Hiroaki Matsumoto1, Koji Shiraishi1, Haruhito Azuma2, Keiji Inoue3, Hirotsugu Uemura4, Masatoshi Eto5, Chikara Ohyama6, Osamu Ogawa7, Eiji Kikuchi8, Hiroshi Kitamura9, Nobuo Shinohara10, Satoru Takahashi11, Toyonori Tsuzuki12, Masayuki Nakagawa13, Yoshifumi Narumi14, Hiroyuki Nishiyama15, Tomonori Habuchi16, Shiro Hinotsu17, Yasuhisa Fujii18, Kiyohide Fujimoto19, Hiroyuki Fujimoto20, Takashi Mizowaki21, Hideyasu Matsuyama1. 1. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi University, Ube, Japan. 2. Department of Urology, Osaka Medical College, Takatsuki, Japan. 3. Department of Urology, Kochi Medical School, Kochi University, Kochi, Japan. 4. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, Osaka, Japan. 5. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. 6. Department of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan. 7. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. 8. Department of Urology, St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan. 9. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan. 10. Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan. 11. Department of Urology, Nihon University Itabashi Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 12. Department of Surgical Pathology, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Nagakute, Japan. 13. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan. 14. Faculty of Health Sciences, Kyoto Tachibana University, Kyoto, Japan. 15. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan. 16. Department of Urology, Akita University School of Medicine, Akita, Japan. 17. Department of Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology, Sapporo Medical University, Sapporo, Japan. 18. Department of Urology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan. 19. Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan. 20. Department of Urology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 21. Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite just a 4-year interval from the last version (2015) of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, several dramatic paradigm shifts have occurred in the latest clinical practice regarding both the diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer. Herein, we updated the 2019 version of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bladder Cancer under the instruction of the Japanese Urological Association. METHODS: We previously reported in a revision working position paper for Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bladder Cancer 2019 edition and described the methods of revision detail. RESULTS: The major points of change in the 2019 version are presented and explanations are given as follows: (i) introduction of the new reference assessment system; (ii) modification of the risk classification for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; (iii) addition of clinical questions for the new tumor-visible techniques in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; (iv) inclusion of minimally invasive surgeries for muscle-invasive bladder cancer and immune checkpoint inhibitors for locally advanced/metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer; (v) overview chapter of the histological variant of urothelial cancer and rare cancers of the bladder; and (vi) recommendation of follow up in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer and muscle-invasive bladder cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines should be updated based on the current evidence and updates carried out without delay. The hope is that this guidelines will be assessed by many urologists and will be the cornerstone for the next revision.
OBJECTIVES: Despite just a 4-year interval from the last version (2015) of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, several dramatic paradigm shifts have occurred in the latest clinical practice regarding both the diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer. Herein, we updated the 2019 version of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bladder Cancer under the instruction of the Japanese Urological Association. METHODS: We previously reported in a revision working position paper for Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bladder Cancer 2019 edition and described the methods of revision detail. RESULTS: The major points of change in the 2019 version are presented and explanations are given as follows: (i) introduction of the new reference assessment system; (ii) modification of the risk classification for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; (iii) addition of clinical questions for the new tumor-visible techniques in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; (iv) inclusion of minimally invasive surgeries for muscle-invasive bladder cancer and immune checkpoint inhibitors for locally advanced/metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer; (v) overview chapter of the histological variant of urothelial cancer and rare cancers of the bladder; and (vi) recommendation of follow up in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer and muscle-invasive bladder cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines should be updated based on the current evidence and updates carried out without delay. The hope is that this guidelines will be assessed by many urologists and will be the cornerstone for the next revision.
Authors: Thaisa Gvozdenovic Medina Bricio; Gabriel Lion Gouvea; Rafael Vasconcelos Barros; Fernando Chahud; Jorge Elias; Rodolfo B Reis; Valdair F Muglia Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 5.605