Search

Background: There are important unmet clinical needs to develop cell enrichment technologies to enable unbiased label-free isolation of both single cell and clusters of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) manifesting heterogeneous lineage specificity. Here, we report a pilot study based on the microfluidic acoustophoresis enrichment of CTCs using the CellSearch CTC assay as a reference modality. Methods: Acoustophoresis uses an ultrasonic standing wave field to separate cells based on biomechanical properties (size, density, and compressibility), resulting in inherently label-free and epitope-independent cell enrichment. Following red blood cell lysis and paraformaldehyde fixation, 6 mL of whole blood from 12 patients with metastatic prostate cancer and 20 healthy controls were processed with acoustophoresis and subsequent image cytometry. Results: Acoustophoresis enabled enrichment and characterization of phenotypic CTCs (EpCAM+, Cytokeratin+, DAPI+, CD45-/CD66b-) in all patients with metastatic prostate cancer and detected CTC-clusters composed of only CTCs or heterogeneous aggregates of CTCs clustered with various types of white blood cells in 9 out of 12 patients. By contrast, CellSearch did not detect any CTC clusters, but detected comparable numbers of phenotypic CTCs as acoustophoresis, with trends of finding a higher number of CTCs using acoustophoresis. Conclusion: Our preliminary data indicate that acoustophoresis provides excellent possibilities to detect and characterize CTC clusters as a putative marker of metastatic disease and outcomes. Moreover, acoustophoresis enables the sensitive label-free enrichment of cells with epithelial phenotypes in blood and offers opportunities to detect and characterize CTCs undergoing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transitioning and lineage plasticity.

Background: There are important unmet clinical needs to develop cell enrichment technologies to enable unbiased label-free isolation of both single cell and clusters of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) manifesting heterogeneous lineage specificity. Here, we report a pilot study based on the microfluidic acoustophoresis enrichment of CTCs using the CellSearch CTC assay as a reference modality. Methods: Acoustophoresis uses an ultrasonic standing wave field to separate cells based on biomechanical properties (size, density, and compressibility), resulting in inherently label-free and epitope-independent cell enrichment. Following red blood cell lysis and paraformaldehyde fixation, 6 mL of whole blood from 12 patients with metastatic prostate cancer and 20 healthy controls were processed with acoustophoresis and subsequent image cytometry. Results: Acoustophoresis enabled enrichment and characterization of phenotypic CTCs (EpCAM+, Cytokeratin+, DAPI+, CD45-/CD66b-) in all patients with metastatic prostate cancer and detected CTC-clusters composed of only CTCs or heterogeneous aggregates of CTCs clustered with various types of white blood cells in 9 out of 12 patients. By contrast, CellSearch did not detect any CTC clusters, but detected comparable numbers of phenotypic CTCs as acoustophoresis, with trends of finding a higher number of CTCs using acoustophoresis. Conclusion: Our preliminary data indicate that acoustophoresis provides excellent possibilities to detect and characterize CTC clusters as a putative marker of metastatic disease and outcomes. Moreover, acoustophoresis enables the sensitive label-free enrichment of cells with epithelial phenotypes in blood and offers opportunities to detect and characterize CTCs undergoing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transitioning and lineage plasticity.

Combination therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which include the addition of an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor and/or docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy, have been a game changer in the management of this disease stage. However, these therapies come with their fair share of toxicities and side effects. The goal of this observational study is to report drug-related adverse events (AEs), which are correlated with systemic combination therapies for mHSPC. Determining the optimal treatment option requires large cohorts to estimate the tolerability and AEs of these combination therapies in “real-life” patients with mHSPC, as provided in this study. We use a network of databases that includes population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims, containing the overall target population and subgroups of patients defined by unique certain characteristics, demographics, and comorbidities, to compute the incidence of common AEs associated with systemic therapies in the setting of mHSPC. These data sources are standardised using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. We perform the descriptive statistics as well as calculate the AE incidence rate separately for each treatment group, stratified by age groups and index year. The time until the first event is estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method within each age group. In the case of episodic events, the anticipated mean cumulative counts of events are calculated. Our study will allow clinicians to tailor optimal therapies for mHSPC patients, and they will serve as a basis for comparative method studies.

Background: There are important unmet clinical needs to develop cell enrichment technologies to enable unbiased label-free isolation of both single cell and clusters of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) manifesting heterogeneous lineage specificity. Here, we report a pilot study based on the microfluidic acoustophoresis enrichment of CTCs using the CellSearch CTC assay as a reference modality. Methods: Acoustophoresis uses an ultrasonic standing wave field to separate cells based on biomechanical properties (size, density, and compressibility), resulting in inherently label-free and epitope-independent cell enrichment. Following red blood cell lysis and paraformaldehyde fixation, 6 mL of whole blood from 12 patients with metastatic prostate cancer and 20 healthy controls were processed with acoustophoresis and subsequent image cytometry. Results: Acoustophoresis enabled enrichment and characterization of phenotypic CTCs (EpCAM+, Cytokeratin+, DAPI+, CD45-/CD66b-) in all patients with metastatic prostate cancer and detected CTC-clusters composed of only CTCs or heterogeneous aggregates of CTCs clustered with various types of white blood cells in 9 out of 12 patients. By contrast, CellSearch did not detect any CTC clusters, but detected comparable numbers of phenotypic CTCs as acoustophoresis, with trends of finding a higher number of CTCs using acoustophoresis. Conclusion: Our preliminary data indicate that acoustophoresis provides excellent possibilities to detect and characterize CTC clusters as a putative marker of metastatic disease and outcomes. Moreover, acoustophoresis enables the sensitive label-free enrichment of cells with epithelial phenotypes in blood and offers opportunities to detect and characterize CTCs undergoing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transitioning and lineage plasticity.

