Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Guidelines are too important to be left to clinical experts

Mattias Johansson and Pär Stattin
CMAJ February 07, 2012 184 (2) 159-160; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.111989
Mattias Johansson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: johanssonm@iarc.fr
Pär Stattin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

See related research article by Dinnes and colleagues on page 169 and at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.110600

La guerre! C’est une chose trop grave pour la confier à des militaires.

(War is too important a matter to be left to the military.)

— Georges Clemenceau

To paraphrase the words of the late French statesman: guidelines are too important a matter to be left to clinical experts. That is the bottom line of the research article by Dinnes and colleagues1 on the extent to which clinical guidelines for monitoring prostate-specific antigen in patients after curative treatment for prostate cancer are based on the available scientific evidence.

The risk of recurrence and death from cancer varies widely in men with localized prostate cancer who have received curative treatment. This risk varies substantially depending on the extent and differentiation of the tumour, the status of the lymph nodes, the margins of the surgical specimen, in addition to the preoperative and postoperative serum levels of prostate-specific antigen. Thus, it would seem crucial that clinical guidelines with recommendations for monitoring patients whose prostate cancer has been curatively treated are based on high-quality scientific evidence.

In their recent paper, Dinnes and colleagues carefully evaluate the rigour of development of nine published guidelines using seven predefined criteria adapted from the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) framework.2 The authors conclude that the guidelines are inconsistent, and that the recommendations for “when to take action” are primarily based on consensus statements rather than scientific evidence.

Dinnes and colleagues highlight two reasons for the shortcomings they identified among the guidelines: inadequate use of available evidence and lack of data from appropriate studies in the literature. The inconsistencies in the specific recommendations among the nine guidelines were striking, and Dinnes and colleagues state “there does not appear to be any clear pattern in recommendations.”2 This observation strongly suggests that most published guidelines have shortcomings that decrease their value for guiding clinical practice. In addition, Dinnes and colleagues suggest that this is likely true for guidelines in all areas of clinical medicine.

The guideline published by The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) scored markedly better in the framework criteria than those issued by expert organizations.3 Indeed, it may come as no surprise that the institute, financed by the UK National Health Service, and specializing in providing guidelines for a wide range of disorders (with over 100 guidelines published to date), has developed rigorous methods. In particular, the guideline from NICE was the only one to consistently provide clear links between its specific recommendations and the underlying scientific evidence. However, it would appear that the apparent lack of formal scientific rigour among the other guidelines is a matter that could be easily remedied by collaborations between clinical experts and experts in the methodology of guideline development.

Although it is clear that existing evidence was not always optimally incorporated into the guidelines studied, there are limited data on the topic of monitoring patients with prostate cancer in the literature. This would seem a greater obstacle for the development of evidence-based guidelines than the lack of methodological rigour.

The gold standard study design in the evaluation of therapeutic strategies is the randomized controlled trial. However, comparing follow-up among men with localized prostate cancer is cumbersome because such cancers have a protracted clinical course that rarely leads to the patient’s death.4 Furthermore, a large proportion of men with prostate cancer are older, and their risk of death from other causes is substantial. Hence, such studies are both costly and time-consuming. Despite this lack of high-quality scientific data, testing serum levels of prostate-specific antigen is frequently used for the early detection of prostate cancer, its surveillance and detection of relapse after curative treatment.

Although there are some ongoing prospective observational studies on monitoring strategies for the active surveillance of men with low risk for prostate cancer,5–7 to the best of our knowledge, there are no clinical trials on optimal monitoring strategies for men who have received curative treatment. In fact, it was only recently that trials showed reduced mortality from prostate cancer due to systematic testing of serum levels of prostate-specific antigen among healthy men, followed by curative treatment after diagnosis is confirmed.8,9

Thus, there is limited evidence to support even basic decisions on managing prostate cancer, and even less regarding the specific issue investigated by Dinnes and colleagues: optimal monitoring using prostate-specific antigen in men who have received curative treatment for localized prostate cancer. Indeed, it is doubtful if there will ever be a sufficiently large randomized trial of monitoring patients with prostate cancer after curative treatment. As such, the developers of guidelines will have to base their recommendations on other sources of information in the foreseeable future.

