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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Horwich, A.
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Babjuk, M., Bellmunt, J., Bruins, H. M., De Reijke, T. M., De Santis, M., Gillessen, S., James, N., Maclennan, S., Figueiredo, Luís Pacheco, et. al.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/1822/67286
Resumo: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. 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
id RCAP_84b7505fad61fc678c790307eee4bc63
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/67286
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling 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 CommitteesDelphi TechniqueEuropeHumansInternational CooperationMedical OncologyNeoplasm StagingSocieties, MedicalStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesUrinary BladderUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrologyConsensusPractice Guidelines as TopicBladder cancerConsensusDelphiDiagnosisTreatmentFollow-upCiências Médicas::Medicina BásicaScience & TechnologyAlthough guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. 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 approachThe authors would like to thank Peter E. Clark from Atrium Health, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA, for his contribution to the Delphi survey. Angela Corstorphine of Kstorfin Medical Communications Ltd provided medical writing support with the preparation of this manuscript; this support was funded jointly by EAU and ESMO.ElsevierUniversidade do MinhoHorwich, A.Babjuk, M.Bellmunt, J.Bruins, H. M.De Reijke, T. M.De Santis, M.Gillessen, S.James, N.Maclennan, S.Figueiredo, Luís Pachecoet. al.2019-112019-11-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/1822/67286engHorwich, A., Babjuk, M., Bellmunt, J., et. al. (2019). 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. Annals of Oncology, 30(11), 1697-17270923-75341569-804110.1093/annonc/mdz29631740927https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534(20)32592-8/fulltextinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-21T12:33:12Zoai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/67286Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T19:28:41.546336Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv 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
title 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
spellingShingle 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
Horwich, A.
Delphi Technique
Europe
Humans
International Cooperation
Medical Oncology
Neoplasm Staging
Societies, Medical
Stakeholder Participation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Urinary Bladder
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Urology
Consensus
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Bladder cancer
Consensus
Delphi
Diagnosis
Treatment
Follow-up
Ciências Médicas::Medicina Básica
Science & Technology
title_short 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_sort 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
author Horwich, A.
author_facet Horwich, A.
Babjuk, M.
Bellmunt, J.
Bruins, H. M.
De Reijke, T. M.
De Santis, M.
Gillessen, S.
James, N.
Maclennan, S.
Figueiredo, Luís Pacheco
et. al.
author_role author
author2 Babjuk, M.
Bellmunt, J.
Bruins, H. M.
De Reijke, T. M.
De Santis, M.
Gillessen, S.
James, N.
Maclennan, S.
Figueiredo, Luís Pacheco
et. al.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade do Minho
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Horwich, A.
Babjuk, M.
Bellmunt, J.
Bruins, H. M.
De Reijke, T. M.
De Santis, M.
Gillessen, S.
James, N.
Maclennan, S.
Figueiredo, Luís Pacheco
et. al.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Delphi Technique
Europe
Humans
International Cooperation
Medical Oncology
Neoplasm Staging
Societies, Medical
Stakeholder Participation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Urinary Bladder
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Urology
Consensus
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Bladder cancer
Consensus
Delphi
Diagnosis
Treatment
Follow-up
Ciências Médicas::Medicina Básica
Science & Technology
topic Delphi Technique
Europe
Humans
International Cooperation
Medical Oncology
Neoplasm Staging
Societies, Medical
Stakeholder Participation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Urinary Bladder
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Urology
Consensus
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Bladder cancer
Consensus
Delphi
Diagnosis
Treatment
Follow-up
Ciências Médicas::Medicina Básica
Science & Technology
description Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. 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
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-11
2019-11-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/1822/67286
url http://hdl.handle.net/1822/67286
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Horwich, A., Babjuk, M., Bellmunt, J., et. al. (2019). 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. Annals of Oncology, 30(11), 1697-1727
0923-7534
1569-8041
10.1093/annonc/mdz296
31740927
https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534(20)32592-8/fulltext
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799132783318138880