External Assessment of the GEMA2009 Recommendations by a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel on Asthma

ObjectivesTo assess the level of agreement on the GEMA 2009 clinical recommendations by a Spanish expert panel on asthma.Materials and methodsThe study was divided into four stages: 1) establishment of a 9 member scientific committee (GEMA authors) for selection of GEMA recommendations to use in the survey; 2) formation of a panel of 74 professionals with expertise in this field (pulmonologists, allergists, family doctors, ear, nose and throat and paediatric specialists); 3) Delphi survey in two rounds, sent by mail, with intermediate processing of opinions and a report to the panel members; and 4) analysis and discussion of results for the Scientific Committee.ResultsSeventy four participants completed the two rounds of survey. During the first round, a consensus was reached in 49 out of 56 questions analysed. Following discussion by the panel, the consensus was increased to a total of 53 items in the survey. With respect to the remaining questions, Insufficient consensus was obtained on the rest of the questions, due to differing views between sub-specialists, or lack of criteria by most of the experts.ConclusionsThe external analysis by asthma experts from different specialities showed a high level of professional agreement with the GEMA 2009 recommendations in Spain (96.5 %). The disagreement shown in three recommendations reflect the lack of a high level evidence. These issues represent areas of interest for future research.     

Italian recommendations on enzymatic debridement in burn surgery

IntroductionNexobrid®, a bromelain-based type of enzymatic debridement, has become more prevalent in recent years. We present the recommendations on enzymatic debridement (Nexobrid®)’s role based on the practice knowledge of expert Italian users.MethodsThe Italian recommendations, endorsed by SIUST (Italian Society of Burn Surgery), on using enzymatic debridement to remove eschars for burn treatment were defined. The definition followed a process to evaluate the level of agreement (a measure of consensus) among selected experts, representing Italian burn centers, concerning defined clinical aspects of enzymatic debridement. The consensus involved a multi-phase process based on the Delphi method.ResultsThe consensus panel included experts from Italy with a combined experience of 1068 burn patients treated with enzymatic debridement. At the end of round 3 of the Delphi method, the panel reached 100% consensus on 26 out of 27 statements. The panel achieved full, strong consensus (all respondents strongly agreed on the statement) on 24 out of 27 statements.DiscussionThe statements provided by the Italian consensus panel represent a “ready to use” set of recommendations for enzymatic debridement in burn surgery that both draw from and complete the existing scientific literature on the topic. These recommendations are specific to the Italian experience and are neither static nor definitive. As such, they will be updated periodically as further quality evidence becomes available.     

The utility of the delphi method in defining anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery

BackgroundAlmost a decade after international guidelines defining anastomotic leak (AL) were published, the definition of AL remains inconsistent.MethodsA 3-round modified Delphi study was conducted among a national panel of 8 surgeon experts to assess consensus related to the definition of AL following colorectal resection. Consensus was defined when a scenario was rated as very important or absolutely essential by at least 85% of the experts in round 3.ResultsSeven of fifteen (47%) clinical and radiological scenarios of AL achieved consensus. 80% of clinical scenarios reached consensus. 30% of radiological scenarios reached consensus including CT demonstrating air bubbles around the anastomosis. No consensus was achieved in 70% of radiological scenarios.ConclusionsConsensus on the definition of AL is difficult to reach, in relation to international guidelines; which implies that further refinement of the definition of AL is needed to compare patient outcomes.     

Consenso experto sobre la evidencia científica disponible acerca del uso de toxina botulínica en vejiga hiperactiva

ObjectivesOveractive bladder (OAB) is a pathology impairing patients’ quality of life and with a high percentage of patients who are refractory to medication. In this paper, technical opinion of an «expert panel» is assessed in order to gain the most reliable professional consensus on scientific evidence available on the criteria of use of Onabotulinumtoxin A (OnabotA) in OAB.Material and methodsaccording to DELPHI method, 42 panelists answered a survey of 93 items divided into four strategic areas including clinical criteria and recommendations in order to improve, at different levels, the current approach to patients with OAB. The recent advances in the field, areas of controversy and their real application possibilities in the different areas of our health care system were taken into consideration.ResultsTwo rounds of the questionnaire were completed by all experts. In the first round, a criteria consensus was reached for 64 of 93 (68.8%) questions analyzed; in the second round the consensus reached was for 83 items evaluated (89.25%). An agreement among panelist was reached for: 1) definition, classification, detection and differential diagnosis; 2) medical treatment; 3) surgical treatment; 4) role of OnabotA in the treatment of OAB.Conclusionsthe consensus is broadly in line with the latest scientific evidence on OAB. The panelists believe that it is necessary to propose a change in the current definition of OAB and that it seems necessary to improve the screening tools too. Medical treatment of OAB must be tailored to each patient, staged and progressive. The use of OnabotA (Botox^®) could imply therapeutic advantages with respect to other treatments, and positions itself as a safe and effective alternative to treat drug refractory OAB.     

Distal rectus femoris surgery in children with cerebral palsy: results of a Delphi consensus project

PurposeThe purpose of this study was for an international panel of experts to establish consensus indications for distal rectus femoris surgery in children with cerebral palsy (CP) using a modified Delphi method.MethodsThe panel used a five-level Likert scale to record agreement or disagreement with 33 statements regarding distal rectus femoris surgery. The panel responded to statements regarding general characteristics, clinical indications, computerized gait data, intraoperative techniques and outcome measures. Consensus was defined as at least 80% of responses being in the highest or lowest two of the five Likert ratings, and general agreement as 60% to 79% falling into the highest or lowest two ratings. There was no agreement if neither threshold was reached.ResultsConsensus or general agreement was reached for 17 of 33 statements (52%). There was general consensus that distal rectus femoris surgery is better for stiff knee gait than is proximal rectus femoris release. There was no consensus about whether the results of distal rectus femoris release were comparable to those following distal rectus femoris transfer. Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level was an important factor for the panel, with the best outcomes expected in children functioning at GMFCS levels I and II. The panel also reached consensus that they do distal rectus femoris surgery less frequently than earlier in their careers, in large part reflecting the narrowing of indications for this surgery over the last decade.ConclusionThis study can help paediatric orthopaedic surgeons optimize decision-making for, and outcomes of, distal rectus femoris surgery in children with CP.Level of evidenceV     

Deep pelvic infiltrating endometriosis: MRI consensus lexicon and compartment-based approach from the ENDOVALIRM group

PurposeThe purpose of this consensus article was to develop guidelines by a focused panel of experts to elaborate a lexicon of image interpretation, and a standardized region-based reporting of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Materials and methodsEvidence-based data and expert opinion were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts scoring of pelvic compartment delineation and reporting template were collected; responses were analyzed and classified as “RECOMMENDED” versus “NOT RECOMMENDED” (when ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (when < 80% consensus among experts).ResultsConsensus regarding pelvic compartment delineation and DIE reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. The pelvis was divided in nine compartments and extrapelvic lesions were assigned to an additional (tenth) compartment. A consensus was also reached for each structure attributed to a compartment and each reporting template item among the experts. No consensus was reached for a normal aspect of uterosacral ligament, but a consensus was reached for an unequivocal involvement leading to a positive diagnosis and an equivocal involvement leading to uncertain diagnosis. Tailored MRI lexicon and standardized region-based report were proposed.ConclusionThese consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for DIE reporting and staging with MRI. Standardized MRI compartment-based structured reporting is recommended to enable consistent accuracy and help select the best therapeutic approach.     

Épico project. Development of educational recommendations using the DELPHI technique on invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic critically ill adult patients

