All High-Grade Ta Tumors Should Be Classified as High Risk: Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Response in High-Grade Ta Tumors.

PURPOSE: There is variation amongst guidelines with respect to risk stratification of Ta tumors, specifically high-grade (HG) Ta tumors. We sought to investigate the response of all Ta tumors to bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) and compare response rates based on European Association of Urology (EAU) classification as intermediate- (IR) or high-risk (HR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review of all patients who received adequate BCG from 2000-2018 was conducted. EAU 2021 prognostic risk groups were used to stratify patients including by the newly proposed adverse risk factors. RESULTS: When patient with Ta tumors were stratified into IR and HR, 37 (16%) had IR low-grade (LG) Ta, 92 (40%) had IR HG Ta and 101 (44%) had HR HG Ta tumors. BCG unresponsiveness developed in 13% of HR HG Ta tumors and 14% of IR HG Ta tumors compared to 0.0% of IR LG Ta tumors (p=0.003). While no patients with IR LG Ta tumors progressed, progression rates were similar in HR HG Ta and IR HG Ta tumors (≥T2: 5.9% and 6.5%; [Formula: see text]T1: 13% and 13%, respectively). Rates of recurrence, BCG unresponsiveness and progression were similar, irrespective of number of EAU risk factors present (p=0.9, p=0.8 and p=0.9, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: All HG Ta tumors, regardless of EAU risk stratification, have inferior response to BCG and increased rates of progression compared to IR LG Ta tumors. EAU clinical risk factors did not improve prediction of oncologic outcomes among HG Ta patients who received adequate BCG. These data support consideration of all HG tumors as high risk.

Can you trust clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery? A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines aim to support clinicians in providing clinical care and should be supported by evidence. There is currently no information on whether clinical practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery are supported by evidence. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and identified clinical practice guidelines of laparoscopic surgery published in PubMed and Embase between March 2016 and February 2019. We performed an independent assessment of the strength of recommendation based on the evidence provided by the guideline authors. We used the 'Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II' (AGREE-II) Tool's 'rigour of development', 'clarity of presentation', and 'editorial independence' domains to assess the quality of the guidelines. We performed a mixed-effects generalised linear regression modelling. RESULTS: We retrieved 63 guidelines containing 1905 guideline statements. The median proportion of 'difference in rating' of strength of recommendation between the guideline authors and independent assessment was 33.3% (quartiles: 18.3%, 55.8%). The 'rigour of development' domain score (odds ratio 0.06; 95% confidence intervals 0.01-0.48 per unit increase in rigour score; P value = 0.0071) and whether the strength of recommendation was 'strong' by independent evaluation (odds ratio 0.09 (95% confidence intervals 0.06-0.13; P value < 0.001) were the only determinants of difference in rating between the guideline authors and independent evaluation. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of guideline statements in clinical practice guidelines in laparoscopic surgery are not supported by evidence. Guideline authors systematically overrated the strength of the recommendation (i.e., even when the evidence points to weak recommendation, guideline authors made strong recommendations).

Guías de práctica clínica basadas en la evidencia / Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

Resumen Las Guías de Práctica Clínica (GPC), son instrumentos adecuados para sistematizar la mejor evidencia científica disponible para colaborar con los clínicos en la toma de decisiones sanitarias. El objetivo de este artículo fue describir conceptos que permitan comprender la importancia de la utilización de las GPC en la práctica clínica cotidiana. En general, las GPC surgen de una serie de pasos que requieren distintos procedimientos dependiendo de la temática, entre los que destacan los aspectos metodológicos, la revisión sistemática de la literatura, la publicación e implementación, y la revisión y actualización periódica. Entre las ventajas de contar con GPC destaca el hecho de mejorar los resultados en salud debido a que su uso ayuda a promover acciones sanitarias adecuadas, reduciendo la variabilidad injustificada en la elección de tratamientos. Por otra parte, las GPC son instrumentos de gran utilidad para quienes deben planificar y gestionar gastos en salud, debido a que permiten mejorar la eficiencia de los recursos y controlar los costes sanitarios manteniendo la calidad asistencial. Entre las desventajas, se describen que con cierta frecuencia (y a pesar de todo) no logran cambiar una conducta, a menos que se acompañen de estrategias activas como sistemas de recordatorio, auditoria y retroalimentación, etc.; en parte, porque los profesionales de salud son resistentes a los cambios de comportamiento, ponen barreras de actitud en la aceptación de la validez de las recomendaciones, etc.

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) are useful tools to organize the best available scientific evidence, and to collaborate with clinicians in health decision making. The aim of this article was to describe concepts that allow understanding the importance of CPGs in daily clinical practice. CPGs arise from a series of steps that are carried out with varying intensity depending on the subject matter, among which are: methodological aspects, systematic review of the literature, publication and implementation, periodic review, and update. Among the advantages of CPGs is the improvement in health outcomes because its use helps to promote adequate health decision-making, reducing undue variability in the choice of treatments. On the other hand, PCs are very useful instruments for those who must plan and manage health costs, since they allow improving the efficiency of resources, and control health expenses while maintaining the quality of care. Among the disadvantages, it is described that eventually do not achieve to change a behavior, unless they are accompanied by active strategies such as reminder, audit and feedback systems, etc.; that physicians are resistant to behavioral changes, put attitude barriers in accepting the validity of recommendations, etc.

First brazilian consensus of advanced prostate cancer: recommendations for clinical practice

ABSTRACT Introduction Prostate cancer still represents a major cause of morbidity, and still about 20% of men with the disease are diagnosed or will progress to the advanced stage without the possibility of curative treatment. Despite the recent advances in scientific and technological knowledge and the availability of new therapies, there is still considerable heterogeneity in the therapeutic approaches for metastatic prostate cancer. Objectives This article presents a summary of the I Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer, conducted by the Brazilian Society of Urology and Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology. Materials and Methods Experts were selected by the medical societies involved. Forty issues regarding controversial issues in advanced disease were previously elaborated. The panel met for consensus, with a threshold established for 2/3 of the participants. Results and Conclusions The treatment of advanced prostate cancer is complex, due to the existence of a large number of therapies, with different response profiles and toxicities. The panel addressed recommendations on preferred choice of therapies, indicators that would justify their change, and indicated some strategies for better sequencing of treatment in order to maximize the potential for disease control with the available therapeutic arsenal. The lack of consensus on some topics clearly indicates the absence of strong evidence for some decisions.

First Brazilian Consensus of Advanced Prostate Cancer: Recommendations for Clinical Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer still represents a major cause of morbidity, and still about 20% of men with the disease are diagnosed or will progress to the advanced stage without the possibility of curative treatment. Despite the recent advances in scientific and technological knowledge and the availability of new therapies, there is still considerable heterogeneity in the therapeutic approaches for metastatic prostate cancer. OBJECTIVES: This article presents a summary of the I Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer, conducted by the Brazilian Society of Urology and Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experts were selected by the medical societies involved. Forty issues regarding controversial issues in advanced disease were previously elaborated. The panel met for consensus, with a threshold established for 2/3 of the participants. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of advanced prostate cancer is complex, due to the existence of a large number of therapies, with different response profiles and toxicities. The panel addressed recommendations on preferred choice of therapies, indicators that would justify their change, and indicated some strategies for better sequencing of treatment in order to maximize the potential for disease control with the available therapeutic arsenal. The lack of consensus on some topics clearly indicates the absence of strong evidence for some decisions.

[Spanish Adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than 10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.