EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†

BACKGROUND

Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.

DESIGN

A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference.

SETTING

Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.

PARTICIPANTS

The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.

Methodology of a systematic review

CONTEXT

The objective of evidence-based medicine is to employ the best scientific information available to apply to clinical practice. Understanding and interpreting the scientific evidence involves understanding the available levels of evidence, where systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials are at the top of the levels-of-evidence pyramid.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

The review process should be well developed and planned to reduce biases and eliminate irrelevant and low-quality studies. The steps for implementing a systematic review include (i) correctly formulating the clinical question to answer (PICO), (ii) developing a protocol (inclusion and exclusion criteria), (iii) performing a detailed and broad literature search and (iv) screening the abstracts of the studies identified in the search and subsequently of the selected complete texts (PRISMA).

SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE

Once the studies have been selected, we need to (v) extract the necessary data into a form designed in the protocol to summarise the included studies, (vi) assess the biases of each study, identifying the quality of the available evidence, and (vii) develop tables and text that synthesise the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review involves a critical and reproducible summary of the results of the available publications on a particular topic or clinical question. To improve scientific writing, the methodology is shown in a structured manner to implement a systematic review.