Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

Professor Hashim Ahmed

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer

Chair in Urology (Clinical)
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

hashim.ahmed

 
 
//

Location

 

5L28Lab BlockCharing Cross Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Donaldson:2014:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.018,
author = {Donaldson, IA and Alonzi, R and Barratt, D and Barret, E and Berge, V and Bott, S and Bottomley, D and Eggener, S and Ehdaie, B and Emberton, M and Hindley, R and Leslie, T and Miners, A and McCartan, N and Moore, CM and Pinto, P and Polascik, TJ and Simmons, L and van, der Meulen J and Villers, A and Willis, S and Ahmed, HU},
doi = {10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.018},
journal = {European Urology},
pages = {771--777},
title = {Focal Therapy: Patients, Interventions, and Outcomes-A Report from a Consensus Meeting},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.018},
volume = {67},
year = {2014}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Background: Focal therapy as a treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) isan increasingly popular and rapidly evolving field.Objective: To gather expert opinion on patient selection, interventions, and meaningfuloutcome measures for focal therapy in clinical practice and trial design.Design, setting, and participants: Fifteen experts in focal therapy followed a modifiedtwo-stage RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodologyprocess. All participants independently scored 246 statements prior to rescoring ata face-to-face meeting. The meeting occurred in June 2013 at the Royal Society ofMedicine, London, supported by the Wellcome Trust and the UK Department of Health.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Agreement, disagreement, or uncertaintywere calculated as the median panel score. Consensus was derived from theinterpercentile range adjusted for symmetry level.Results and limitations: Of 246 statements, 154 (63%) reached consensus. Items ofagreement included the following: patients with intermediate risk and patientswith unifocal and multifocal PCa are eligible for focal treatment; magnetic resonanceimaging–targeted or template-mapping biopsy should be used to plan treatment;planned treatment margins should be 5 mm from the known tumor; prostate volumeor age should not be a primary determinant of eligibility; foci of indolent cancer can beleft untreated when treating the dominant index lesion; histologic outcomes should bedefined by targeted biopsy at 1 yr; residual disease in the treated area of 3 mm ofGleason 3 + 3 did not need further treatment; and focal retreatment rates of 20%should be considered clinically acceptable but subsequent whole-gland therapy deemeda failure of focal therapy. All statements are expert opinion and therefore constitute level5 evidence and may not reflect wider clinical consensus.Conclusions: The landscape of PCa treatment is rapidly evolving with new treatmenttechnologies. This
AU  - Donaldson,IA
AU  - Alonzi,R
AU  - Barratt,D
AU  - Barret,E
AU  - Berge,V
AU  - Bott,S
AU  - Bottomley,D
AU  - Eggener,S
AU  - Ehdaie,B
AU  - Emberton,M
AU  - Hindley,R
AU  - Leslie,T
AU  - Miners,A
AU  - McCartan,N
AU  - Moore,CM
AU  - Pinto,P
AU  - Polascik,TJ
AU  - Simmons,L
AU  - van,der Meulen J
AU  - Villers,A
AU  - Willis,S
AU  - Ahmed,HU
DO  - 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.018
EP  - 777
PY  - 2014///
SN  - 0302-2838
SP  - 771
TI  - Focal Therapy: Patients, Interventions, and Outcomes-A Report from a Consensus Meeting
T2  - European Urology
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.018
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/53874
VL  - 67
ER  -
Download