Design and created by Guideline Central in participation with the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
American Society of Clinical Oncology
Publication Date: Jan 20, 2026
Page Last Updated: Feb 9, 2026
| Quality of Evidence | ||
|---|---|---|
| Term | Definitions | |
| H | - High | We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect |
| M | - Moderate | We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. |
| L | - Low | Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. |
| VL | - Very Low | We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. |
| Ins | - Insufficient | Evidence is insufficient to discern the true magnitude and direction of the net effect. Further research may better inform the topic. Reliance on consensus opinion of experts may be reasonable to provide guidance on the topic until better evidence is available. |
| Strength of Recommendation | ||
|---|---|---|
| Term | Definitions | |
| S | - Strong | In recommendations for an intervention, the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh its undesirable effects. In recommendations against an intervention, the undesirable effects of an intervention outweigh its desirable effects. All or almost all informed people would make the recommended choice for or against an intervention. |
| C W | - Conditional - Weak | In recommendations for an intervention, the desirable effects probably outweigh the undesirable effects, but appreciable uncertainty exists. In recommendations against an intervention, the undesirable effects probably outweigh the desirable effects, but appreciable uncertainty exists. Most informed people would choose the recommended course of action, but a substantial number would not. |
| GPS | Good Practice Statement | Good practice statements represent the consensus of the Expert Panel and are used when high quality indirect evidence is available, but it would not be a good use of the Expert Panel’s resources to conduct a formal systematic review |
| NR | - Not Rated | |
Brozek JL, Akl EA, Compalati E, et al: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations. Allergy 66:588-95, 2011
Taplin M, Riaz IB, Rumble RB, et al. Systemic Therapy in Men with Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Living Guideline Update, Version 2025.1. J Clin Oncol. 2026 Jan 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO-25-02693
Garje R, Riaz IB, Naqvi SA, et al. Systemic Therapy in Men with Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2025 May 2. doi: 10.1200/JCO-25-00007
Guideline Central and select third party use “cookies” on this website to enhance the user experience.
This technology helps us gather statistical and analytical information to optimize the relevant content for you.
The user also has the option to opt-out which may have an effect on the browsing experience.