In the absence of data from randomized trials, some knowledge may be gleaned from high-quality, population-based, cancer-specific registries.10,11 Although there are inherent pitfalls in the interpretation of observational studies, such as confounding by indication to treatment, if attention is paid to their design, these studies can provide valuable information (e.g., long-term outcomes when prostate cancer is treated using different strategies).12 Such data can subsequently be used in statistical modeling of the optimal use of prostate-specific antigen in surveillance, also accounting for competing risks.

The study by Dinnes and colleagues suggests that clinical experts would benefit from partnering with methodologists on the design of clinical guidelines and the extraction of data. Their survey highlights the urgent need for clinical trials in virtually all areas of clinical management of prostate cancer.

Key points
  • The lack of involvement of methodologists in the development of guidelines may result in recommendations that do not reflect the evidence.

  • Clinical experts should collaborate with methodologists on the design of clinical guidelines and the extraction of data.

  • There is an urgent need for clinical trials in virtually all areas of the clinical management of prostate cancer.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • This article was solicited and has not been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Mattias Johansson and Pär Stattin both contributed intellectually to this work, drafted the manuscript and approved the final version for publication.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Dinnes J,
    2. Hewison J,
    3. Altman D,
    4. et al
    . The basis for monitoring strategies in clinical guidelines: a case study of prostate-specific antigen for monitoring in prostate cancer. CMAJ 2012;184:169–77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:18–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. London (UK): The Institute; 2008.
  4. ↵
    1. Pound CR,
    2. Partin AW,
    3. Eisenberger MA,
    4. et al
    . Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999;281:1591–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Klotz L,
    2. Zhang L,
    3. Lam A,
    4. et al
    . Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:126–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. van den Bergh RC,
    2. Roemeling S,
    3. Roobol MJ,
    4. et al
    . Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007;52:1560–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    World Health Organization. A Swedish trial comparing two different follow-up schedules for patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance with selective, delayed treatment SAMS-FU. Geneva (Switzerland): The Organization; 2011. Available: http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/trial.aspx?trialid=ISRCTN64891728 (accessed 2011 Nov. 28).
  7. ↵
    1. Schröder FH,
    2. Hugosson J,
    3. Roobol MJ,
    4. et al
    . Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1320–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Hugosson J,
    2. Carlsson S,
    3. Aus G,
    4. et al
    . Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:725–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Hagel E,
    2. Garmo H,
    3. Bill-Axelson A,
    4. et al
    . PCBaSe Sweden: a register-based resource for prostate cancer research. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2009;43:342–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Adolfsson J,
    2. Garmo H,
    3. Varenhorst E,
    4. et al
    . Clinical characteristics and primary treatment of prostate cancer in Sweden between 1996 and 2005. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2007;41:456–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Stattin P,
    2. Holmberg E,
    3. Johansson JE,
    4. et al
    . Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:950–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 184 (2)
CMAJ
Vol. 184, Issue 2
7 Feb 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Guidelines are too important to be left to clinical experts
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Guidelines are too important to be left to clinical experts
Mattias Johansson, Pär Stattin
CMAJ Feb 2012, 184 (2) 159-160; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.111989

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Guidelines are too important to be left to clinical experts
Mattias Johansson, Pär Stattin
CMAJ Feb 2012, 184 (2) 159-160; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.111989
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • The basis for monitoring strategies in clinical guidelines: a case study of prostate-specific antigen for monitoring in prostate cancer
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Time to dismantle systemic anti-Black racism in medicine in Canada
  • Preventing the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into school settings
  • How should we move for health? The case for the 24-hour movement paradigm
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Addiction medicine

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire