Consensus Procedures in Oncological Imaging: The Case of Prostate Cancer.

consensus epistemology guidelines nuclear medicine overutilization prostate cancer

Journal

Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
14 Nov 2019
Historique:
received: 27 09 2019
revised: 11 11 2019
accepted: 12 11 2019
entrez: 20 11 2019
pubmed: 20 11 2019
medline: 20 11 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Recently, there has been increasing interest in methodological aspects of advanced imaging, including the role of guidelines, recommendations, and experts' consensus, the practice of self-referral, and the risk of diagnostic procedure overuse. In a recent Delphi study of the European Association for Nuclear Medicine (EANM), panelists were asked to give their opinion on 47 scientific questions about imaging in prostate cancer. Nine additional questions exploring the experts' attitudes and opinions relating to the procedure of consensus building itself were also included. The purpose was to provide insights into the mechanism of recommendation choice and consensus building as seen from the experts' point of view. Results: Regarding the factors likely to influence the willingness to refer a patient for imaging, the most voted were incorporation into guidelines and data from scientific literature, while personal experience and personal relationship were chosen by a small minority. Regarding the recommendations more relevant to prescribe an imaging procedure, it resulted the incorporation into guidelines promoted by scientific societies (59% of votes); these guidelines also resulted the more trusted. With respect to patients' preferences considered when prescribing an imaging procedure, the most voted was accuracy, resulted more important than easy access and time to access to the procedure. The majority of the experts expressed the opinion that there is a scarce use of imaging procedures in prostate cancer. With respect to the most relevant factor to build consensus, it resulted the transparency of the process (52% of votes), followed by multidisciplinarity of contributors. The main obstacle to incorporation of modern imaging procedures into guidelines resulted the lack of primary literature on clinical impact. Conclusions: Firstly, the panelists portray themselves as having Evidence-Based Medicine oriented and scientifically inclined attitudes and preferences. Secondly, guidelines and recommendations from scientific societies, especially clinical ones, are positively taken into account as factors influencing decisions, but panelists tend to consider their own appraisal of the scientific literature as more relevant. Thirdly, in respect of overuse, panelists do not think that advanced diagnostic procedures are overutilized in the specific case of Prostate Cancer, but rather they are underutilized.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31739425
pii: cancers11111788
doi: 10.3390/cancers11111788
pmc: PMC6896040
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Lancet. 2004 Jul 31-Aug 6;364(9432):429-37
pubmed: 15288741
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):630-642
pubmed: 27591931
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Feb;13(2):e77-82
pubmed: 22300862
JAMA. 2018 Aug 28;320(8):757-758
pubmed: 30098168
CMAJ. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42
pubmed: 20603348
Nat Rev Urol. 2017 May;14(5):312-322
pubmed: 28290462
Eur Urol. 2018 Feb;73(2):178-211
pubmed: 28655541
Lancet. 2000 Jan 8;355(9198):103-6
pubmed: 10675167
Ann Fam Med. 2014 May-Jun;12(3):202-3
pubmed: 24821890
JAMA. 1999 Oct 20;282(15):1458-65
pubmed: 10535437
Radiology. 2010 Oct;257(1):240-5
pubmed: 20736333
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Apr 3;156(7):525-31
pubmed: 22473437
Med Health Care Philos. 2010 May;13(2):139-48
pubmed: 20151206
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Oct;24(5):1139-1144
pubmed: 29882333
Implement Sci. 2013 Sep 04;8:101
pubmed: 24006933
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15
pubmed: 11095242
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Feb;21(1):67-73
pubmed: 25311965
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Dec;19(12):e696-e708
pubmed: 30507436
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 May 11;17(1):344
pubmed: 28490325
Lancet. 2011 Apr 23;377(9775):1400-1
pubmed: 21520508
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Implement Sci. 2012 Jul 04;7:60
pubmed: 22762776
BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30
pubmed: 10024268

Auteurs

Stefano Fanti (S)

Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine-DIMES, University of Bologna, and Nuclear Medicine Division, Policlinico S.Orsola, 40138 Bologna, Italy.

Wim Oyen (W)

Medical School, Humanitas University, 20090 Pieve Emanuele, 20126 Milan, Italy.
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Rijnsstate, 6815 Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Elisabetta Lalumera (E)

Psychology Department, Milano-Bicocca University, 20126 Milan, Italy.

Classifications MeSH