BackgroundAlthough there has been an improved management of invasive candidiasis in the last decade, controversial issues still remain, especially in the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.AimsWe sought to identify the core clinical knowledge and to achieve high level agreement recommendations required to care for critically ill adult patients with invasive candidiasis.MethodsA prospective Spanish survey reaching consensus by the DELPHI technique was made. It was anonymously conducted by electronic mail in a first term to 25 national multidisciplinary experts in invasive fungal infections from five national scientific societies, including intensivists, anesthesiologists, microbiologists, pharmacologists and infectious diseases specialists, who answered to 47 questions prepared by a coordination group after a strict review of the literature in the last five years. The educational objectives spanned five categories, including epidemiology, diagnostic tools, prediction rules, and treatment and de-escalation approaches. The level of agreement achieved among the panel experts in each item should exceed 75% to be selected. In a second term, after extracting recommendations from the selected items, a face to face meeting was performed where more than 80 specialists in a second round were invited to validate the preselected recommendations.ResultsIn the first term, 20 recommendations were preselected (Epidemiology 4, Scores 3, Diagnostic tools 4, Treatment 6 and De-escalation approaches 3). After the second round, the following 12 were validated: (1) Epidemiology (2 recommendations): think about candidiasis in your Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and do not forget that non-Candida albicans–Candida species also exist. (2) Diagnostic tools (4 recommendations): blood cultures should be performed under suspicion every 2–3 days and, if positive, every 3 days until obtaining the first negative result. Obtain sterile fluid and tissue, if possible (direct examination of the sample is important). Use non-culture based methods as microbiological tools, whenever possible. Determination of antifungal susceptibility is mandatory. (3) Scores (1 recommendation): as screening tool, use the Candida Score and determine multicolonization in high risk patients. (4) Treatment (4 recommendations): start early. Choose echinocandins. Withdraw any central venous catheter. Fundoscopy is needed. (5) De-escalation (1 recommendation): only applied when knowing susceptibility determinations and after 3 days of clinical stability. The higher rate of agreement was achieved in the optimization of microbiological tools and the withdrawal of the catheter, whereas the lower rate corresponded to de-escalation therapy and the use of scores.ConclusionsThe management of invasive candidiasis in ICU patients requires the application of a broad range of knowledge and skills that we summarize in our recommendations. These recommendations may help to identify the potential patients, standardize their global management and improve their outcomes, based on the DELPHI methodology.     

Results from a Canadian consensus forum of key controversial areas in the management of advanced prostate cancer: Recommendations for Canadian healthcare providers

IntroductionRapid progress in diagnostics and therapeutics for the management of prostate cancer (PCa) has created areas where high-level evidence to guide practice is lacking. The Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) conducted its second Canadian consensus forum to address areas of controversy in the management of PCa and provide recommendations to guide treatment.MethodsA panel of PCa specialists discussed topics related to the management of PCa. The core scientific committee finalized the design, questions, and analysis of the consensus results. Attendees then voted to indicate their management choice regarding each statement/topic. Questions for voting were adapted from the 2019 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference. The thresholds for agreement were set at ≥75% for “consensus agreement,” >50% for “near-consensus,” and ≤50% for “no consensus.”ResultsThe panel was comprised of 29 PCa experts, including urologists (n=12), medical oncologists (n=12), and radiation oncologists (n=5). Voting took place for 65 predetermined questions and three ad hoc questions. Consensus was reached for 34 questions, spanning a variety of areas, including biochemical recurrence, treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive PCa, management of non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant PCa, bone health, and molecular profiling.ConclusionsThe consensus forum identified areas of consensus or near-consensus in more than half of the questions discussed. Areas of consensus typically aligned with available evidence, and areas of variability may indicate a lack of high-quality evidence and point to future opportunities for further research and education.     

Imaging for the diagnosis and follow-up of ankylosing spondylitis: development of recommendations for clinical practice based on published evidence and expert opinion

ObjectiveTo develop recommendations regarding imaging studies for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with axial forms of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) seen in everyday practice.MethodsEvidence from the literature and expert opinion were used to develop the recommendations. Using the Delphi consensus procedure, a scientific committee selected five areas of interest, about which scientific evidence was sought by searching Medline and the databases maintained by the French Society for Rheumatology, European League against Rheumatism, and American College of Rheumatology. Based on this evidence, a panel of experienced rheumatologists drafted recommendations, using expert opinion if needed to supplement gaps in evidence. For each recommendation, the level of evidence and the extent of agreement among the experts were specified.ResultsThe five areas of interest dealt with the usefulness of imaging studies for the diagnosis, follow-up, prognostic evaluation, and assessment of treatment responses in patients with AS. The literature search retrieved 144 articles based on titles and abstracts. After elimination of articles that did not include an analysis of the radiological evaluation of AS, 73 articles were left for review. Eight recommendations were drafted then validated by having all panel participants vote during a final meeting.ConclusionEight recommendations about the use of imaging studies in patients with AS were developed. They can be expected to improve clinical practice uniformity and, in the longer term, to optimize the management of patients with AS.     

Consensus document on the overlap phenotype COPD-asthma in COPD

IntroductionAlthough asthma and COPD are different pathologies, many patients share characteristics from both entities. These cases can have different evolutions and responses to treatment. Nevertheless, the evidence available is limited, and it is necessary to evaluate whether they represent a differential phenotype and provide recommendations about diagnosis and treatment, in addition to identifying possible gaps in our understanding of asthma and COPD.MethodsA nation-wide consensus of experts in COPD in two stages: (1) during an initial meeting, the topics to be dealt with were established and a first draft of statement was elaborated with a structured “brainstorming” method; (2) consensus was reached with two rounds of e-mails, using a Likert-type scale.ResultsConsensus was reached about the existence of a differential clinical phenotype known as “Overlap Phenotype COPD–Asthma”, whose diagnosis is made when 2 major criteria and 2 minor criteria are met. The major criteria include very positive bronchodilator test (increase in FEV₁ ≥15% and ≥400 ml), eosinophilia in sputum and personal history of asthma. Minor criteria include high total IgE, personal history of atopy and positive bronchodilator test (increase in FEV₁ ≥12% and ≥200 ml) on two or more occasions. The early use of individually adjusted inhaled corticosteroids is recommended, and caution must be taken with their abrupt withdrawal. Meanwhile, in severe cases the use of triple therapy should be evaluated. Finally, there is an obvious lack of specific studies about the natural history and the treatment of these patients.ConclusionsIt is necessary to expand our knowledge about this phenotype in order to establish adequate guidelines and recommendations for its diagnosis and treatment.     

A modified-delphi study establishing consensus in the therapeutic management of posttrauamtic elbow stiffness

Study Design: Web-based modified Delphi study.Background: Therapy is widely considered the first choice of treatment for posttraumatic stiffness of the elbow since loss of motion is a common sequela following traumatic elbow injuries. There is high variability in practice patterns for the management of the posttraumtic elbow.Purpose: The aim of this study is to identify the current therapeutic management of posttraumatic elbow stiffness using expert consensus.Methods: This study surveyed experts using a web-based 3 round modified Delphi method. Quantitative data and comments were collected during the first round. Questions with Likert scaling were used to identify consensus (defined as 75% agreement) with each statement and comment boxes enabled open-ended responses to gather expert opinion. Lack of consensus and data from comments guided the second-round of the survey. This process was repeated after Round 2 to develop the Round 3 survey. Consensus was achieved at Round 3 and no further rounds were needed.Results: Round 1 included 34 experts (response rate 20%), not all experts were able to continue through all rounds. Round 2 included 18 experts and Round 3 included 15 experts. Survey items were categorized as follows: examination procedures, therapeutic interventions, orthotic intervention considerations, contributing patient factors, and clinical decisions and rehabilitation challenges. Twenty-five percent of items achieved consensus after Round 1, 30% after Round 2 and 52% after Round 3. Although most participants agreed that orthotic intervention is critical to patient outcomes, there were conflicting thoughts about the orthotic design and wearing schedule.Conclusions: The findings of this web-based modified Delphi study helped to establish a current body of knowledge using expert consensus to guide practice and identify specific questions that can be studied in future clinical studies on posttraumatic elbow stiffness.     

Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations: Recommendations for Diagnosis,Treatment and Care

ObjectiveTo describe an evidence- and experience-based expert consensus on the most relevant issues of patients with COPD exacerbations.MethodsThe Delphi technique was used. Evidence was reviewed by a scientific committee and 60 experts. A questionnaire was prepared containing 3 sections: diagnosis of the exacerbator; treatment, and healthcare processes. The survey was answered in 2 rounds by 60 pneumologists on an online platform. Statements were scored on a Likert scale from 1 (total disagreement) to 9 (total agreement). Agreement and disagreement were defined as a score of 7–9 or 1–3, respectively, given by more than two thirds of the participants.ResultsA total of 48 statements were included, one of which was added in the second round. Consensus was reached in 37 items (78.7%) after the first round (agreement), and in 43 (89.5%) after the second round (42 agreement, 1 disagreement). The statements with the highest proportion of experts agreeing were as follows: in exacerbators, chronic bronchial infection favors lung function decline (93.1%); long-acting bronchodilators should not be withdrawn (93.1%); treatment must be personalized if new exacerbations occur despite optimal bronchodilator treatment (96.6%); management must be coordinated between primary care and the respiratory medicine department (93.1%), and patients must be followed up in specific integrated multicomponent programs (94.8%).ConclusionsThe findings of this study could assist in the diagnosis and treatment of COPD exacerbators in our area.     

