Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33284538›Full record

ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

Consensus on diagnosis and management of non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer in Brazil: focus on patient, selection, treatment efficacy, side effects and physician's perception according to patient comorbidities.

Fernando Maluf, Andrey Soares, Guilherme Avanço, Aline Lury Hada, Ana Paula Garcia Cardoso, Arie Carneiro, Daniel Herchenhorn, Denis Leonardo Fontes Jardim, Fabio Augusto Schutz, Fabio Roberto Kater and 12 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. National Consensus on Non-metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: more than just a snapshot.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Fernando MalufDepartamento de Oncologia, Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Andrey SoaresCentro Paulista de Oncologia, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Guilherme AvançoDepartamento de Oncologia, Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Aline Lury HadaDepartamento de Urologia, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Ana Paula Garcia CardosoDepartamento de Oncologia, Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Arie CarneiroDepartamento de Urologia, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Daniel HerchenhornGrupo Latino - Americano de Oncologia Cooperativa, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
Denis Leonardo Fontes JardimSociedade Beneficente de Senhoras-Hospital Sírio Libanês, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Fabio Augusto SchutzDepartamento de Oncologia, Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Fabio Roberto KaterDepartamento de Oncologia, Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Felipe Moraes Toledo PereiraDepartamento de Oncologia, Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Fernando Sabino Marques MonteiroUnidade de Oncologia, Hospital Universitário de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Igor Alexandre Protzner MorbeckDisciplina de Urologia, Universidade Catolica de Brasilia, Taguatinga, DF, Brasil.
João Francisco Navarro ReolonDepartamento de Oncologia, Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Karine Martins da TrindadeServiço de Urologia, Hospital Haroldo Juacaba, Fortaleza, CE, Brasil.
Livia Maria Querino da Silvo AndradeServiço de Urologia, Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, BA, Brasil.
Lucas Mendes NogueiraDivisão de Urologia e Departamento de Cirurgia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil.
Renato FuroniDepartamento de Oncologia, Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Ricardo Azze NatelUniversidade Cidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Rodolfo Borges Dos ReisFaculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.
Rodrigo Nogueira FogaceDepartamento de Urologia, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Vinicius Carrera SouzaClínica AMO, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) has seen important developments in drugs and diagnostic tools in the last two years. New hormonal agents have demonstrated improvement in metastasis free survival in M0 CRPC patients and have been approved by regulatory agencies in Brazil. Additionally, newer and more sensitive imaging tools are able to detect metastasis earlier than before, which will impact the percentage of patients staged as M0 CRPC. Based on the available international guidelines, a group of Brazilian urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on the diagnosis and treatment of M0 CRPC in Brazil. These results are reviewed and summarized and associated recommendations are provided.

objectiveTo present survey results on management of M0 CRPC in Brazil. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsA panel of six Brazilian prostate cancer experts determined 64 questions concerning the main areas of interest: 1) staging tools, 2) treatments, 3) side effects of systemic treatment/s, and 4) osteoclast-targeted therapy. A larger panel of 28 Brazilian prostate cancer experts answered these questions in order to create country-specific recommendations discussed in this manuscript. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. These answers are the panelists' opinions, not a literature review or meta-analysis. Therapies not yet approved in Brazil were excluded from answer options. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two non-answers. Results were tabulated in real time.

conclusionsThe results and recommendations presented can be used by Brazilian physicians to support the management of M0 CRPC patients. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data, however, for Brazil, guidelines for diagnosis and management of M0 CRPC patients have not been developed. This document will serve as a point of reference when confronting this disease stage.

Indexed as

PhysiciansProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantBrazilHumansMalePatient SelectionPerceptionTreatment OutcomeConsensusProstate cancer, familial [Supplementary Concept]Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant

Identifiers

PMID33284538
PMCPMC7857750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.