Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel Summary Report on the Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

No AccessJournal of UrologyClinical Urology: Special Communication1 Dec 1995Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel Summary Report on the Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Richard G. Middleton, Ian M. Thompson, Mark S. Austenfeld, William H. Cooner, Roy J. Correa, Robert P. Gibbons, Harry C. Miller, Joseph E. Oesterling, Martin I. Resnick, Stephen R. Smalley, and John H. Wasson Richard G. MiddletonRichard G. Middleton , Ian M. ThompsonIan M. Thompson , Mark S. AustenfeldMark S. Austenfeld , William H. CoonerWilliam H. Cooner , Roy J. CorreaRoy J. Correa , Robert P. GibbonsRobert P. Gibbons , Harry C. MillerHarry C. Miller , Joseph E. OesterlingJoseph E. Oesterling , Martin I. ResnickMartin I. Resnick , Stephen R. SmalleyStephen R. Smalley , and John H. WassonJohn H. Wasson View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66718-1AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract 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. References 1 : Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel: Report on the Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.. Baltimore: American Urological Association, Inc.1995. Google Scholar 2 : A Manual for Assessing Health Practices Technique and Preliminary ResultsJournal of Urology, VOL. 157, NO. 1, (371-375), Online publication date: 1-Jan-1997.Rukstalis D (2018) Editorial: Prostate Cancer--in Search of Certain KnowledgeJournal of Urology, VOL. 156, NO. 4, (1386-1387), Online publication date: 1-Oct-1996. Volume 154 Issue 6 December 1995 Page: 2144-2148 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 1995 by American Urological Association, Inc.Metrics Author Information Richard G. Middleton More articles by this author Ian M. Thompson More articles by this author Mark S. Austenfeld More articles by this author William H. Cooner More articles by this author Roy J. Correa More articles by this author Robert P. Gibbons More articles by this author Harry C. Miller More articles by this author Joseph E. Oesterling More articles by this author Martin I. Resnick More articles by this author Stephen R. Smalley More articles by this author John H. Wasson More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...