate and treat patients with NMIBC based on currently available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support or refine these statements to improve patient care.
Subject(s)
Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Neoplasms , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms , Urology , Humans , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/diagnosis , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/therapy , Cystoscopy , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this American Urological Association (AUA) guideline amendment is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based treatment strategies for early-stage testicular cancer. METHODOLOGY/METHODS: The original methodology protocol included searches of PubMed®, Embase®, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 1980 through August 2018. The search strategy used medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and key words relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of early-stage testicular cancer. The searches conducted for the update presented herein utilized the same methodological protocol to capture literature published through March 2023. 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. RESULTS: Updates were made to statements on imaging, seminoma management, non-seminoma management, surveillance for stage I testicular cancer, and additional survivorship. Further revisions were made to the methodology and reference sections as appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline seeks to improve clinicians' ability to evaluate and treat patients with early-stage testicular cancer based on currently available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support or refine these statements to improve patient care.
Subject(s)
Testicular Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Testicular Neoplasms/diagnosis , Testicular Neoplasms/therapy , United StatesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: 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). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Subject(s)
Laser Therapy , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms , Prostatic Hyperplasia , Transurethral Resection of Prostate , Humans , Male , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/therapy , Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/complications , Prostate/surgery , Prostatic Hyperplasia/therapy , Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery , Transurethral Resection of Prostate/methods , Treatment Outcome , Practice Guidelines as TopicABSTRACT
PURPOSE: 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 II of a two-part series focusing on initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. Please refer to Part I for discussion of initial prostate cancer screening recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of prostate cancer risk should be focused on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Grade Group 2 or higher [GG2+]). The use of laboratory biomarkers, prostate MRI, and biopsy techniques described herein may improve detection and safety when a prostate biopsy is deemed necessary following prostate cancer screening.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostate/pathology , Early Detection of Cancer , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Biopsy , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Image-Guided Biopsy/methodsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: 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). MATERIALS/METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Subject(s)
Urinary Incontinence, Stress , Urinary Incontinence , Female , Humans , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/diagnosis , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/surgery , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/complications , Urinary Bladder , Urinary Incontinence/complications , Urinary Incontinence, Urge/complications , Urologic Surgical Procedures/methods , Repressor ProteinsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In 2022 the American Urological Association (AUA) requested an Update Literature Review (ULR) to incorporate new evidence generated since the 2020 publication of this guideline. The resulting 2023 Guideline Amendment addresses updated recommendations for patients with advanced prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ULR addressed 23 of the original 38 guideline statements and included an abstract-level review of eligible studies published since the 2020 systematic review. Sixteen studies were selected for full text review. The current summary presents the updates made to the Guideline as a result of that new literature. RESULTS: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Panel amended evidence- and consensus-based statements based on an updated review to aid clinicians in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. These statements are detailed herein. CONCLUSION: This Guideline Amendment provides a framework designed to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer with the most current evidence-based information. Further research and publication of high-quality clinical trials will be essential to continue to improve the quality of care for these patients.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , United StatesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Biopsy , Mass Screening/methodsABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Risk Assessment , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Risk Assessment , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms , Watchful Waiting , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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/). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Subject(s)
Clinical Decision-Making , Medical Oncology/standards , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Societies, Medical/standards , Urology/standards , Humans , Male , Patient Preference , Patient Selection , Prostate/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Severity of Illness Index , United StatesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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/). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.