The Journal of Urology
Volume 180, Issue 2 , Pages 451-460, August 2008

A Critical Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

  • Philipp Dahm

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Department of Urology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Health Science Center, Box 100247, Room N2-15, Gainesville, Florida 32610-0247 (telephone: 352-273-7647; FAX: 352-392-8846).
    • Nothing to disclose.
  • ,
  • Lawrence L. Yeung

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida
    • Nothing to disclose.
  • ,
  • Sam S. Chang

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
    • Financial interest and/or other relationship with sanofi aventis and Indevus.
  • ,
  • Michael S. Cookson

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
    • Financial interest and/or other relationship with sanofi aventis, Indevus and GSK.

Received 8 November 2007 published online 11 June 2008.

Purpose

Increasingly there is a recognized need for the development of high quality, evidenced-based clinical guidelines to assist clinicians and patients in critically important treatment related decision making. We review the different approaches used by leading urological organizations to develop guidelines for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer and their specific recommendations for case management.

Materials and Methods

Guidelines for the management of localized prostate cancer developed by leading professional organizations were identified through the National Guidelines Clearinghouse™, PubMed®, cited references and personal communication with prostate cancer experts. A structured data abstraction was applied to assess how the guideline was developed, what type of professionals and stakeholders were involved in the development process, how the primary evidence was identified and graded, and what specific final recommendations were reported.

Results

Clinical practice guidelines on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer demonstrate major differences in their specific recommendations. Few recommendations are based on high level evidence, and there are considerable discrepancies among the systems used to grade the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations.

Conclusions

There appears to be a need to standardize the process used by leading urological organizations to develop clinical guidelines for the management of prostate cancer. A unified approach may offer considerable rewards in terms of efficiency, guideline credibility and optimal clinical decision making. Furthermore, increased efforts are indicated to promote studies that yield high quality evidence to guide the management of prostate cancer.

Key Words: practice guideline (publication type), prostatic neoplasms, evidence-based medicine

Abbreviations and Acronyms: AHRQ, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, AUA, American Urological Association, BAUS, British Association of Urological Surgeons, EAU, European Urological Association, GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, MOH, Singapore Ministry of Health, NCCN, National Cancer Center Network, NICE, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, PSA, prostate specific antigen, RCSI, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCT, randomized controlled trial

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Editor's Note: This article is the second of 5 published in this issue for which category 1 CME credits can be earned. Instructions for obtaining credits are given with the questions on pages 790 and 791.

PII: S0022-5347(08)00933-6

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.004

Refers to article:

  • Home Study CME Enrollment Form , 13 June 2008

    The Journal of Urology August 2008 (Vol. 180, Issue 2, Pages 790-791)

The Journal of Urology
Volume 180, Issue 2 , Pages 451-460, August 2008