Table 1 Characteristics of the studies assessing patient selection in focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Eggener et al. [6]

NA

14 experts were included in the paper, but the total no of contributors was not mentioned.

International multidisciplinary group with expertise in prostate cancer (surgeons, radiotherapists, medical oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists)

de la Rosette et al. [7]

3-stage informal consensus process during an in-person meeting (NA)

22 experts

15 urologists, 3 radiologists, 3 radiation oncologists, and 1 pathologist

Ahmed et al. [32]

In person break-out sessions followed by a group agreement (NA)

46 experts

17 urologists, 13 radiologists, 3 radiation oncologists, 1 oncologist, 1 pathologist, 1 biostatistician, and 10 other physicians and scientists

Muller et al. [31]

3-stage informal consensus process during an in-person meeting (NA)

16 experts

9 urologists, 5 radiologists, and 2 basic researchers

van den Bos et al. [8]

4-stage Delphi; 3 online and 1 in person (NA)

48 experts. The response rates for the questionnaires were 88%, 85%, and 96% in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

35 urologists, 6 radiologists, 2 radiation oncologist, 2 pathologists, 2 surgeons, and 1 from surgery and interventional science

Donaldson et al. [9]

Modified 2-stage RAND/UCLA appropriateness method followed by an in-person meeting (IPRAS score >0)

15 voting members, 1 independent chairperson with expertise in consensus methodology, and 4 nonvoting observers.

Among 15 voting members, 13 were urologists and 2 oncologists

Scheltema et al. [14]

4-stage Delphi; 3 online and 1 in person (agreement >80%)

90 out of 166 (54%) accepted the invitation, and the response rate was 100% (90/90), 94% (85/90), 88% (79/90) for rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

Among 78 experts who completed the 3 rounds, 72% were urologists, 16% radiologists, 3% pathologists, 3% radiation oncologists and 6% scientists.

Tay et al. [10]

4-stage Delphi; 3 online followed by 1 in person (agreement >80%)

First round: 51 out of 113 (45%); Second and third rounds: response rate 92.1% (47 in each round); Fourth round: 16 experts, all of whom had completed three online rounds.

70% urologists, 11% radiologists, 9% physicist/researchers, 4% radiation oncologists, 2% medical oncologists, 2% pathologists, 2% interventional urologic oncologists.

van Luijtelaar et al. [11]

4-stage Delphi method (NA)

37 out of 75 (49%) accepted the invitation. Response rates were 100% (37/37), 70% (26/37), 68% (25/37), and 65% (24/37) for rounds 1 to 4, respectively.

19 (51%) urologists, 14 (38%) (interventional) radiologists, 1 (3%) radiation oncologist, 1 (3%) researcher, 1 (3%) technical physician, and 1 (3%) engineer.

Tan et al. [13]

4-stage Delphi; 3 online followed by 1 in person (agreement ≥ 80%)

56 out of 91 (61%) filled out the initial survey. Response rates for the second and third rounds were 100% (56/56) and 88% (49/56), respectively. A total of 17 panelists attended the face-to-face meeting.

84% urologists, 14% radiologists, 2% radiation oncologist.

Borkowetz et al. [12]

Group consensus (strong consent >95%, consent 75–95%, major consent 50–75%, dissent < 50%)

18 German experts

Urologists, radio-oncologists, radiologist, and pathologist.