Combination therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which include the addition of an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor and/or docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy, have been a game changer in the management of this disease stage. However, these therapies come with their fair share of toxicities and side effects. The goal of this observational study is to report drug-related adverse events (AEs), which are correlated with systemic combination therapies for mHSPC. Determining the optimal treatment option requires large cohorts to estimate the tolerability and AEs of these combination therapies in “real-life” patients with mHSPC, as provided in this study. We use a network of databases that includes population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims, containing the overall target population and subgroups of patients defined by unique certain characteristics, demographics, and comorbidities, to compute the incidence of common AEs associated with systemic therapies in the setting of mHSPC. These data sources are standardised using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. We perform the descriptive statistics as well as calculate the AE incidence rate separately for each treatment group, stratified by age groups and index year. The time until the first event is estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method within each age group. In the case of episodic events, the anticipated mean cumulative counts of events are calculated. Our study will allow clinicians to tailor optimal therapies for mHSPC patients, and they will serve as a basis for comparative method studies.

BACKGROUND: Conservative management is an option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients either with the objective of delaying or even avoiding curative therapy, or to wait until palliative treatment is needed. PIONEER, funded by the European Commission Innovative Medicines Initiative, aims at improving PCa care across Europe through the application of big data analytics.OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of PCa patients on conservative management by using an international large network of real-world data.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From an initial cohort of >100 000 000 adult individuals included in eight databases evaluated during a virtual study-a-thon hosted by PIONEER, we identified newly diagnosed PCa cases (n = 527 311). Among those, we selected patients who did not receive curative or palliative treatment within 6 mo from diagnosis (n = 123 146).OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patient and disease characteristics were reported. The number of patients who experienced the main study outcomes was quantified for each stratum and the overall cohort. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the distribution of time to event data.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35-73%), obesity (9.2-54%), and type 2 diabetes (11-28%). The rate of PCa-related symptomatic progression ranged between 2.6% and 6.2%. Hospitalization (12-25%) and emergency department visits (10-14%) were common events during the 1st year of follow-up. The probability of being free from both palliative and curative treatments decreased during follow-up. Limitations include a lack of information on patients and disease characteristics and on treatment intent.CONCLUSIONS: Our results allow us to better understand the current landscape of patients with PCa managed with conservative treatment. PIONEER offers a unique opportunity to characterize the baseline features and

Background: There are important unmet clinical needs to develop cell enrichment technologies to enable unbiased label-free isolation of both single cell and clusters of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) manifesting heterogeneous lineage specificity. Here, we report a pilot study based on the microfluidic acoustophoresis enrichment of CTCs using the CellSearch CTC assay as a reference modality. Methods: Acoustophoresis uses an ultrasonic standing wave field to separate cells based on biomechanical properties (size, density, and compressibility), resulting in inherently label-free and epitope-independent cell enrichment. Following red blood cell lysis and paraformaldehyde fixation, 6 mL of whole blood from 12 patients with metastatic prostate cancer and 20 healthy controls were processed with acoustophoresis and subsequent image cytometry. Results: Acoustophoresis enabled enrichment and characterization of phenotypic CTCs (EpCAM+, Cytokeratin+, DAPI+, CD45-/CD66b-) in all patients with metastatic prostate cancer and detected CTC-clusters composed of only CTCs or heterogeneous aggregates of CTCs clustered with various types of white blood cells in 9 out of 12 patients. By contrast, CellSearch did not detect any CTC clusters, but detected comparable numbers of phenotypic CTCs as acoustophoresis, with trends of finding a higher number of CTCs using acoustophoresis. Conclusion: Our preliminary data indicate that acoustophoresis provides excellent possibilities to detect and characterize CTC clusters as a putative marker of metastatic disease and outcomes. Moreover, acoustophoresis enables the sensitive label-free enrichment of cells with epithelial phenotypes in blood and offers opportunities to detect and characterize CTCs undergoing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transitioning and lineage plasticity.

Combination therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which include the addition of an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor and/or docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy, have been a game changer in the management of this disease stage. However, these therapies come with their fair share of toxicities and side effects. The goal of this observational study is to report drug-related adverse events (AEs), which are correlated with systemic combination therapies for mHSPC. Determining the optimal treatment option requires large cohorts to estimate the tolerability and AEs of these combination therapies in “real-life” patients with mHSPC, as provided in this study. We use a network of databases that includes population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims, containing the overall target population and subgroups of patients defined by unique certain characteristics, demographics, and comorbidities, to compute the incidence of common AEs associated with systemic therapies in the setting of mHSPC. These data sources are standardised using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. We perform the descriptive statistics as well as calculate the AE incidence rate separately for each treatment group, stratified by age groups and index year. The time until the first event is estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method within each age group. In the case of episodic events, the anticipated mean cumulative counts of events are calculated. Our study will allow clinicians to tailor optimal therapies for mHSPC patients, and they will serve as a basis for comparative method studies.

BACKGROUND In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications. OBJECTIVE We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [$^{177}$Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [$^{223}$Ra]RaCl$_{2}$ remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [$^{18F}$]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [$^{177}$Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy. CONCLUSIONS There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and thera

Background and objective: The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Despite this, the optimal therapy for patients with mPCa has not been determined. This systematic review identifies available predictive models that assess mPCa patients’ response to treatment. Methods: We critically reviewed MEDLINE and CENTRAL in December 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Only quantitative studies in English were included with no time restrictions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were extracted following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews criteria. Key findings and limitations: The search identified 616 citations, of which 15 studies were included in our review. Nine of the included studies were validated internally or externally. Only one study had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Many studies failed to detail model performance adequately, resulting in a high risk of bias. Where reported, the models indicated good or excellent performance. Conclusions and clinical implications: Most of the identified predictive models require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before these can be implemented in clinical practice to assist with treatment decision-making for men with mPCa. Patient summary: In this review, we evaluate studies that predict which treatments will work best for which metastatic prostate cancer patients. We found that existing studies need further improvement before these can be used by health care professionals.

