BACKGROUND: The volume of published literature on the evaluation and use of tests for monitoring purposes is sparse. Our aim was to determine the extent to which recommendations for monitoring prostate-specific antigen to detect recurrent prostate cancer consider key factors that should inform rule-based strategies for monitoring. METHODS: We reviewed the recommendations made in clinical guidelines for the repeated measurement of prostate-specific antigen in men who have received primary treatment for localized prostate cancer. We assessed the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Framework. RESULTS: We identified guidelines and statements of best practice from nine organizations. We saw considerable inconsistency in recommendations for testing for prostate-specific antigen as a form of monitoring. Recommendations on when to test appeared to be almost exclusively determined using standard follow-up schedules rather than any scientific basis. Recommendations on when to take action were primarily based on consensus statements or retrospective case series. Eight of the nine guidelines acknowledged the potential presence of measurement variability, but they did not attempt to account for the effect of such variability on the interpretation of the results of tests for prostate-specific antigen. Many recommendations were made with few or no supporting references; however, a variety of papers were cited across guidelines. Of 48 papers cited, 29.1% (14/48) were reviews; the remaining 70.8% (34/48) of papers cited were primary studies. INTERPRETATION: A systematic approach to the development of monitoring schedules using prostate-specific antigen in guidelines for prostate cancer is lacking, due to inadequacies in the available evidence and its use.
BACKGROUND: The volume of published literature on the evaluation and use of tests for monitoring purposes is sparse. Our aim was to determine the extent to which recommendations for monitoring prostate-specific antigen to detect recurrent prostate cancer consider key factors that should inform rule-based strategies for monitoring. METHODS: We reviewed the recommendations made in clinical guidelines for the repeated measurement of prostate-specific antigen in men who have received primary treatment for localized prostate cancer. We assessed the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Framework. RESULTS: We identified guidelines and statements of best practice from nine organizations. We saw considerable inconsistency in recommendations for testing for prostate-specific antigen as a form of monitoring. Recommendations on when to test appeared to be almost exclusively determined using standard follow-up schedules rather than any scientific basis. Recommendations on when to take action were primarily based on consensus statements or retrospective case series. Eight of the nine guidelines acknowledged the potential presence of measurement variability, but they did not attempt to account for the effect of such variability on the interpretation of the results of tests for prostate-specific antigen. Many recommendations were made with few or no supporting references; however, a variety of papers were cited across guidelines. Of 48 papers cited, 29.1% (14/48) were reviews; the remaining 70.8% (34/48) of papers cited were primary studies. INTERPRETATION: A systematic approach to the development of monitoring schedules using prostate-specific antigen in guidelines for prostate cancer is lacking, due to inadequacies in the available evidence and its use.
Authors: Michael S Cookson; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine Tangen; J Brantley Thrasher; Ian Thompson Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jako S Burgers; Julia V Bailey; Niek S Klazinga; Akke K Van Der Bij; Richard Grol; Gene Feder Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Carine A Bellera; James A Hanley; Lawrence Joseph; Peter C Albertsen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Fiona Campbell; Heather O Dickinson; Julia V F Cook; Fiona R Beyer; Martin Eccles; James M Mason Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2006-04-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Sean van Diepen; Rajdeep S Padwal; Jeffrey A Johnson; Sumit R Majumdar Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Barbara M Wollersheim; Kristel M van Asselt; Henk G van der Poel; Henk C P M van Weert; Michael Hauptmann; Valesca P Retèl; Neil K Aaronson; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Annelies H Boekhout Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 4.430