Consensus Methodology

How We Build Clinically Relevant, Expert-Informed Guidance

The CureTestis.org consensus process is designed to generate meaningful, real-world recommendations for the management of complex or controversial scenarios in testicular cancer, particularly where high-level evidence is lacking or outdated. Our goal is to promote transparency, multidisciplinary engagement, and clinical relevance.

Step 1: Question Development

Each consensus cycle begins with the identification of key clinical questions through consultation with experts in medical oncology, urology, radiation oncology, pathology, and survivorship care. Questions are selected based on current gaps in guidelines, real-world dilemmas, or emerging areas of research and practice.

Questions are framed to reflect:

• Practical treatment decisions

• Risk stratification and sequencing

• Diagnostic uncertainty or imaging interpretation

• Regional variations in access to care

Step 2: Pre-Voting Circulation and Refinement

Draft questions are circulated among participating experts for review and feedback. During this phase:

• Wording is clarified to avoid ambiguity

• Options are adjusted to reflect true clinical variation

• Additional questions may be suggested based on emerging needs

This iterative process ensures that each question is clinically grounded, clearly stated, and directly applicable to patient care.

Step 3: Structured Voting

Finalized questions are distributed to the expert panel for structured voting. Experts are asked to select the approach they would most likely recommend in routine clinical practice, based on available evidence, experience, and local context.

Voting is conducted anonymously to reduce bias and encourage honest responses. Results are aggregated and prepared for discussion.

Step 4: Consensus Meeting and Discussion

Voting results and divergent responses are reviewed during a live, full-day webinar. Experts engage in moderated discussions to:

• Interpret the range of responses

• Discuss rationale behind differing approaches

• Consider regional, institutional, and patient-specific factors

Where a strong majority emerges, these recommendations are marked as consensus. Areas of substantial disagreement are highlighted transparently to inform individualized clinical judgment.

Final Output

Following the meeting, key insights are compiled into:

• Consensus Summaries: Including majority responses and voting distribution

• Practice Briefs: One-page clinical reference tools

• Discussion Reports: Offering rationale for both consensus and non-consensus areas

All content is made freely available on CureTestis.org and is updated periodically based on new data and evolving practice.