Combination therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which include the addition of an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor and/or docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy, have been a game changer in the management of this disease stage. However, these therapies come with their fair share of toxicities and side effects. The goal of this observational study is to report drug-related adverse events (AEs), which are correlated with systemic combination therapies for mHSPC. Determining the optimal treatment option requires large cohorts to estimate the tolerability and AEs of these combination therapies in “real-life” patients with mHSPC, as provided in this study. We use a network of databases that includes population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims, containing the overall target population and subgroups of patients defined by unique certain characteristics, demographics, and comorbidities, to compute the incidence of common AEs associated with systemic therapies in the setting of mHSPC. These data sources are standardised using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. We perform the descriptive statistics as well as calculate the AE incidence rate separately for each treatment group, stratified by age groups and index year. The time until the first event is estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method within each age group. In the case of episodic events, the anticipated mean cumulative counts of events are calculated. Our study will allow clinicians to tailor optimal therapies for mHSPC patients, and they will serve as a basis for comparative method studies.

Background and objective: The ability of health care professionals to communicate with patients compassionately and effectively is crucial for shared decision-making, but little research has investigated patient-clinician communication. As part of PIONEER—an international Big Data Consortium led by the European Association of Urology to answer key questions for men with prostate cancer (PCa), funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777492— we investigated communication between men diagnosed with PCa and the health care professional(s) treating them across Europe. Methods: We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Communication 26, which was shared via the PIONEER and patient organisations on March 11, 2022. We sought men who spoke French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, or English who were diagnosed with PCa and were undergoing or had already received treatment for their PCa. Results and limitations: A total of 372 men reported that they communicated with their clinician during either the diagnostic or the treatment period. Overall, the majority of participants reported positive experiences. However, important opportunities to enhance communication were identified, particularly with regard to correcting misunderstandings, understanding the patient's preferred approach to information presentation, addressing challenging questions, supporting the patient's comprehension of information, attending to the patient's emotional needs, and assessing what information had already been given to patients about their disease and treatment, and how much of it was understood. Conclusions and clinical implications: These results help us to identify gaps and barriers to shared treatment decision making. This knowledge will help devise measures to improve patient-health care professional communication in the PCa setting. Patient summary: As part of the PIONEER initiative, we investigated the communi

Combination therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which include the addition of an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor and/or docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy, have been a game changer in the management of this disease stage. However, these therapies come with their fair share of toxicities and side effects. The goal of this observational study is to report drug-related adverse events (AEs), which are correlated with systemic combination therapies for mHSPC. Determining the optimal treatment option requires large cohorts to estimate the tolerability and AEs of these combination therapies in “real-life” patients with mHSPC, as provided in this study. We use a network of databases that includes population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims, containing the overall target population and subgroups of patients defined by unique certain characteristics, demographics, and comorbidities, to compute the incidence of common AEs associated with systemic therapies in the setting of mHSPC. These data sources are standardised using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. We perform the descriptive statistics as well as calculate the AE incidence rate separately for each treatment group, stratified by age groups and index year. The time until the first event is estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method within each age group. In the case of episodic events, the anticipated mean cumulative counts of events are calculated. Our study will allow clinicians to tailor optimal therapies for mHSPC patients, and they will serve as a basis for comparative method studies.

Background: The association between protein intake and prostate cancer risk remains unclear. Aims: To prospectively investigate the associations of dietary intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources, and amino acids with prostate cancer risk and mortality. Methods: In 131,425 men from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, protein and amino acid intakes were estimated using validated dietary questionnaires. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: During a mean follow-up of 14.2 years, 6939 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 914 died of the disease. Dairy protein was positively associated with overall prostate cancer risk in the three highest fifths compared to the lowest (HRQ3=1.14 (95% CI 1.05–1.23); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01–1.18); HRQ5=1.10 (1.02–1.19)); similar results were observed for yogurt protein (HRQ3=1.14 (1.05–1.24); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01–1.18); HRQ5=1.12 (1.04–1.21)). For egg protein intake and prostate cancer mortality, no association was observed by fifths, but there was suggestive evidence of a positive association in the analysis per standard deviation increment. There was no strong evidence of associations with different tumour subtypes. Discussion: Considering the weak associations and many tests, the results must be interpreted with caution. Conclusion: This study does not provide strong evidence for an association of intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources or amino acids with prostate cancer risk or mortality. However, our results may suggest some weak positive associations, which need to be confirmed in large-scale, pooled analyses of prospective data.

Background: The association between protein intake and prostate cancer risk remains unclear. Aims: To prospectively investigate the associations of dietary intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources, and amino acids with prostate cancer risk and mortality. Methods: In 131,425 men from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, protein and amino acid intakes were estimated using validated dietary questionnaires. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: During a mean follow-up of 14.2 years, 6939 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 914 died of the disease. Dairy protein was positively associated with overall prostate cancer risk in the three highest fifths compared to the lowest (HRQ3=1.14 (95% CI 1.05–1.23); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01–1.18); HRQ5=1.10 (1.02–1.19)); similar results were observed for yogurt protein (HRQ3=1.14 (1.05–1.24); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01–1.18); HRQ5=1.12 (1.04–1.21)). For egg protein intake and prostate cancer mortality, no association was observed by fifths, but there was suggestive evidence of a positive association in the analysis per standard deviation increment. There was no strong evidence of associations with different tumour subtypes. Discussion: Considering the weak associations and many tests, the results must be interpreted with caution. Conclusion: This study does not provide strong evidence for an association of intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources or amino acids with prostate cancer risk or mortality. However, our results may suggest some weak positive associations, which need to be confirmed in large-scale, pooled analyses of prospective data.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical manage

