Urological cancer care pathways: development and use in the context of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines

Sara Jane MacLennan, Steven J. MacLennan, Sam McClinton, T. R. Leyshon Griffiths, Philipp Dahm, James N'Dow, Michael Aitchison, Peter Albers, Marek Babjuk, John Calleary, James Catto, Mari Imamura, Nicholas Cohen, Phillip Conford, Norman Dublin, Steven Finney, David Gillatt, Rakesh Heer, Axel Heidenreich, Simon HorenblasMuhammad Imran Omar, Ann-Maree Kennedy, Roger Kockelbergh, Marie Carmela Lapitan, Börje Ljungberg, Graham Macdonald, Malcolm Mason, Said Mishriki, Luke Vale, Leslie Moffat, Linda Pennet, Giorgio Pizzocaro, Andrew Protheroe, Bhavan Rai, Katie Schumm, Thomas Lam, Mike Shelley, Andreas Skolarikos, Duncan Summerton, Nick Watkin, Timothy J. Wilt, Pamela Royle, Justine Royle, Satchi Swami, Rob Pickard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)


Background: Making healthcare treatment decisions is a complex process involving a broad stakeholder base including patients, their families, health professionals, clinical practice guideline developers and funders of healthcare. Methods: This paper presents a review of a methodology for the development of urological cancer care pathways (UCAN care pathways), which reflects an appreciation of this broad stakeholder base. The methods section includes an overview of the steps in the development of the UCAN care pathways and engagement with clinical content experts and patient groups. Results: The development process is outlined, the uses of the urological cancer care pathways discussed and the implications for clinical practice highlighted. The full set of UCAN care pathways is published in this paper. These include care pathways on localised prostate cancer, locally advanced prostate cancer, metastatic prostate cancer, hormone-resistant prostate cancer, localised renal cell cancer, advanced renal cell cancer, testicular cancer, penile cancer, muscle invasive and metastatic bladder cancer and non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Conclusion: The process provides a useful framework for improving urological cancer care through evidence synthesis, research prioritisation, stakeholder involvement and international collaboration. Although the focus of this work is urological cancers, the methodology can be applied to all aspects of urology and is transferable to other clinical specialties.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)291-301
Number of pages11
JournalWorld Journal of Urology
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes


  • Urological cancer
  • Care pathways
  • Systematic review
  • Clinical practice guidelines


Dive into the research topics of 'Urological cancer care pathways: development and use in the context of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this