RESUMO
In prostate cancer prevention the American College of Physicians has endorsed a clinical practice guideline: it is recommended that physicians share the decision with the patient. There is no information about its adaptation to actual circumstances and particularly in our country. This presentation has the aim of analyzing the evidence and introduces a local perspective. There is no demonstration of survival or life quality improvement in preventing prostate cancer. Therapeutic interventions have a high rate of associated morbidity and mortality. Although desirable, sharing decisions has not yet proved its validity. In our country, due to the fragile equilibrium between risks and benefits, it seems advisable to wait for stronger scientific evidence. It is recommended to the clinician to: abstain from offering early diagnosis in the healthy adult, be reluctant when asked, share decisions when it seems advisable based on patient's characteristics and inform about the probability of prostate cancer in high risk groups.
Assuntos
Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos , Masculino , Participação do Paciente , Relações Médico-Paciente , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Qualidade de Vida , RiscoRESUMO
In prostate cancer prevention the American College of Physicians has endorsed a clinical practice guideline: it is recommended that physicians share the decision with the patient. There is no information about its adaptation to actual circumstances and particularly in our country. This presentation has the aim of analyzing the evidence and introduces a local perspective. There is no demonstration of survival or life quality improvement in preventing prostate cancer. Therapeutic interventions have a high rate of associated morbidity and mortality. Although desirable, sharing decisions has not yet proved its validity. In our country, due to the fragile equilibrium between risks and benefits, it seems advisable to wait for stronger scientific evidence. It is recommended to the clinician to: abstain from offering early diagnosis in the healthy adult, be reluctant when asked, share decisions when it seems advisable based on patient's characteristics and inform about the probability of prostate cancer in high risk groups
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Neoplasias da Próstata , Tomada de Decisões , Participação do Paciente , Relações Médico-Paciente , Neoplasias da Próstata , Qualidade de Vida , RiscoRESUMO
In prostate cancer prevention the American College of Physicians has endorsed a clinical practice guideline: it is recommended that physicians share the decision with the patient. There is no information about its adaptation to actual circumstances and particularly in our country. This presentation has the aim of analyzing the evidence and introduces a local perspective. There is no demonstration of survival or life quality improvement in preventing prostate cancer. Therapeutic interventions have a high rate of associated morbidity and mortality. Although desirable, sharing decisions has not yet proved its validity. In our country, due to the fragile equilibrium between risks and benefits, it seems advisable to wait for stronger scientific evidence. It is recommended to the clinician to: abstain from offering early diagnosis in the healthy adult, be reluctant when asked, share decisions when it seems advisable based on patients characteristics and inform about the probability of prostate cancer in high risk groups (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Qualidade de Vida , Tomada de Decisões , Participação do Paciente , Relações Médico-Paciente , RiscoRESUMO
In prostate cancer prevention the American College of Physicians has endorsed a clinical practice guideline: it is recommended that physicians share the decision with the patient. There is no information about its adaptation to actual circumstances and particularly in our country. This presentation has the aim of analyzing the evidence and introduces a local perspective. There is no demonstration of survival or life quality improvement in preventing prostate cancer. Therapeutic interventions have a high rate of associated morbidity and mortality. Although desirable, sharing decisions has not yet proved its validity. In our country, due to the fragile equilibrium between risks and benefits, it seems advisable to wait for stronger scientific evidence. It is recommended to the clinician to: abstain from offering early diagnosis in the healthy adult, be reluctant when asked, share decisions when it seems advisable based on patients characteristics and inform about the probability of prostate cancer in high risk groups.