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical manage

01 april 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: Genome-wide association studies have revealed over 200 genetic susceptibility loci for prostate cancer (PCa). By combining them, polygenic risk scores (PRS) can be generated to predict risk of PCa. We summarize the published evidence and conduct meta-analyses of PRS as a predictor of PCa risk in Caucasian men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from 59 studies, with 16 studies including 17 separate analyses used in the main meta-analysis with a total of 20,786 cases and 69,106 controls identified through a systematic search of ten databases. Random effects meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled estimates of area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Meta-regression was used to assess the impact of number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) incorporated in PRS on AUC. Heterogeneity is expressed as I(2) scores. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger tests. RESULTS: The ability of PRS to identify men with PCa was modest (pooled AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.62-0.64) with moderate consistency (I(2) 64%). Combining PRS with clinical variables increased the pooled AUC to 0.74 (0.68-0.81). Meta-regression showed only negligible increase in AUC for adding incremental SNPs. Despite moderate heterogeneity, publication bias was not evident. CONCLUSION: Typically, PRS accuracy is comparable to PSA or family history with a pooled AUC value 0.63 indicating mediocre performance for PRS alone.

Background: The association between protein intake and prostate cancer risk remains unclear. Aims: To prospectively investigate the associations of dietary intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources, and amino acids with prostate cancer risk and mortality. Methods: In 131,425 men from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, protein and amino acid intakes were estimated using validated dietary questionnaires. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: During a mean follow-up of 14.2 years, 6939 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 914 died of the disease. Dairy protein was positively associated with overall prostate cancer risk in the three highest fifths compared to the lowest (HRQ3=1.14 (95% CI 1.05–1.23); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01–1.18); HRQ5=1.10 (1.02–1.19)); similar results were observed for yogurt protein (HRQ3=1.14 (1.05–1.24); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01–1.18); HRQ5=1.12 (1.04–1.21)). For egg protein intake and prostate cancer mortality, no association was observed by fifths, but there was suggestive evidence of a positive association in the analysis per standard deviation increment. There was no strong evidence of associations with different tumour subtypes. Discussion: Considering the weak associations and many tests, the results must be interpreted with caution. Conclusion: This study does not provide strong evidence for an association of intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources or amino acids with prostate cancer risk or mortality. However, our results may suggest some weak positive associations, which need to be confirmed in large-scale, pooled analyses of prospective data.

PURPOSE: Consistent assessment of bone metastases is crucial for patient management and clinical trials in prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to develop a fully automated convolutional neural network (CNN)-based model for calculating PET/CT skeletal tumor burden in patients with PCa. METHODS: A total of 168 patients from three centers were divided into training, validation, and test groups. Manual annotations of skeletal lesions in [18F]fluoride PET/CT scans were used to train a CNN. The AI model was evaluated in 26 patients and compared to segmentations by physicians and to a SUV 15 threshold. PET index representing the percentage of skeletal volume taken up by lesions was estimated. RESULTS: There was no case in which all readers agreed on prevalence of lesions that the AI model failed to detect. PET index by the AI model correlated moderately strong to physician PET index (mean r = 0.69). Threshold PET index correlated fairly with physician PET index (mean r = 0.49). The sensitivity for lesion detection was 65-76% for AI, 68-91% for physicians, and 44-51% for threshold depending on which physician was considered reference. CONCLUSION: It was possible to develop an AI-based model for automated assessment of PET/CT skeletal tumor burden. The model's performance was superior to using a threshold and provides fully automated calculation of whole-body skeletal tumor burden. It could be further developed to apply to different radiotracers. Objective scan evaluation is a first step toward developing a PET/CT imaging biomarker for PCa skeletal metastases.

Existing epidemiological evidence regarding the potential role of (poly)phenol intake in prostate cancer (PCa) risk is scarce and, in the case of flavonoids, it has been suggested that their intake may increase PCa risk. We investigated the associations between the intake of the total and individual classes and subclasses of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, including clinically relevant subtypes. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort included 131,425 adult men from seven European countries. (Poly)phenol intake at baseline was assessed by combining validated center/country-specific dietary questionnaires and the Phenol-Explorer database. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In total, 6939 incident PCa cases (including 3501 low-grade and 710 high-grade, 2446 localized and 1268 advanced, and 914 fatal Pca cases) were identified during a mean follow-up of 14 years. No associations were observed between the total intake of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, either overall (HRlog2 = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94–1.04) or according to PCa subtype. Null associations were also found between all classes (phenolic acids, flavonoids, lignans, and stilbenes) and subclasses of (poly)phenol intake and the risk of PCa, overall and according to PCa subtype. The results of the current large prospective cohort study do not support any association between (poly)phenol intake and PCa incidence.

