Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A 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 before voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), 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 limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements 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 ...
<b><i>Background/Aims:</i></b> National Plans for Rare Diseases (RDs) are the common denominator of current public health policy concerns on RDs across the EU. With the aim of a better distribution of the available resources, they conjugate the European objective that aims at ensuring that patients with RDs have access to high-quality care - including diagnostics, treatment and rehabilitation - with the national priorities of selecting specific measures for adoption and implementation. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The European Project for Rare Diseases National Plans Development (EUROPLAN, www.europlanproject.eu) is cofunded by the EU Commission (DG-SANCO) and is coordinated by the Italian National Center for Rare Diseases of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS). The EUROPLAN goal is to promote the implementation of National Plans or Strategies to tackle RDs and share relevant experiences within countries, linking national efforts, through a common strategy at a European level. In order to fulfill these objectives, EUROPLAN involved health authorities, clinicians, scientists, the European Organisation for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS), and many other patient groups as associated and collaborating partners from several European countries. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The project was launched in 2008 and foresaw 2 implementation phases: phase 1 (2008-2011) to build the consensus definition of operational tools (recommendations and indicators), and the ongoing phase 2 (2012-2015), mainly aimed at capacity building with the proactive involvement of multilevel stakeholders. EUROPLAN is facilitating and accelerating the implementation of National Plans in almost all EU and several non-EU Countries. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> EUROPLAN is a European and an international process more than a project, and it could be defined as a 'litmus test' demonstrating how the collaboration between institutions and patients' associations can accelerate the process of awareness and development of policies and actions.
BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A 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 before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 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 LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements 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. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on ...
BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A 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 before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), 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 LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements 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. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on ...
In: Horwich , A , Babjuk , M , Bellmunt , J , Bruins , H M , de Reijke , T M , de Santis , M , Gillessen , S , James , N , Maclennan , S , Palou , J , Powles , T , Ribal , M J , Shariat , S F , van der Kwast , T , Xylinas , E , Agarwal , N , Arends , T , Bamias , A , Birtle , A , Black , P C , Bochner , B H , Bolla , M , Boormans , J L , Bossi , A , Briganti , A , Brummelhuis , I , Burger , M , Castellano , D , Cathomas , R , Chiti , A , Choudhury , A , Compérat , E , Crabb , S , Culine , S , de Bari , B , DeBlok , W , de Visschere , P J L , Decaestecker , K , Dimitropoulos , K , Dominguez-Escrig , J L , Fanti , S , Fonteyne , V , Frydenberg , M , Futterer , J J , Gakis , G , Geavlete , B , Gontero , P , Grubmüller , B , Hafeez , S , Hansel , D E , Hartmann , A , Hayne , D , Henry , A M , Hernandez , V , Herr , H , Herrmann , K , Hoskin , P , Huguet , J , Jereczek-Fossa , B A , Jones , R , Kamat , A M , Khoo , V , Kiltie , A E , Krege , S , Ladoire , S , Lara , P C , Leliveld , A , Linares-Espinós , E , Løgager , V , Lorch , A , Loriot , Y , Meijer , R , Carmen Mir , M , Moschini , M , Mostafid , H , Müller , A C , Müller , C R , N'Dow , J , Necchi , A , Neuzillet , Y , Oddens , J R , Oldenburg , J , Osanto , S , Oyen , W J G , Pacheco-Figueiredo , L , Pappot , H , Patel , M I , Pieters , B R , Plass , K , Remzi , M , Retz , M , Richenberg , J , Rink , M , Roghmann , F , Rosenberg , J E , Rouprêt , M , Rouvière , O , Salembier , C , Salminen , A , Sargos , P , Sengupta , S , Sherif , A , Smeenk , R J , Smits , A , Stenzl , A , Thalmann , G N , Tombal , B , Turkbey , B , Vahr Lauridsen , S , Valdagni , R , van der Heijden , A G , van Poppel , H , Vartolomei , M D , Veskimäe , E , Vilaseca , A , Vives Rivera , F A , Wiegel , T , Wiklund , P , Williams , A , Zigeuner , R & Witjes , J A 2019 , ' EAU–ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer—an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees ' , Annals of Oncology , vol. 30 , no. 11 , pp. 1697-1727 . https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz296
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A 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 before voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), 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 limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements 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. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.
