1
|
Collins KK, Smith CF, Ford T, Roberts N, Nicholson BD, Oke JL. Adequacy of clinical guideline recommendations for patients with low-risk cancer managed with monitoring: systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 169:111280. [PMID: 38360377 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111280] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2023] [Revised: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 02/12/2024] [Indexed: 02/17/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The aim of this systematic review was to summarize national and international guidelines that made recommendations for monitoring patients diagnosed with low-risk cancer. It appraised the quality of guidelines and determined whether the guidelines adequately identified patients for monitoring, specified which tests to use, defined monitoring intervals, and stated triggers for further intervention. It then assessed the evidence to support each recommendation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, we searched PubMed and Turning Research into Practice databases for national and international guidelines' that were written in English and developed or updated between 2012 and 2023. Quality of individual guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II tool. RESULTS Across the 41 published guidelines, 48 different recommendations were identified: 15 (31%) for prostate cancer, 11 (23%) for renal cancer, 6 (12.5%) for thyroid cancer, and 10 (21%) for blood cancer. The remaining 6 (12.5%) were for brain, gastrointestinal, oral cavity, bone and pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma cancer. When combining all guidelines, 48 (100%) stated which patients qualify for monitoring, 31 (65%) specified which tests to use, 25 (52%) provided recommendations for surveillance intervals, and 23 (48%) outlined triggers to initiate intervention. Across all cancer sites, there was a strong positive trend with higher levels of evidence being associated with an increased likelihood of a recommendation being specific (P = 0.001) and the evidence for intervals was based on expert opinion or other guidance. CONCLUSION With the exception of prostate cancer, the evidence base for monitoring low-risk cancer is weak and consequently recommendations in clinical guidelines are inconsistent. There is a lack of direct evidence to support monitoring recommendations in the literature making guideline developers reliant on expert opinion, alternative guidelines, or indirect or nonspecific evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kiana K Collins
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
| | - Claire Friedemann Smith
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Tori Ford
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Nia Roberts
- Bodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3BG, UK
| | - Brian D Nicholson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Jason L Oke
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhu J, Li N, Zhao P, Wang Y, Song Q, Song L, Li Q, Luo Y. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) of benign and malignant renal tumors: Distinguishing CEUS features differ with tumor size. Cancer Med 2022; 12:2551-2559. [PMID: 36057970 PMCID: PMC9939203 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2022] [Revised: 07/03/2022] [Accepted: 07/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is now a guideline-recommended strategy for diagnosing renal lesions. Tumor size is related to the risk of the treatment and prognosis in renal tumors. Thus, we aim to analyze the CEUS features of solid renal tumors in relation to tumor size. METHODS The CEUS appearance of 156 pathologically diagnosed solid renal tumors were retrospectively analyzed. Three groups were stratified according to the tumor size (≤2 cm [group I], 2.1-4 cm [group II] and 4.1-7 cm [group III]). For each group, the features of wash-in type, enhancement degree, enhancement homogeneity, and the presence of a pseudocapsule sign were compared between benign and malignant tumors. RESULTS All 156 included lesions were detected by CEUS. The proportion of benign tumors in three size groups was 37.1%, 19.4%, and 20.4%, respectively. The proportion of malignant tumors was highest (80.6%) in group II, followed by group III (79.6%) and group I (62.9%). In group I, malignant and benign tumors differed significantly in the presence of a pseudocapsule sign (p = 0.015) and homogeneity (p = 0.007). In group II, the degree of enhancement differed (p = 0.02) between tumor types. In group III, the two tumor types differed in both the wash-in pattern (p = 0.015) and enhancement degree (p = 0.024). The weighted and Cohen's kappa values for the concordance between inter-observer agreement ranged from 0.31 (95% CI: 0.36-0.57) to 0.90 (95% CI: 0.77-1.00). CONCLUSIONS CEUS features of malignant and benign renal tumors change along with the tumor size. The use of CEUS features in the diagnosis of benign and malignant tumors requires consideration of tumor size.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jianing Zhu
- Department of Ultrasound, the First Medical CentreChinese PLA General HospitalBeijingChina,Medical School of Chinese PLABeijingChina
| | - Nan Li
- Department of Ultrasound, the First Medical CentreChinese PLA General HospitalBeijingChina
| | - Ping Zhao
- Department of Ultrasound, the First Medical CentreChinese PLA General HospitalBeijingChina
| | - Yanjie Wang
- Department of Ultrasound, the First Medical CentreChinese PLA General HospitalBeijingChina,Medical School of Chinese PLABeijingChina
| | - Qing Song
- Department of Ultrasound, the Seventh Medical CentreChinese PLA General HospitalBeijingChina
| | - Luda Song
- Department of Ultrasound, the First Medical CentreChinese PLA General HospitalBeijingChina,Medical School of Chinese PLABeijingChina
| | - Qiuyang Li
- Department of Ultrasound, the First Medical CentreChinese PLA General HospitalBeijingChina
| | - Yukun Luo
- Department of Ultrasound, the First Medical CentreChinese PLA General HospitalBeijingChina
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Richard PO, Violette PD, Bhindi B, Breau RH, Kassouf W, Lavallée LT, Jewett M, Kachura JR, Kapoor A, Noel-Lamy M, Ordon M, Pautler SE, Pouliot F, So AI, Rendon RA, Tanguay S, Collins C, Kandi M, Shayegan B, Weller A, Finelli A, Kokorovic A, Nayak J. Canadian Urological Association guideline: Management of small renal masses - Full-text. Can Urol Assoc J 2022; 16:E61-E75. [PMID: 35133268 PMCID: PMC8932428 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.7763] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick O. Richard
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | - Philippe D. Violette
- Departments of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact (HEI) and Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Bimal Bhindi
- Southern Alberta Institute of Urology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Rodney H. Breau
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Wassim Kassouf
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Luke T. Lavallée
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Michael Jewett
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - John R. Kachura
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Anil Kapoor
- McMaster Institute of Urology, St. Joseph Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Maxime Noel-Lamy
- Department of Medical Imaging, Division of Interventional Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | - Michael Ordon
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Stephen E. Pautler
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Frédéric Pouliot
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Quebec, QC, Canada
| | - Alan I. So
- Division of Urology, British Columbia Cancer Care, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Ricardo A. Rendon
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Capital Health - QEII, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Simon Tanguay
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | | | - Maryam Kandi
- Departments of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact (HEI) and Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Bobby Shayegan
- McMaster Institute of Urology, St. Joseph Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - Antonio Finelli
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Andrea Kokorovic
- Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Jay Nayak
- Department of Surgery, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rosiello G, Larcher A, Montorsi F, Capitanio U. Renal cancer: overdiagnosis and overtreatment. World J Urol 2021; 39:2821-2823. [PMID: 34383133 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03798-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Giuseppe Rosiello
- Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 MI, Milan, Lombardia, Italy.,Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessandro Larcher
- Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 MI, Milan, Lombardia, Italy.,Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 MI, Milan, Lombardia, Italy.,Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Umberto Capitanio
- Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 MI, Milan, Lombardia, Italy. .,Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|