BackgroundCurrently, follow-up protocols are applied equally to men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) regardless of findings at their initial follow-up biopsy. To determine whether less intensive follow-up is suitable following negative biopsy findings, we assessed the risk of converting to active treatment, any subsequent upgrading, volume progression (>33% positive cores), and serious upgrading (grade group >2) for negative compared with positive findings on initial follow-up biopsy.Methods13,161 men from 24 centres participating in the Global Action Plan Active Surveillance Prostate Cancer [GAP3] consortium database, with baseline grade group ≤2, PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, cT-stage 1-2, diagnosed after 1995, and ≥1 follow-up biopsy, were included in this study. Risk of converting to treatment was assessed using multivariable mixed-effects survival regression. Odds of volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading were assessed using mix-effects binary logistic regression for men with ≥2 surveillance biopsies.Results27% of the cohort (n = 3590) had no evidence of PCa at their initial biopsy. Over 50% of subsequent biopsies in this group were also negative. A negative initial biopsy was associated with lower risk of conversion (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.49), subsequent upgrading (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.45-0.62) and serious upgrading (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59-92). Radiological progression was not assessed due to limited imaging data.ConclusionDespite heterogeneity in follow-up schedules, findings from this global study indicated reduced risk of converting to treatment, volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading among men whose initial biopsy findings were negative compared with positive. Given the low risk of progression and high likelihood of further negative biopsy findings, consideration should be given to decreasing follow-up intensity for this group to reduce unnecessary

Existing epidemiological evidence regarding the potential role of (poly)phenol intake in prostate cancer (PCa) risk is scarce and, in the case of flavonoids, it has been suggested that their intake may increase PCa risk. We investigated the associations between the intake of the total and individual classes and subclasses of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, including clinically relevant subtypes. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort included 131,425 adult men from seven European countries. (Poly)phenol intake at baseline was assessed by combining validated center/country-specific dietary questionnaires and the Phenol-Explorer database. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In total, 6939 incident PCa cases (including 3501 low-grade and 710 high-grade, 2446 localized and 1268 advanced, and 914 fatal Pca cases) were identified during a mean follow-up of 14 years. No associations were observed between the total intake of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, either overall (HRlog2 = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94–1.04) or according to PCa subtype. Null associations were also found between all classes (phenolic acids, flavonoids, lignans, and stilbenes) and subclasses of (poly)phenol intake and the risk of PCa, overall and according to PCa subtype. The results of the current large prospective cohort study do not support any association between (poly)phenol intake and PCa incidence.

Existing epidemiological evidence regarding the potential role of (poly)phenol intake in prostate cancer (PCa) risk is scarce and, in the case of flavonoids, it has been suggested that their intake may increase PCa risk. We investigated the associations between the intake of the total and individual classes and subclasses of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, including clinically relevant subtypes. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort included 131,425 adult men from seven European countries. (Poly)phenol intake at baseline was assessed by combining validated center/country-specific dietary questionnaires and the Phenol-Explorer database. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In total, 6939 incident PCa cases (including 3501 low-grade and 710 high-grade, 2446 localized and 1268 advanced, and 914 fatal Pca cases) were identified during a mean follow-up of 14 years. No associations were observed between the total intake of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, either overall (HRlog2 = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94–1.04) or according to PCa subtype. Null associations were also found between all classes (phenolic acids, flavonoids, lignans, and stilbenes) and subclasses of (poly)phenol intake and the risk of PCa, overall and according to PCa subtype. The results of the current large prospective cohort study do not support any association between (poly)phenol intake and PCa incidence.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Adverse events induced by intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) to treat high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) often lead to treatment discontinuation. The EAU-RF NIMBUS trial found a reduced number of standard-dose BCG instillations to be inferior with the standard regimen. Nonetheless, it remains important to evaluate whether patients in the reduced BCG treatment arm had better quality of life (QoL) due to a possible reduction in toxicity or burden. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether patients in the EAU-RF NIMBUS trial experienced better QoL after a reduced BCG instillation frequency. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 359 patients from 51 European sites were randomized to one of two treatment arms between December 2013 and July 2019. The standard frequency arm (n = 182) was 6 weeks of BCG induction followed by 3 weeks of maintenance at months 3, 6, and 12. The reduced frequency arm (n = 177) was BCG induction at weeks 1, 2, and 6, followed by maintenance instillations at weeks 1 and 3 of months 3, 6, and 12. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analyses were performed using an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis. QoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 version 3.0 (QLQ-C30 v.03) prior to the first and last instillations of each BCG cycle. Group differences were determined using linear regression corrected for QoL at baseline. Differences in QoL over time were tested for significance using a linear mixed model. Side effects were recorded by the treating physician using a standardized form. Chi-square tests were used to compare the side-effect frequency between the arms. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were no significant differences in the means of each QoL scale between the two arms. There were also no significant changes over time in all QoL domains for both arms. However, differences in the incidence of

BACKGROUND: Adverse events induced by intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) to treat high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) often lead to treatment discontinuation. The EAU-RF NIMBUS trial found a reduced number of standard-dose BCG instillations to be inferior with the standard regimen. Nonetheless, it remains important to evaluate whether patients in the reduced BCG treatment arm had better quality of life (QoL) due to a possible reduction in toxicity or burden. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether patients in the EAU-RF NIMBUS trial experienced better QoL after a reduced BCG instillation frequency. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 359 patients from 51 European sites were randomized to one of two treatment arms between December 2013 and July 2019. The standard frequency arm (n = 182) was 6 weeks of BCG induction followed by 3 weeks of maintenance at months 3, 6, and 12. The reduced frequency arm (n = 177) was BCG induction at weeks 1, 2, and 6, followed by maintenance instillations at weeks 1 and 3 of months 3, 6, and 12. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analyses were performed using an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis. QoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 version 3.0 (QLQ-C30 v.03) prior to the first and last instillations of each BCG cycle. Group differences were determined using linear regression corrected for QoL at baseline. Differences in QoL over time were tested for significance using a linear mixed model. Side effects were recorded by the treating physician using a standardized form. Chi-square tests were used to compare the side-effect frequency between the arms. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were no significant differences in the means of each QoL scale between the two arms. There were also no significant changes over time in all QoL domains for both arms. However, differences