Clinical and laboratory follow-up for treating and monitoring patients with ankylosing spondylitis: development of recommendations for clinical practice based on published evidence and expert opinion

ObjectiveTo develop French recommendations about the clinical and laboratory follow-up of patients with axial ankylosing spondylitis (AS) seen in everyday practice.MethodsThe recommendations were developed based on evidence from the literature and on expert opinion. A Delphi consensus procedure was used by a scientific committee to select five focal points, about which evidence was obtained by searching Medline and the databases maintained by the French Society for Rheumatology, European League against Rheumatism, and American College of Rheumatology. The results of the literature review were used by a panel of experienced rheumatologists to draft and to validate the recommendations, using expert opinion if needed to supplement gaps in published knowledge. For each recommendation, the level of evidence and the level of agreement among the experts were specified.ResultsThe three focal points selected using the Delphi procedure dealt with choosing the best clinical and laboratory parameters for monitoring patients with AS; whether follow-up benefits from the use of composite indices (e.g., the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI], the BAS Functional Index [BASFI] and the BAS Metrology Index [BASMI]); and the clinical and laboratory parameters that predict functional or structural outcomes in patients with AS. The literature search retrieved 1510 relevant articles based on titles and abstracts, of which 322 were selected for in-depth review. Five recommendations about the clinical and laboratory follow-up of patients with AS were developed then validated by having all panel participants vote during a final meeting.ConclusionRecommendations about the clinical and laboratory follow-up of patients with AS were developed. They can be expected to improve clinical practice uniformity and, in the longer term, to optimize the management of patients with AS.     

Management of penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: An eUROGEN accelerated Delphi consensus study

ObjectivesTo develop an international consensus on managing penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 acute waves. A major concern for patients with penile cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is how the enforced safety measures will affect their disease management. Delays in diagnosis and treatment initiation may have an impact on the extent of the primary lesion as well as the cancer-specific survival because of the development and progression of inguinal lymph node metastases.Materials and methodsA review of the COVID-19 literature was conducted in conjunction with analysis of current international guidelines on the management of penile cancer. Results were presented to an international panel of experts on penile cancer and infection control by a virtual accelerated Delphi process using 4 survey rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as an agreement of ≥80%, which was used to reconfigure management pathways for penile cancer.ResultsLimited evidence is available for delaying penile cancer management. The consensus rate of agreement was 100% that penile cancer pathways should be reconfigured, and measures should be developed to prevent perioperative nosocomial transmission of COVID-19. The panel also reached a consensus on several statements aimed at reconfiguring the management of penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsThe international consensus panel proposed a framework for the diagnostic and invasive therapeutic procedures for penile cancer within a low-risk environment for COVID-19.     

Development of a standardized definition for Hirschsprung's-associated enterocolitis: a Delphi analysis

Purpose

The reported incidence of Hirschsprung's-associated enterocolitis (HAEC) is extremely variable. A standardized definition would permit comparison of different studies and provide an interpretable outcome measure for future prospective studies in patients with Hirschsprung's disease.

Methods

The Delphi method is a technique for achieving consensus among a panel of experts. A list of 38 potential criteria from the history, physical examination, radiologic studies, and pathologic specimens was made available to pediatric surgeons and gastroenterologists who have contributed to the literature on Hirschsprung's disease. Each expert ranked the diagnostic importance of each item using a Likert scale. In subsequent surveys, the same process was used, but the means and SDs from previous rounds were included as a way of influencing the experts toward consensus. Cronbach's α was used after each round to measure variability among the experts. Once consensus was reached, an overall “HAEC score” was developed by assigning a value of 1 or 2 to each item that was considered important by the expert panel. The score was then validated by circulating 10 clinical cases to the panel and asking if each represented HAEC or not.

Results

Twenty-seven experts completed the survey. Cronbach's α increased from 0.93 after the first round to 0.97 after the second. Criteria receiving the highest scores were diarrhea, explosive stools, abdominal distension, and radiologic evidence of bowel obstruction or mucosal edema. Eighteen items were included in the score. During the validation process, the score agreed with the experts in 9 of the 10 case scenarios.

Conclusion

The most important clinical diagnostic criteria for HAEC were identified from a larger pool of potential diagnostic items through a consensus approach using the Delphi method. A score was developed and validated and can now be used as a standardized and reproducible outcome measure for future studies in children with Hirschsprung's disease.     

