Purpose

The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical strategy for the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Materials and methods

A systematic review of the literature using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1965 to 7/29/17) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strength Grade A, B, or C and were designated as Strong, Moderate, and Conditional Recommendations with additional statements presented in the form of Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions.

Results

The American Urological Association has developed an evidence-based guideline on the management of erectile dysfunction. This document is designed to be used in conjunction with the associated treatment algorithm.

Conclusions

Using the shared decision-making process as a cornerstone for care, all patients should be informed of all treatment modalities that are not contraindicated, regardless of invasiveness or irreversibility, as potential first-line treatments. For each treatment, the clinician should ensure that the man and his partner have a full understanding of the benefits and risk/burdens associated with that choice.

The Princeton Consensus (Expert Panel) Conference is a multispecialty collaborative tradition dedicated to optimizing sexual function and preserving cardiovascular health. The third Princeton Consensus met November 8 to 10, 2010, and had 2 primary objectives. The first objective focused on the evaluation and management of cardiovascular risk in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) and no known cardiovascular disease (CVD), with particular emphasis on identification of men with ED who may require additional cardiologic work-up. The second objective focused on reevaluation and modification of previous recommendations for evaluation of cardiac risk associated with sexual activity in men with known CVD. The Panel's recommendations build on those developed during the first and second Princeton Consensus Conferences, first emphasizing the use of exercise ability and stress testing to ensure that each man's cardiovascular health is consistent with the physical demands of sexual activity before prescribing treatment for ED, and second highlighting the link between ED and CVD, which may be asymptomatic and may benefit from cardiovascular risk reduction.

Purpose

The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of Peyronie's disease.

Materials and methods

A systematic review of the literature using the PubMed®, EMBASE® and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1965 to 1/26/15) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of PD. The review yielded an evidence base of 303 articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Results

The systematic review was used to create guideline statements regarding treatment of PD. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high quality evidence; high certainty), B (moderate quality evidence; moderate certainty), or C (low quality evidence; low certainty). Evidence-based statements of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendation were developed based on benefits and risks/burdens to patients. Additional consensus statements related to the diagnosis of PD are provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions due to insufficient published evidence.

Conclusions

There is a continually expanding literature on PD; the Panel notes that this document constitutes a clinical strategy and is not intended to be interpreted rigidly. The most effective approach for a particular patient is best determined by the individual clinician and patient in the context of that patient's history, values, and goals for treatment. As the science relevant to PD evolves and improves, the strategies presented here will be amended to remain consistent with the highest standards of clinical care.

Purpose

Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services.

Methods

A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider).

Results

Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing-initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing-was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches.

Conclusion

This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.