Existing epidemiological evidence regarding the potential role of (poly)phenol intake in prostate cancer (PCa) risk is scarce and, in the case of flavonoids, it has been suggested that their intake may increase PCa risk. We investigated the associations between the intake of the total and individual classes and subclasses of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, including clinically relevant subtypes. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort included 131,425 adult men from seven European countries. (Poly)phenol intake at baseline was assessed by combining validated center/country-specific dietary questionnaires and the Phenol-Explorer database. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In total, 6939 incident PCa cases (including 3501 low-grade and 710 high-grade, 2446 localized and 1268 advanced, and 914 fatal Pca cases) were identified during a mean follow-up of 14 years. No associations were observed between the total intake of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, either overall (HRlog2 = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94–1.04) or according to PCa subtype. Null associations were also found between all classes (phenolic acids, flavonoids, lignans, and stilbenes) and subclasses of (poly)phenol intake and the risk of PCa, overall and according to PCa subtype. The results of the current large prospective cohort study do not support any association between (poly)phenol intake and PCa incidence.

first_pagesettingsOrder Article Reprints Open AccessArticle Intake of the Total, Classes, and Subclasses of (Poly)Phenols and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Analysis of the EPIC Study by Enrique Almanza-Aguilera 1ORCID,Daniel Guiñón-Fort 1,Aurora Perez-Cornago 2,Miriam Martínez-Huélamo 3,4ORCID,Cristina Andrés-Lacueva 3,4ORCID,Anne Tjønneland 5,6ORCID,Anne Kirstine Eriksen 5,Verena Katzke 7,Rashmita Bajracharya 7ORCID,Matthias B. Schulze 8,9ORCID,Giovanna Masala 10ORCID,Andreina Oliverio 11ORCID,Rosario Tumino 12ORCID,Luca Manfredi 13,Cristina Lasheras 14,Marta Crous-Bou 1,Maria-José Sánchez 15,16,17,18ORCID,Pilar Amiano 17,19,20,Sandra M. Colorado-Yohar 17,21,22ORCID,Marcela Guevara 17,23,24ORCID,add Show full author list 1 Unit of Nutrition and Cancer, Cancer Epidemiology Research Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), 08908 Barcelona, Spain 2 Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK 3 Biomarkers and Nutrimetabolomics Laboratory, Department of Nutrition, Food Sciences and Gastronomy, Nutrition and Food Safety Research Institute (INSA), Food Innovation Network (XIA), Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, University of Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain 4 Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable (CIBERFES), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28029 Madrid, Spain 5 Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Danish Cancer Society, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark 6 Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, 2177 Copenhagen, Denmark 7 Department of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 8 Department of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, 14558 Nuthetal, Germany 9 Institute of Nutritional Science, University of Potsdam, 14558 Nuthet, Existing epidemiological evidence regarding the potential role of (poly)phenol intake in prostate cancer (PCa) risk is scarce and, in the case of flavonoids, it has been suggested that their intake may increase PCa risk. We investigated the associations between the intake of the total and individual classes and subclasses of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, including clinically relevant subtypes. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort included 131,425 adult men from seven European countries. (Poly)phenol intake at baseline was assessed by combining validated center/country-specific dietary questionnaires and the Phenol-Explorer database. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In total, 6939 incident PCa cases (including 3501 low-grade and 710 high-grade, 2446 localized and 1268 advanced, and 914 fatal Pca cases) were identified during a mean follow-up of 14 years. No associations were observed between the total intake of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, either overall (HRlog2 = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94–1.04) or according to PCa subtype. Null associations were also found between all classes (phenolic acids, flavonoids, lignans, and stilbenes) and subclasses of (poly)phenol intake and the risk of PCa, overall and according to PCa subtype. The results of the current large prospective cohort study do not support any association between (poly)phenol intake and PCa incidence.

Existing epidemiological evidence regarding the potential role of (poly)phenol intake in prostate cancer (PCa) risk is scarce and, in the case of flavonoids, it has been suggested that their intake may increase PCa risk. We investigated the associations between the intake of the total and individual classes and subclasses of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, including clinically relevant subtypes. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort included 131,425 adult men from seven European countries. (Poly)phenol intake at baseline was assessed by combining validated center/country-specific dietary questionnaires and the Phenol-Explorer database. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In total, 6939 incident PCa cases (including 3501 low-grade and 710 high-grade, 2446 localized and 1268 advanced, and 914 fatal Pca cases) were identified during a mean follow-up of 14 years. No associations were observed between the total intake of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, either overall (HRlog2 = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94–1.04) or according to PCa subtype. Null associations were also found between all classes (phenolic acids, flavonoids, lignans, and stilbenes) and subclasses of (poly)phenol intake and the risk of PCa, overall and according to PCa subtype. The results of the current large prospective cohort study do not support any association between (poly)phenol intake and PCa incidence.

Objectives: Genome-wide association studies have revealed over 200 genetic susceptibility loci for prostate cancer (PCa). By combining them, polygenic risk scores (PRS) can be generated to predict risk of PCa. We summarize the published evidence and conduct meta-analyses of PRS as a predictor of PCa risk in Caucasian men. Patients and methods: Data were extracted from 59 studies, with 16 studies including 17 separate analyses used in the main meta-analysis with a total of 20,786 cases and 69,106 controls identified through a systematic search of ten databases. Random effects meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled estimates of area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Meta-regression was used to assess the impact of number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) incorporated in PRS on AUC. Heterogeneity is expressed as I2 scores. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger tests. Results: The ability of PRS to identify men with PCa was modest (pooled AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.62-0.64) with moderate consistency (I2 64%). Combining PRS with clinical variables increased the pooled AUC to 0.74 (0.68-0.81). Meta-regression showed only negligible increase in AUC for adding incremental SNPs. Despite moderate heterogeneity, publication bias was not evident. Conclusion: Typically, PRS accuracy is comparable to PSA or family history with a pooled AUC value 0.63 indicating mediocre performance for PRS alone.