ANPCyT, Argentina ; YerPhI, Armenia ; ARC, Australia ; BMWFW, Austria ; FWF, Austria ; ANAS, Azerbaijan ; SSTC, Belarus ; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) ; NSERC, Canada ; NRC, Canada ; CFI, Canada ; CERN ; CONICYT, Chile ; CAS, China ; MOST, China ; NSFC, China ; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia ; MSMT CR, Czech Republic ; MPO CR, Czech Republic ; VSC CR, Czech Republic ; DNRF, Denmark ; DNSRC, Denmark ; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DRF/IRFU, France ; SRNSFG, Georgia ; BMBF, Germany ; HGF, Germany ; MPG, Germany ; GSRT, Greece ; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China ; ISF, Israel ; Benoziyo Center, Israel ; INFN, Italy ; MEXT, Japan ; JSPS, Japan ; CNRST, Morocco ; NWO, Netherlands ; RCN, Norway ; MNiSW, Poland ; NCN, Poland ; FCT, Portugal ; MNE/IFA, Romania ; MES of Russia, Russian Federation ; NRC KI, Russian Federation ; JINR ; MESTD, Serbia ; MSSR, Slovakia ; ARRS, Slovenia ; MIZS, Slovenia ; DST/NRF, South Africa ; MINECO, Spain ; SRC, Sweden ; Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden ; SERI, Switzerland ; SNSF, Switzerland ; Canton of Bern, Switzerland ; MOST, Taiwan ; TAEK, Turkey ; STFC, United Kingdom ; DOE, United States of America ; NSF, United States of America ; BCKDF, Canada ; CANARIE, Canada ; CRC, Canada ; Compute Canada, Canada ; COST, European Union ; ERC, European Union ; ERDF, European Union ; Horizon 2020, European Union ; Marie Sk lodowska-Curie Actions, European Union ; Investissements d' Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, France ; DFG, Germany ; AvH Foundation, Germany ; Greek NSRF, Greece ; BSF-NSF, Israel ; GIF, Israel ; CERCA Programme Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain ; Royal Society, United Kingdom ; Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom ; BMBWF (Austria) ; FWF (Austria) ; FNRS (Belgium) ; FWO (Belgium) ; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) ; FAPERGS (Brazil) ; MES (Bulgaria) ; CAS (China) ; MoST (China) ; NSFC (China) ; COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) ; MSES (Croatia) ; CSF (Croatia) ; RPF (Cyprus) ; SENESCYT (Ecuador) ; MoER (Estonia) ; ERC IUT (Estonia) ; ERDF (Estonia) ; Academy of Finland (Finland) ; MEC (Finland) ; HIP (Finland) ; CEA (France) ; CNRS/IN2P3 (France) ; BMBF (Germany) ; DFG (Germany) ; HGF (Germany) ; GSRT (Greece) ; NKFIA (Hungary) ; DAE (India) ; DST (India) ; IPM (Iran) ; SFI (Ireland) ; INFN (Italy) ; MSIP (Republic of Korea) ; NRF (Republic of Korea) ; MES (Latvia) ; LAS (Lithuania) ; MOE (Malaysia) ; UM (Malaysia) ; BUAP (Mexico) ; CINVESTAV (Mexico) ; CONACYT (Mexico) ; LNS (Mexico) ; SEP (Mexico) ; UASLP-FAI (Mexico) ; MOS (Montenegro) ; MBIE (New Zealand) ; PAEC (Pakistan) ; MSHE (Poland) ; NSC (Poland) ; FCT (Portugal) ; JINR (Dubna) ; MON (Russia) ; RosAtom (Russia) ; RAS (Russia) ; RFBR (Russia) ; NRC KI (Russia) ; MESTD (Serbia) ; SEIDI (Spain) ; CPAN (Spain) ; PCTI (Spain) ; FEDER (Spain) ; MOSTR (Sri Lanka) ; MST (Taipei) ; ThEPCenter (Thailand) ; IPST (Thailand) ; STAR (Thailand) ; NSTDA (Thailand) ; TAEK (Turkey) ; NASU (Ukraine) ; SFFR (Ukraine) ; STFC (United Kingdom ; DOE (U.S.A.) ; NSF (U.S.A.) ; Marie-Curie programme ; Horizon 2020 Grant (European Union) ; Leventis Foundation ; A.P. Sloan Foundation ; Alexander von Humboldt Foundation ; Belgian Federal Science Policy Office ; Fonds pour la Formation a la Recherche dans l'Industrie et dans l'Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium) ; Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium) ; F.R.S.