Dr. Todd Morgan

Radiation oncologists have such a huge leadership role in this space, medical oncologists, and all of those collaborations, radiologists are really important. And we really, as we went through the process, we really tried to listen to each other, learn from each other. And I think that that led to a guideline that I'm really proud of.

Radiation oncologists have such a huge leadership role in this space, medical oncologists, and all of those collaborations, radiologists are really important. And we really, as we went through the process, we really tried to listen to each other, learn from each other. And I think that that led to a guideline that I'm really proud of.

I'm sure that's laughable, but okay, fine. No chance of that. No chance of that.

I'm sure that's laughable, but okay, fine. No chance of that. No chance of that.

I'm sure that's laughable, but okay, fine. No chance of that. No chance of that.

We started with a number of us really honing in on what are the key questions that we want to address, kind of the pie in the sky. And the AUA has a really great process, and it's unique to the AUA, different from, you know, NCCN, for example, where the AUA has a methodologist. And it's really intended to lock us in on the best evidence that supports the questions we're trying to answer.

We started with a number of us really honing in on what are the key questions that we want to address, kind of the pie in the sky. And the AUA has a really great process, and it's unique to the AUA, different from, you know, NCCN, for example, where the AUA has a methodologist. And it's really intended to lock us in on the best evidence that supports the questions we're trying to answer.

We started with a number of us really honing in on what are the key questions that we want to address, kind of the pie in the sky. And the AUA has a really great process, and it's unique to the AUA, different from, you know, NCCN, for example, where the AUA has a methodologist. And it's really intended to lock us in on the best evidence that supports the questions we're trying to answer.

And so when the methodology review happens out of OHSU, when the methodology review happens, that we kind of end up with some of those questions that we want to address. We just don't have data for. And we have to be realistic about that and say, OK, well, there are some things we're going to have to put a pin in for, you know, future revision or update to the guideline.

And so when the methodology review happens out of OHSU, when the methodology review happens, that we kind of end up with some of those questions that we want to address. We just don't have data for. And we have to be realistic about that and say, OK, well, there are some things we're going to have to put a pin in for, you know, future revision or update to the guideline.

And so when the methodology review happens out of OHSU, when the methodology review happens, that we kind of end up with some of those questions that we want to address. We just don't have data for. And we have to be realistic about that and say, OK, well, there are some things we're going to have to put a pin in for, you know, future revision or update to the guideline.

But we can't actually, with evidence, comment on that. So that actually happens really before we get started. We develop the questions. There's the methodology review. Then we start to get together as a group and start meeting. And then we divvy up basically subcommittees with questions.

But we can't actually, with evidence, comment on that. So that actually happens really before we get started. We develop the questions. There's the methodology review. Then we start to get together as a group and start meeting. And then we divvy up basically subcommittees with questions.

But we can't actually, with evidence, comment on that. So that actually happens really before we get started. We develop the questions. There's the methodology review. Then we start to get together as a group and start meeting. And then we divvy up basically subcommittees with questions.

sets of questions, key areas that we say, okay, let's propose some initial guidelines to, you know, answering those questions based on the evidence that we're looking at. And so, you know, it's really iterative on that. So the committees meet, propose guidelines. We meet again as a group.

sets of questions, key areas that we say, okay, let's propose some initial guidelines to, you know, answering those questions based on the evidence that we're looking at. And so, you know, it's really iterative on that. So the committees meet, propose guidelines. We meet again as a group.

sets of questions, key areas that we say, okay, let's propose some initial guidelines to, you know, answering those questions based on the evidence that we're looking at. And so, you know, it's really iterative on that. So the committees meet, propose guidelines. We meet again as a group.

We keep hammering away until we have this, you know, set of 30 or so statements that we feel really comfortable with. And then we all do the writing. And so that's divvied up by everybody. And the AUA is a huge, huge help behind the scenes. You know, helping keep us on track, helping with writing, you know, parts of the methodology. And so it's a team game, big time.

We keep hammering away until we have this, you know, set of 30 or so statements that we feel really comfortable with. And then we all do the writing. And so that's divvied up by everybody. And the AUA is a huge, huge help behind the scenes. You know, helping keep us on track, helping with writing, you know, parts of the methodology. And so it's a team game, big time.

We keep hammering away until we have this, you know, set of 30 or so statements that we feel really comfortable with. And then we all do the writing. And so that's divvied up by everybody. And the AUA is a huge, huge help behind the scenes. You know, helping keep us on track, helping with writing, you know, parts of the methodology. And so it's a team game, big time.