Cargando…

Consensus Procedures in Oncological Imaging: The Case of Prostate Cancer

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fanti, Stefano, Oyen, Wim, Lalumera, Elisabetta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6896040/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31739425
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers11111788
_version_ 1783476692520534016
author Fanti, Stefano
Oyen, Wim
Lalumera, Elisabetta
author_facet Fanti, Stefano
Oyen, Wim
Lalumera, Elisabetta
author_sort Fanti, Stefano
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6896040
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68960402019-12-23 Consensus Procedures in Oncological Imaging: The Case of Prostate Cancer Fanti, Stefano Oyen, Wim Lalumera, Elisabetta Cancers (Basel) Article 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. MDPI 2019-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6896040/ /pubmed/31739425 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers11111788 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Fanti, Stefano
Oyen, Wim
Lalumera, Elisabetta
Consensus Procedures in Oncological Imaging: The Case of Prostate Cancer
title Consensus Procedures in Oncological Imaging: The Case of Prostate Cancer
title_full Consensus Procedures in Oncological Imaging: The Case of Prostate Cancer
title_fullStr Consensus Procedures in Oncological Imaging: The Case of Prostate Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Consensus Procedures in Oncological Imaging: The Case of Prostate Cancer
title_short Consensus Procedures in Oncological Imaging: The Case of Prostate Cancer
title_sort consensus procedures in oncological imaging: the case of prostate cancer
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6896040/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31739425
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers11111788
work_keys_str_mv AT fantistefano consensusproceduresinoncologicalimagingthecaseofprostatecancer
AT oyenwim consensusproceduresinoncologicalimagingthecaseofprostatecancer
AT lalumeraelisabetta consensusproceduresinoncologicalimagingthecaseofprostatecancer