-FNRS (Belgium) ; Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission ; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic ; Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Hungary) ; New National Excellence Program UNKP (Hungary) ; Council of Science and Industrial Research, India ; HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for Polish Science ; European Union, Regional Development Fund ; Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education ; National Science Center (Poland) ; National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund ; Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigacion Cientfica y Tecnica de Excelencia Maria de Maeztu ; Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias ; EU-ESF ; Greek NSRF ; Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University (Thailand) ; Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand) ; Welch Foundation ; Weston Havens Foundation (U.S.A.) ; Canton of Geneva, Switzerland ; Herakleitos programme ; Thales programme ; Aristeia programme ; European Research Council (European Union) ; Horizon 2020 Grant (European Union): 675440 ; FWO (Belgium): 30820817 ; Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission: Z181100004218003 ; NKFIA (Hungary): 123842 ; NKFIA (Hungary): 123959 ; NKFIA (Hungary): 124845 ; NKFIA (Hungary): 124850 ; NKFIA (Hungary): 125105 ; National Science Center (Poland): Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428 ; National Science Center (Poland): Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543 ; National Science Center (Poland): 2014/15/B/ST2/03998 ; National Science Center (Poland): 2015/19/B/ST2/02861 ; National Science Center (Poland): Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406 ; Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigacion Cientfica y Tecnica de Excelencia Maria de Maeztu: MDM-2015-0509 ; Welch Foundation: C-1845 ; This paper presents the combinations of single-top-quark production cross-section measurements by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, using data from LHC proton-proton collisions at = 7 and 8 TeV corresponding to integrated luminosities of 1.17 to 5.1 fb(-1) at = 7 TeV and 12.2 to 20.3 fb(-1) at = 8 TeV. These combinations are performed per centre-of-mass energy and for each production mode: t-channel, tW, and s-channel. The combined t-channel cross-sections are 67.5 +/- 5.7 pb and 87.7 +/- 5.8 pb at = 7 and 8 TeV respectively. The combined tW cross-sections are 16.3 +/- 4.1 pb and 23.1 +/- 3.6 pb at = 7 and 8 TeV respectively. For the s-channel cross-section, the combination yields 4.9 +/- 1.4 pb at = 8 TeV. The square of the magnitude of the CKM matrix element V-tb multiplied by a form factor f(LV) is determined for each production mode and centre-of-mass energy, using the ratio of the measured cross-section to its theoretical prediction. It is assumed that the top-quark-related CKM matrix elements obey the relation |V-td|, |V-ts| « |V-tb|. All the |f(LV)V(tb)|(2) determinations, extracted from individual ratios at = 7 and 8 TeV, are combined, resulting in |f(LV)V(tb)| = 1.02 +/- 0.04 (meas.) +/- 0.02 (theo.). All combined measurements are consistent with their corresponding Standard Model predictions.