A structured literature review to determine the use of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition of biochemical failure

Kevin P. McMullen, W. Robert Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition (ACD) of biochemical failure after radiotherapy for prostate cancer requires three consecutive prostate-specific antigen increases from a nadir value. The members of the Consensus Panel recognized that the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen determinations could affect the comparability among different reports if this definition was used. For this reason, the Consensus Panel members recommended three guidelines for studies presented for publication (publication guidelines [PGs]). The present analysis examined the extent to which the ACD has been used in the peer-reviewed published literature and how frequently the PGs have been followed. Methods. A structured literature review of 10 relevant journals was done. The inclusion criteria for the literature review required publication in calendar year 1999 or 2000; treatment with external beam radiotherapy and/or brachytherapy for previously untreated, nonmetastatic prostate cancer; and the use of a prostate-specific antigen-defined disease-free endpoint. A standardized checklist was created and completed by both of the authors. We independently reviewed each publication to determine whether the ACD of biochemical failure was used and whether the PGs were followed. Discrepancies between us were resolved by joint review of each publication in question to achieve a consensus. Results. Fifty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The median number of patients in the articles reviewed was 302 (range 22 to 2222). The ACD was followed in 37 (64.9%) of 57 articles. None of the reviewed articles followed all three PGs. In five articles (8.7%), two of the three PGs were followed. The vast majority of the articles reviewed (52 of 57, 91.3%) followed one or none of the PGs recommended by the Consensus Panel. Conclusions. The ACD was used in two thirds of peer-reviewed published articles. The PGs were followed much less frequently. Consistent standards of reporting have not been uniformly applied to peer-reviewed manuscripts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)391-396
Number of pages6
JournalUrology
Volume61
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Publications
Guidelines
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Prostatic Neoplasms
Radiotherapy
Manuscripts
Brachytherapy
Checklist

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

A structured literature review to determine the use of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition of biochemical failure. / McMullen, Kevin P.; Lee, W. Robert.

In: Urology, Vol. 61, No. 2, 01.02.2003, p. 391-396.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ff712b55324f48fd875b2583546bf812,
title = "A structured literature review to determine the use of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition of biochemical failure",
abstract = "Objectives. The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition (ACD) of biochemical failure after radiotherapy for prostate cancer requires three consecutive prostate-specific antigen increases from a nadir value. The members of the Consensus Panel recognized that the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen determinations could affect the comparability among different reports if this definition was used. For this reason, the Consensus Panel members recommended three guidelines for studies presented for publication (publication guidelines [PGs]). The present analysis examined the extent to which the ACD has been used in the peer-reviewed published literature and how frequently the PGs have been followed. Methods. A structured literature review of 10 relevant journals was done. The inclusion criteria for the literature review required publication in calendar year 1999 or 2000; treatment with external beam radiotherapy and/or brachytherapy for previously untreated, nonmetastatic prostate cancer; and the use of a prostate-specific antigen-defined disease-free endpoint. A standardized checklist was created and completed by both of the authors. We independently reviewed each publication to determine whether the ACD of biochemical failure was used and whether the PGs were followed. Discrepancies between us were resolved by joint review of each publication in question to achieve a consensus. Results. Fifty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The median number of patients in the articles reviewed was 302 (range 22 to 2222). The ACD was followed in 37 (64.9{\%}) of 57 articles. None of the reviewed articles followed all three PGs. In five articles (8.7{\%}), two of the three PGs were followed. The vast majority of the articles reviewed (52 of 57, 91.3{\%}) followed one or none of the PGs recommended by the Consensus Panel. Conclusions. The ACD was used in two thirds of peer-reviewed published articles. The PGs were followed much less frequently. Consistent standards of reporting have not been uniformly applied to peer-reviewed manuscripts.",
author = "McMullen, {Kevin P.} and Lee, {W. Robert}",
year = "2003",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02259-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "61",
pages = "391--396",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A structured literature review to determine the use of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition of biochemical failure

AU - McMullen, Kevin P.

AU - Lee, W. Robert

PY - 2003/2/1

Y1 - 2003/2/1

N2 - Objectives. The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition (ACD) of biochemical failure after radiotherapy for prostate cancer requires three consecutive prostate-specific antigen increases from a nadir value. The members of the Consensus Panel recognized that the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen determinations could affect the comparability among different reports if this definition was used. For this reason, the Consensus Panel members recommended three guidelines for studies presented for publication (publication guidelines [PGs]). The present analysis examined the extent to which the ACD has been used in the peer-reviewed published literature and how frequently the PGs have been followed. Methods. A structured literature review of 10 relevant journals was done. The inclusion criteria for the literature review required publication in calendar year 1999 or 2000; treatment with external beam radiotherapy and/or brachytherapy for previously untreated, nonmetastatic prostate cancer; and the use of a prostate-specific antigen-defined disease-free endpoint. A standardized checklist was created and completed by both of the authors. We independently reviewed each publication to determine whether the ACD of biochemical failure was used and whether the PGs were followed. Discrepancies between us were resolved by joint review of each publication in question to achieve a consensus. Results. Fifty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The median number of patients in the articles reviewed was 302 (range 22 to 2222). The ACD was followed in 37 (64.9%) of 57 articles. None of the reviewed articles followed all three PGs. In five articles (8.7%), two of the three PGs were followed. The vast majority of the articles reviewed (52 of 57, 91.3%) followed one or none of the PGs recommended by the Consensus Panel. Conclusions. The ACD was used in two thirds of peer-reviewed published articles. The PGs were followed much less frequently. Consistent standards of reporting have not been uniformly applied to peer-reviewed manuscripts.

AB - Objectives. The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition (ACD) of biochemical failure after radiotherapy for prostate cancer requires three consecutive prostate-specific antigen increases from a nadir value. The members of the Consensus Panel recognized that the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen determinations could affect the comparability among different reports if this definition was used. For this reason, the Consensus Panel members recommended three guidelines for studies presented for publication (publication guidelines [PGs]). The present analysis examined the extent to which the ACD has been used in the peer-reviewed published literature and how frequently the PGs have been followed. Methods. A structured literature review of 10 relevant journals was done. The inclusion criteria for the literature review required publication in calendar year 1999 or 2000; treatment with external beam radiotherapy and/or brachytherapy for previously untreated, nonmetastatic prostate cancer; and the use of a prostate-specific antigen-defined disease-free endpoint. A standardized checklist was created and completed by both of the authors. We independently reviewed each publication to determine whether the ACD of biochemical failure was used and whether the PGs were followed. Discrepancies between us were resolved by joint review of each publication in question to achieve a consensus. Results. Fifty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The median number of patients in the articles reviewed was 302 (range 22 to 2222). The ACD was followed in 37 (64.9%) of 57 articles. None of the reviewed articles followed all three PGs. In five articles (8.7%), two of the three PGs were followed. The vast majority of the articles reviewed (52 of 57, 91.3%) followed one or none of the PGs recommended by the Consensus Panel. Conclusions. The ACD was used in two thirds of peer-reviewed published articles. The PGs were followed much less frequently. Consistent standards of reporting have not been uniformly applied to peer-reviewed manuscripts.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037319255&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037319255&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02259-8

DO - 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02259-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 12597954

AN - SCOPUS:0037319255

VL - 61

SP - 391

EP - 396

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 2

ER -