How to improve adherence of guidelines for localized testicular cancer surveillance: A Delphi consensus study.
consensus
de-escalation
delphy method
surveillance
testicular germ cell cancer
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
04
09
2022
accepted:
29
09
2022
entrez:
3
11
2022
pubmed:
4
11
2022
medline:
4
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Stage-I testicular germ-cell tumor (TGCT) has excellent cure rates. Surveillance is fully included in patient's management, particularly during the first years of follow-up. Surveillance guidelines differ between the academic societies, mainly concerning imaging frequency and long-term follow-up. We evaluated surveillance practice and schedules followed by French specialists and set up a DELPHI method to obtain a consensual surveillance program with an optimal schedule for patients with localized TGCT. First, an online survey on surveillance practice of stage-I TGCT based on clinical-cases was conducted among urologists, radiation-oncologists and medical-oncologists. These results were compared to ESMO/EAU and AFU guidelines. Then a panel of experts assessed surveillance proposals following a Delphi-CM. Statements were drafted after analysis of the previous survey and systematic literature review, with 2 successive rounds to reach a consensus. The study was conducted between July 2018 and May 2019. Concerning the first step: 61 participated to the survey (69% medical-oncologists, 15% urologists, 16% radiation-oncologists). About 65% of practitioners followed clinico-biological guidelines concerning 1 to 5 years of follow-up, but only 25% stopped surveillance after the 5th-year. No physician followed the EAU/ESMO guidelines of de-escalation chest imaging. Concerning the second step: 32 experts (78% medical-oncologists, 16% urologists, 6% radiation-oncologists) participated to the Delphi-CM. Thanks to Delphi-CM, a consensus was reached for 26 of the 38 statements. Experts agreed on clinico-biological surveillance modalities and end of surveillance after the 5th-year of follow-up. For seminoma, abdominal ultrasound was proposed as an option to the abdominopelvic (AP) scan for the 4th-year of follow-up. No consensus was reached regarding de-escalation of chest imaging. To conclude, the survey proved that French TGCT-specialists do not follow current guidelines. With Delphi-CM, a consensus was obtained for frequency of clinico-biological surveillance, discontinuation of surveillance after the 5th-year, stop of AP scan on the 4th-year of follow-up for seminoma. Questions remains concerning type and frequency of chest imaging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36324582
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1036190
pmc: PMC9619048
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1036190Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Da Silva, Fléchon, Coquan, Planchamp, Culine, Murez, Méjean, Pasquier, Chevreau, Fizazi, Thiery-Vuilemin and Joly.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Rev Mal Respir. 2010 Jun;27(6):644-50
pubmed: 20610079
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84
pubmed: 18046031
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Oct;84:354-359
pubmed: 28866371
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Sep;7(5):1137-1142
pubmed: 33121935
Eur Urol. 2016 Aug;70(2):365-71
pubmed: 26996661
Am J Kidney Dis. 2002 May;39(5):930-6
pubmed: 11979336
Urol Oncol. 2021 Jul;39(7):400-408
pubmed: 33642227
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2018 Mar;17(1):58-64
pubmed: 29157662
Eur Urol. 2015 Dec;68(6):1054-68
pubmed: 26297604
Can Urol Assoc J. 2022 Feb;16(2):26-33
pubmed: 34582333
Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;29(8):1658-1686
pubmed: 30113631
Ann Oncol. 2002 Feb;13(2):237-42
pubmed: 11886000
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Dec 14;169(22):2071-7
pubmed: 20008689
Bull Cancer. 2016 Feb;103(2):190-8
pubmed: 26782078
Ann Oncol. 2014 Nov;25(11):2167-2172
pubmed: 25114021
World J Urol. 2022 Feb;40(2):327-334
pubmed: 34854948
JAMA. 1999 Oct 20;282(15):1458-65
pubmed: 10535437
Int J Urol. 2014 Aug;21(8):S1-6
pubmed: 24725194
J Urol. 2017 Mar;197(3 Pt 1):684-689
pubmed: 27663460
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Mar;67(2):93-99
pubmed: 28094848
Ann Oncol. 2010 May;21 Suppl 5:v140-6
pubmed: 20555065
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Mar 22;19(3):e83
pubmed: 28330830
Prog Urol. 2016 Nov;27 Suppl 1:S147-S165
pubmed: 27846929