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical man

Background The association between protein intake and prostate cancer risk remains unclear. Aims To prospectively investigate the associations of dietary intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources, and amino acids with prostate cancer risk and mortality. Methods In 131,425 men from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, protein and amino acid intakes were estimated using validated dietary questionnaires. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results During a mean follow-up of 14.2 years, 6939 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 914 died of the disease. Dairy protein was positively associated with overall prostate cancer risk in the three highest fifths compared to the lowest (HRQ3=1.14 (95% CI 1.05-1.23); HR(Q)4=1.09 (1.01-1.18); HRQ5=1.10 (1.02-1.19)); similar results were observed for yogurt protein (HRQ3=1.14 (1.05-1.24); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01-1.18); HRQ5=1.12 (1.04-1.21)). For egg protein intake and prostate cancer mortality, no association was observed by fifths, but there was suggestive evidence of a positive association in the analysis per standard deviation increment. There was no strong evidence of associations with different tumour subtypes. Discussion Considering the weak associations and many tests, the results must be interpreted with caution. Conclusion This study does not provide strong evidence for an association of intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources or amino acids with prostate cancer risk or mortality. However, our results may suggest some weak positive associations, which need to be confirmed in large-scale, pooled analyses of prospective data.

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical man

Background The association between protein intake and prostate cancer risk remains unclear. Aims To prospectively investigate the associations of dietary intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources, and amino acids with prostate cancer risk and mortality. Methods In 131,425 men from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, protein and amino acid intakes were estimated using validated dietary questionnaires. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results During a mean follow-up of 14.2 years, 6939 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 914 died of the disease. Dairy protein was positively associated with overall prostate cancer risk in the three highest fifths compared to the lowest (HRQ3=1.14 (95% CI 1.05-1.23); HR(Q)4=1.09 (1.01-1.18); HRQ5=1.10 (1.02-1.19)); similar results were observed for yogurt protein (HRQ3=1.14 (1.05-1.24); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01-1.18); HRQ5=1.12 (1.04-1.21)). For egg protein intake and prostate cancer mortality, no association was observed by fifths, but there was suggestive evidence of a positive association in the analysis per standard deviation increment. There was no strong evidence of associations with different tumour subtypes. Discussion Considering the weak associations and many tests, the results must be interpreted with caution. Conclusion This study does not provide strong evidence for an association of intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources or amino acids with prostate cancer risk or mortality. However, our results may suggest some weak positive associations, which need to be confirmed in large-scale, pooled analyses of prospective data.

Background: The association between protein intake and prostate cancer risk remains unclear. Aims: To prospectively investigate the associations of dietary intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources, and amino acids with prostate cancer risk and mortality. Methods: In 131,425 men from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, protein and amino acid intakes were estimated using validated dietary questionnaires. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: During a mean follow-up of 14.2 years, 6939 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 914 died of the disease. Dairy protein was positively associated with overall prostate cancer risk in the three highest fifths compared to the lowest (HRQ3=1.14 (95% CI 1.05–1.23); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01–1.18); HRQ5=1.10 (1.02–1.19)); similar results were observed for yogurt protein (HRQ3=1.14 (1.05–1.24); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01–1.18); HRQ5=1.12 (1.04–1.21)). For egg protein intake and prostate cancer mortality, no association was observed by fifths, but there was suggestive evidence of a positive association in the analysis per standard deviation increment. There was no strong evidence of associations with different tumour subtypes. Discussion: Considering the weak associations and many tests, the results must be interpreted with caution. Conclusion: This study does not provide strong evidence for an association of intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources or amino acids with prostate cancer risk or mortality. However, our results may suggest some weak positive associations, which need to be confirmed in large-scale, pooled analyses of prospective data.

Background: The association between protein intake and prostate cancer risk remains unclear. Aims: To prospectively investigate the associations of dietary intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources, and amino acids with prostate cancer risk and mortality. Methods: In 131,425 men from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, protein and amino acid intakes were estimated using validated dietary questionnaires. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: During a mean follow-up of 14.2 years, 6939 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 914 died of the disease. Dairy protein was positively associated with overall prostate cancer risk in the three highest fifths compared to the lowest (HRQ3=1.14 (95% CI 1.05–1.23); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01–1.18); HRQ5=1.10 (1.02–1.19)); similar results were observed for yogurt protein (HRQ3=1.14 (1.05–1.24); HRQ4=1.09 (1.01–1.18); HRQ5=1.12 (1.04–1.21)). For egg protein intake and prostate cancer mortality, no association was observed by fifths, but there was suggestive evidence of a positive association in the analysis per standard deviation increment. There was no strong evidence of associations with different tumour subtypes. Discussion: Considering the weak associations and many tests, the results must be interpreted with caution. Conclusion: This study does not provide strong evidence for an association of intakes of total protein, protein from different dietary sources or amino acids with prostate cancer risk or mortality. However, our results may suggest some weak positive associations, which need to be confirmed in large-scale, pooled analyses of prospective data.