American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery consensus statement on laparoscopic adjustable gastric band management

BackgroundLaparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) management continues to be an important part of many metabolic and bariatric surgery practices.ObjectivesTo replace the existing American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) LAGB adjustment credentialing guidelines for physician extenders with consensus statements that reflect the current state of LAGB management.SettingASMBS Integrated Health Clinical Issues Committee.MethodsA modified Delphi process using a 2-stage consensus approach was conducted on LAGB management. Thirty-four consensus statements were developed following a literature search on a wide range of LAGB topics. A 5-point Likert scale was implemented to measure consensus agreement with a Delphi panel of 39 expert participants who were invited and agreed to participate in 2 rounds of Delphi questionnaires. Consensus was set a priori at 75% agreement, defined as the proportion of participants responding with agreement (i.e., 4 or 5) or disagreement (i.e., 1 or 2) on the Likert scale.ResultsConsensus was reached on 74% (25 of 34) of the LAGB management statements. In Delphi round 1, 95% (37 of 39) of the participants responded to 34 consensus statements; 21 of the statements (62%) met the 75% criteria for consensus. Thirty-one participants (80%) responded in round 2, shifting the agreement on 4 more statements to the 75% threshold.ConclusionThe ASMBS consensus statement on LAGB management is intended to guide practice with current evidence-based knowledge and professional experience. The ASMBS is not a credentialing body and does not seek to guide credentialing with this document.     

Consensus on resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the Aorta: A first consensus paper using a Delphi method

BackgroundTo further strengthen the evidence base on the use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) we performed a Delphi consensus. The aim of this paper is to establish consensus on the indications and contraindications for the use of REBOA in trauma and non-trauma patients based on the existing evidence and expertise.Study DesignA literature review facilitated the design of a three-round Delphi questionnaire. Delphi panelists were identified by the investigators. Consensus was reached when at least 70% of the panelists responded to the survey and more than 70% of respondents reached agreement or disagreement.ResultsPanel members reached consensus on potential indications, contra-indications and settings for use of REBOA (excluding the pre hospital environment), physiological parameters for patient selection and indications for early femoral access. Panel members failed to reach consensus on the use of REBOA in patients in extremis (no pulse, no blood pressure) and the use of REBOA in patients with two major bleeding sites.ConclusionsConsensus was reached on indications, contra indications, physiological parameters for patient selection for REBOA and early femoral access. The panel did not reach consensus on the use of REBOA in patients in pre-hospital settings, patients in extremis (no pulse, no blood pressure) and in patients with 2 or more major bleeding sites. Further research should focus on the indications of REBOA in pre hospital settings, patients in near cardiac arrest and REBOA inflation times.     

Antimicrobial resistance in cystic fibrosis: A Delphi approach to defining best practices

BackgroundAntimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is a cornerstone of infection management in cystic fibrosis. However, there is little evidence that AST predicts the clinical outcome of CF antimicrobial treatment. It has been suggested there is a need for careful consideration of current AST use by the CF community.MethodsWe engaged a group of experts consisting of pulmonary (adult and pediatric) and infectious disease clinicians, microbiologists, and pharmacists representing a broad international experience. We conducted an iterative systematic survey (Delphi) to determine and quantify consensus regarding key questions facing CF clinicians in the use of respiratory culture results including what tests to order, when to obtain them, and how to act upon the results of the testing.ResultsConsensus was reached for many questions but there was not universal agreement to the questions that were addressed. There were some differences with respect to cultures obtained for surveillance compared to when there is clinical worsening. Areas of general consensus include when and how respiratory cultures should be performed, what information should be reported, and when AST should be performed. A key finding is that clinical response to treatment is used to guide treatment decisions rather than AST results.ConclusionsRecommendations are presented regarding questions related to microbiology testing for patients with CF. We have also offered recommendations for priority research questions.     

EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer—An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort2: Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees

BackgroundAlthough guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.ObjectiveTo bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DesignA 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 prior to voting during a consensus conference.SettingOnline Delphi survey and consensus conference.ParticipantsThe European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisStatements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), and 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 limitationsOverall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) 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.ConclusionsThese consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.Patient summaryThis report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.     

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease,Biochemical Relapse,and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BackgroundInnovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.ObjectiveTo present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.Design, setting, and participantsBefore the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisConsensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.Results and limitationsThe voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.ConclusionsThese voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.Patient summaryThe Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.