4.1 Review

Australian & New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group: 2010 consensus guidelines for definitive external beam radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 6, Pages 513-525

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02214.x

Keywords

consensus development conference; intensity-modulated radiotherapy; practice guidelines; prostatic neoplasms; radiotherapy dosage

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>External beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer has undergone substantial technological and clinical advances in the recent years. The Australian & New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group undertook a process to develop consensus clinical practice guidelines for external beam radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma delivered with curative intent, aiming to provide guidance for clinicians on the appropriate integration of clinical evidence and newer technologies. Draft guidelines were presented and discussed at a consensus workshop in May 2009 attended by radiation oncologists, radiation therapists and medical physicists. Amended guidelines were distributed to radiation oncologists in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore for comment, and modifications were incorporated where appropriate. Evidence based recommendations for risk stratification, the role of image-guided and intensity-modulated radiation therapy, prescribed dose, simulation and treatment planning, the role and duration of neo-adjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and outcome reporting are presented. Central to the guidelines is the recommendation that image-guided radiation therapy should be used when definitive external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer is prescribed. The consensus guidelines provide a co-operatively developed, evidence-based framework for contemporary treatment of prostate cancer with external beam radiotherapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available