Gynecologie, obstetrique, fertilite & senologie · 2021
[Non-genetic indications for risk reducing mastectomies: Guidelines of the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF)].
Клинические рекомендацииСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mathelin Carole, Barranger Emmanuel, Boisserie-Lacroix Martine, Boutet Gérard, Brousse Susie, Chabbert-Buffet Nathalie, Coutant Charles, Daraï Emile, Delpech Yann, Duraes Martha, Espié Marc, Fornecker Luc, Golfier François, Grosclaude Pascale, Hamy Anne Sophie, Kermarrec Edith, Lavoué Vincent, Lodi Massimo, Luporsi Élisabeth, Maugard Christine M, Molière Sébastien, Seror Jean-Yves, Taris Nicolas, Uzan Catherine, Vaysse Charlotte, Fritel Xavier
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of performing a risk-reducting mastectomy (RRM) in the absence of a deleterious variant of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, in 4 clinical situations at risk of breast cancer.
DESIGN: The CNGOF Commission of Senology, composed of 26 experts, developed these recommendations. A policy of declaration and monitoring of links of interest was applied throughout the process of making the recommendations. Similarly, the development of these recommendations did not benefit from any funding from a company marketing a health product. The Commission of Senology adhered to the AGREE II (Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare) criteria and followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. The potential drawbacks of making recommendations in the presence of poor quality or insufficient evidence were highlighted.
METHODS: The Commission of Senology considered 8 questions on 4 topics, focusing on histological, familial (no identified genetic abnormality), radiological (of unrecognized cancer), and radiation (history of Hodgkin's disease) risk. For each situation, it was determined whether performing RRM compared with surveillance would decrease the risk of developing breast cancer and/or increase survival.
RESULTS: The Commission of Senology synthesis and application of the GRADE method resulted in 11 recommendations, 6 with a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and 5 with a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±).
CONCLUSION: There was significant agreement among the Commission of Senology members on recommendations to improve practice for performing or not performing RRM in the clinical setting.
DESIGN: The CNGOF Commission of Senology, composed of 26 experts, developed these recommendations. A policy of declaration and monitoring of links of interest was applied throughout the process of making the recommendations. Similarly, the development of these recommendations did not benefit from any funding from a company marketing a health product. The Commission of Senology adhered to the AGREE II (Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare) criteria and followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. The potential drawbacks of making recommendations in the presence of poor quality or insufficient evidence were highlighted.
METHODS: The Commission of Senology considered 8 questions on 4 topics, focusing on histological, familial (no identified genetic abnormality), radiological (of unrecognized cancer), and radiation (history of Hodgkin's disease) risk. For each situation, it was determined whether performing RRM compared with surveillance would decrease the risk of developing breast cancer and/or increase survival.
RESULTS: The Commission of Senology synthesis and application of the GRADE method resulted in 11 recommendations, 6 with a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and 5 with a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±).
CONCLUSION: There was significant agreement among the Commission of Senology members on recommendations to improve practice for performing or not performing RRM in the clinical setting.