PURPOSE: The American Urological Association convened the Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel to analyze the literature regarding available methods for treating locally confined prostate cancer, and to make practice policy recommendations based on the treatment outcomes data insofar as the data permit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The panel searched the MEDLINE data base for all articles from 1966 to 1993 on stage T2 (B) prostate cancer and systematically analyzed outcomes data for radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy and surveillance as treatment alternatives. Outcomes considered most important were survival at 5, 10 and 15 years, progression at 5, 10 and 15 years, and treatment complications. RESULTS: The panel found the outcomes data inadequate for valid comparisons of treatments. Differences were too great among treatment series with regard to such significant characteristics as age, tumor grade and pelvic lymph node status. The panel elected to display, in tabular form and graphically, the ranges in outcomes data reported for each treatment alternative. CONCLUSIONS: In making its recommendations, the panel presented treatment alternatives as options, identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each, and recommended as a standard that patients with newly diagnosed, clinically localized prostate cancer should be informed of all commonly accepted treatment options.
PURPOSE: The American Urological Association convened the Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel to analyze the literature regarding available methods for treating locally confined prostate cancer, and to make practice policy recommendations based on the treatment outcomes data insofar as the data permit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The panel searched the MEDLINE data base for all articles from 1966 to 1993 on stage T2 (B) prostate cancer and systematically analyzed outcomes data for radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy and surveillance as treatment alternatives. Outcomes considered most important were survival at 5, 10 and 15 years, progression at 5, 10 and 15 years, and treatment complications. RESULTS: The panel found the outcomes data inadequate for valid comparisons of treatments. Differences were too great among treatment series with regard to such significant characteristics as age, tumor grade and pelvic lymph node status. The panel elected to display, in tabular form and graphically, the ranges in outcomes data reported for each treatment alternative. CONCLUSIONS: In making its recommendations, the panel presented treatment alternatives as options, identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each, and recommended as a standard that patients with newly diagnosed, clinically localized prostate cancer should be informed of all commonly accepted treatment options.
Authors: Cara L McDermott; David K Blough; Catherine R Fedorenko; Neeraj K Arora; Steven B Zeliadt; Megan E Fairweather; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Scott D Ramsey Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Maria J Schymura; Amy R Kahn; Robert R German; Mei-Chin Hsieh; Rosemary D Cress; Jack L Finch; John P Fulton; Tiefu Shen; Erik Stuckart Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 4.430