We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline.
Journal of Urology 2016 October
PURPOSE: Although associated with an overall favorable survival rate, the heterogeneity of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) affects patients' rates of recurrence and progression. Risk stratification should influence evaluation, treatment and surveillance. This guideline attempts to provide a clinical framework for the management of NMIBC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review utilized research from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and additional supplementation by the authors and consultant methodologists. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strength Grade A, B, or C and were designated as Strong, Moderate, and Conditional Recommendations with additional statements presented in the form of Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions.(1) RESULTS: A risk-stratified approach categorizes patients into broad groups of low-, intermediate-, and high-risk. Importantly, the evaluation and treatment algorithm takes into account tumor characteristics and uniquely considers a patient's response to therapy. The 38 statements vary in level of evidence, but none include Grade A evidence, and many were Grade C.
CONCLUSION: The intensity and scope of care for NMIBC should focus on patient, disease, and treatment response characteristics. This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to evaluate and treat each patient, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve level of care for these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review utilized research from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and additional supplementation by the authors and consultant methodologists. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strength Grade A, B, or C and were designated as Strong, Moderate, and Conditional Recommendations with additional statements presented in the form of Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions.(1) RESULTS: A risk-stratified approach categorizes patients into broad groups of low-, intermediate-, and high-risk. Importantly, the evaluation and treatment algorithm takes into account tumor characteristics and uniquely considers a patient's response to therapy. The 38 statements vary in level of evidence, but none include Grade A evidence, and many were Grade C.
CONCLUSION: The intensity and scope of care for NMIBC should focus on patient, disease, and treatment response characteristics. This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to evaluate and treat each patient, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve level of care for these patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app