| 1. |
- Horwich, A, et al.
(author)
-
EAU–ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer - an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort : under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees
- 2019
-
In: Annals of Oncology. - : Oxford University Press. - 0923-7534 .- 1569-8041. ; 30:11, s. 1697-1727
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference.SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Witjes, J. Alfred, et al.
(author)
-
EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer – An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort : Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees
- 2020
-
In: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 77:2, s. 223-250
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.PATIENT SUMMARY: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.
|
|
| 6. |
- Artibani, Walter, et al.
(author)
-
EAU Policy on Live Surgery Events.
- 2014
-
In: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 66:1, s. 87-97
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Live surgery is an important part of surgical education, with an increase in the number of live surgery events (LSEs) at meetings despite controversy about their real educational value, risks to patient safety, and conflicts of interest.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Aus, Gunnar, 1958, et al.
(author)
-
EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer.
- 2005
-
In: Eur Urol. - : Elsevier BV. ; 48:4, s. 546-551
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives: The first summary of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on prostate cancer was published in 2001. These guidelines have been continuously updated since many important changes affecting the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer have occurred over the past years. The aim of this paper is to present a summary of the 2005 update of the EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Methods: A literature review of the new data has been performed by the working panel. The guidelines have been updated and level of evidence/grade of recommendation added to the text. This enables readers to better understand the quality of the data forming the basis of the recommendations. Results: A full version is available at the EAU Office or at www.uroweb.org. Systemic prostate biopsies under ultrasound guidance is the preferred diagnostic method and the use of periprostatic injection of a local anaesthetic can significantly reduce pain/discomfort associated with the procedure. Active treatment (surgery or radiation) is mostly recommended for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy with radical prostatectomy being the only treatment evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. Follow-up is at large based on prostate specific antigen (PSA) and a disease-specific history with imaging only indicated when symptoms occur. Cytotoxic therapy has become an option for selected patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer. Conclusion: The knowledge in the field of prostate cancer is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on prostate cancer summarize the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
- Majek, O., et al.
(author)
-
How to follow the new EU Council recommendation and improve prostate cancer early detection: the Prostaforum 2022 declaration
- 2023
-
In: European Urology Open Science. - 2666-1691. ; 53, s. 106-108
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- An updated Council of the EU recommendation on cancer screening was adopted in December 2022 during the Czech EU presidency. The recommendation included prostate cancer as a suitable target disease for organised screening, and invited countries to proceed with piloting and further research. To support further discussions and actions to promote early detection of prostate cancer, an international conference in November 2022 (Prostaforum 2022) resulted in a joint declaration. Here we describe the EU policy background, summarise the preparation of the declaration and the key underlying evidence and expert recommendations, and report the text of the declaration. The declaration summarises the striking inequalities in prostate cancer burden in Europe and calls on all stakeholders to consider and support concrete steps for advancement of organised early detection of prostate cancer. Our aim is to request endorsement of the text and potential initiation of practical actions by all stakeholders to support the aims of the declaration.Patient summary: Prostate cancer is among the most frequent cancers and is one of the most common causes of cancer death among men. The European Union has recommended new pilot programmes for prostate cancer screening. The Prostaforum 2022 declaration invites all stakeholders to support this new recommendation with specific steps.& COPY; 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/).
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- Van Poppel, H., et al.
(author)
-
Precancerous lesions in the kidney
- 2000
-
In: Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, Supplementum. - Oslo, Norway : Taylor & Francis. - 0300-8886 .- 1651-2537 .- 0000-0000 .- 0036-5599. ; :205, s. 136-165
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), although occurring less frequently than prostate and bladder cancer, is actually the most malignant urologic disease, killing >35% of affected patients. Therefore, investigation of the nature of premalignant lesions of the kidney is a relevant issue. Following the most recent histological classification RCC can be subdivided into four categories: conventional RCC; papillary RCC; chromophobe RCC; and collecting duct carcinoma. In contrast to many genitourinary malignancies, premalignant alterations in the kidney are scarcely described. Intratubular epithelial dysplasia has been recognized as the most common precursor of RCC. In analogy to prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), the premalignant lesions of the kidney are described as high or low-grade renal intratubular neoplasia. In contrast, precancerous lesions have been described as part of the von Hippel-Lindau syndrome (VHL) where the evolution from a simple cyst to an atypical cyst with epithelial hyperplasia to cystic or solid conventional-type RCC is well documented. Finally, in the genesis of papillary RCC an adenoma-carcinoma sequence has been recognized with specific genetic changes. There are no data on the epidemiology of premalignant lesions of the kidney, but research into the etiology of RCC has been extended substantially. Familial and genetic factors are well documented in VHL disease, in hereditary papillary RCC, in the tuberous sclerosis complex and in familial RCC. Cigarette smoking and obesity are established risk factors for RCC. Hypertension or its medication has also been associated with an increased risk. Among dietary factors an inverse relation between risk and consumption of vegetables and fruit has been found. Occupational exposure to substances such as asbestos and solvents has been linked to an increased risk of RCC. Specific RCC variants have distinctive chromosome alterations and several genes have been implicated in the development of RCC. Loss of material from the 3p chromosome characterizes conventional RCC and the deletion of the VHL suppressor gene plays an important role in the genesis of this RCC variant. In contrast, numerical changes with trisomy of chromosomes 7 and 17 and loss of the sex chromosome are typical changes in papillary tumors, whereas papillary RCC have additional trisomies. Chromophobe RCC is characterized by loss of chromosomes with a combination of monosomies. Less consistent genetic alterations are associated with collecting duct carcinoma. The traditional treatment of RCC is surgery by radical or partial nephrectomy. The latter approach carries a risk of tumor recurrence as a result of unrecognized satellite lesions or premalignant lesions that might have been present at the time of surgery. However, the reported recurrence rates after partial nephrectomy are <1% and therefore the possible presence of premalignant disease does not alter the actual treatment strategy advocated. Although multifocality and bilateral occurrence of RCC are much more likely in cases of papillary RCC, biopsy of the renal remnant or contralateral kidney is not justified even in patients with this tumor type. Conversely, patients with RIN in a partial or radical nephrectomy specimen or in a renal biopsy taken for whatever reason should be subjected to closer follow-up with regularly repeated ultrasound. When an effective chemopreventive regimen becomes available it might be useful for patients with an inherited risk of RCC as well as in those who are at risk of tumor recurrence after intervention. Mass screening with the purpose of detecting RCC at its earliest stage is not recommended at the present time, but screening focused on certain risk groups can be advocated. Further research is needed to identify avoidable risks, develop effective chemoprevention and recognize patients at risk.
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
