{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011896431070678797, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.271929824561403, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of UK and European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for kidney cancer management

Clinical practice frequently utilises guidelines on how specific conditions should be managed. For urologists in the UK a range of sources are used as guidelines for the management of kidney cancer. These include documents from national bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), professional bodies as well as those prepared by individual groups of clinicians within regional cancer networks. In this article the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on renal cell carcinoma are compared to guidelines used in the UK for this disease. Broadly consistent variations exist related to regional practice patterns, funding and the currency of the various guidelines. A specific strength of the EAU guidelines is the regular updating of these allowing incorporation of new evidence. These however do not consider the funding model for healthcare of the UK which dictates the availability of some treatment modalities and thus in some areas are not applicable. Current guidelines for kidney cancer developed within the UK are inconsistent and often outdated in terms of evidence sources. Broader use of the EAU guidelines within the economic restrictions of healthcare in the UK may result in a more consistent practise utilising current evidence sources in the management of kidney cancer.