first_pagesettingsOrder Article Reprints Open AccessArticle Intake of the Total, Classes, and Subclasses of (Poly)Phenols and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Analysis of the EPIC Study by Enrique Almanza-Aguilera 1ORCID,Daniel Guiñón-Fort 1,Aurora Perez-Cornago 2,Miriam Martínez-Huélamo 3,4ORCID,Cristina Andrés-Lacueva 3,4ORCID,Anne Tjønneland 5,6ORCID,Anne Kirstine Eriksen 5,Verena Katzke 7,Rashmita Bajracharya 7ORCID,Matthias B. Schulze 8,9ORCID,Giovanna Masala 10ORCID,Andreina Oliverio 11ORCID,Rosario Tumino 12ORCID,Luca Manfredi 13,Cristina Lasheras 14,Marta Crous-Bou 1,Maria-José Sánchez 15,16,17,18ORCID,Pilar Amiano 17,19,20,Sandra M. Colorado-Yohar 17,21,22ORCID,Marcela Guevara 17,23,24ORCID,add Show full author list 1 Unit of Nutrition and Cancer, Cancer Epidemiology Research Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), 08908 Barcelona, Spain 2 Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK 3 Biomarkers and Nutrimetabolomics Laboratory, Department of Nutrition, Food Sciences and Gastronomy, Nutrition and Food Safety Research Institute (INSA), Food Innovation Network (XIA), Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, University of Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain 4 Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable (CIBERFES), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28029 Madrid, Spain 5 Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Danish Cancer Society, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark 6 Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, 2177 Copenhagen, Denmark 7 Department of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 8 Department of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, 14558 Nuthetal, Germany 9 Institute of Nutritional Science, University of Potsdam, 14558 Nuthet, Existing epidemiological evidence regarding the potential role of (poly)phenol intake in prostate cancer (PCa) risk is scarce and, in the case of flavonoids, it has been suggested that their intake may increase PCa risk. We investigated the associations between the intake of the total and individual classes and subclasses of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, including clinically relevant subtypes. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort included 131,425 adult men from seven European countries. (Poly)phenol intake at baseline was assessed by combining validated center/country-specific dietary questionnaires and the Phenol-Explorer database. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In total, 6939 incident PCa cases (including 3501 low-grade and 710 high-grade, 2446 localized and 1268 advanced, and 914 fatal Pca cases) were identified during a mean follow-up of 14 years. No associations were observed between the total intake of (poly)phenols and the risk of PCa, either overall (HRlog2 = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94–1.04) or according to PCa subtype. Null associations were also found between all classes (phenolic acids, flavonoids, lignans, and stilbenes) and subclasses of (poly)phenol intake and the risk of PCa, overall and according to PCa subtype. The results of the current large prospective cohort study do not support any association between (poly)phenol intake and PCa incidence.

Background: There is variation in the care provided to men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). There has been no previous set of quality indicators (QIs) regarding the management of men with mPCa. The objective of this study is to develop a set of international mPCa-specific QIs, which will enable global benchmarking of quality of care. Materials and methods: Potential QIs were identified through a literature review. Fourteen multidisciplinary mPCa experts (representing medical and radiation oncology, nursing, psychology, palliative care and urology) from eight countries participated in a modified Delphi process, which consisted of two online surveys, one face-to-face meeting and two teleconferences. Panelists were asked to rate each indicator's importance and feasibility on a Likert scale from 1 to 9. Indicators that received median importance and median feasibility scores ≥ 7.5, and a disagreement index <1 for both measures, on the final round of voting were included in the final set. Results: There was consensus on 23 QIs out of total of 662. Four regarding “general management”, 12 “therapies”, three “complications” and four “patient-reported quality of life”. One of the inherent limitations of the Delphi process is that there is a small expert panel involved. Conclusion: The quality indicator set defined by our process for management of men with mPCa will enable greater understanding of the standard and variation of care globally and will promote consistency of good practice. Future directions will include retrospective evaluation for compliance with these indicators, as well as prospective monitoring.

BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Opinions differ on whether it is safe to include young men (≤60 yr) or men with intermediate-risk disease.ObjectiveTo assess whether reasons for discontinuation, treatment choice after AS, and adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy (RP; N1, or ≥GG3, or ≥pT3) differ for men ≤60 yr or those with European Association of Urology (EAU) intermediate-risk disease from those for men >60 yr or those with EAU low-risk disease.Design setting and participantsWe analyzed data from 5411 men ≤60 yr and 14 959 men >60 yr, 14 064 men with low-risk cancer, and 2441 men with intermediate-risk cancer, originating from the GAP3 database (21 169 patients/27 cohorts worldwide).Outcome measurements and statistical analysisCumulative incidence curves were used to estimate the rates of AS discontinuation and treatment choice.Results and limitationsThe probability of discontinuation of AS due to disease progression at 5 yr was similar for men aged ≤60 yr (22%) and those >60 yr (25%), as well as those of any age with low-risk disease (24%) versus those with intermediate-risk disease (24%). Men with intermediate-risk disease are more prone to discontinue AS without evidence of progression than men with low-risk disease (at 1/5 yr: 5.9%/14.2% vs 2.0%/8.8%). Adverse pathology at RP was observed in 32% of men ≤60 yr compared with 36% of men >60 yr (p = 0.029), and in 34% with low-risk disease compared with 40% with intermediate-risk disease (p = 0.048).ConclusionsOur descriptive analysis of AS practices worldwide showed that the risk of progression during AS is similar across the age and risk groups studied. The proportion of adverse pathology was higher among men >60 yr than among men ≤60 yr. These results suggest that men ≤60 yr and those with EAU intermediate-risk disease should not be excluded from opting for AS as initial management.P

Background: Men are more severely affected by COVID-19. Testosterone may influence SARS-CoV-2 infection and the immune response. Objective: To clinically, epidemiologically, and experimentally evaluate the effect of antiandrogens on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Designs, settings, and participants: A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (COVIDENZA) enrolled 42 hospitalized COVID-19 patients before safety evaluation. We also conducted a population-based retrospective study of 7894 SARS-CoV-2-positive prostate cancer patients and an experimental study using an air-liquid interface three-dimensional culture model of primary lung cells. Intervention: In COVIDENZA, patients were randomized 2:1 to 5 d of enzalutamide or standard of care. Outcome measurements: The primary outcomes in COVIDENZA were the time to mechanical ventilation or discharge from hospital. The population-based study investigated risk of hospitalization, intensive care, and death from COVID-19 after androgen inhibition. Results and limitations: Enzalutamide-treated patients required longer hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] for discharge from hospital 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.93) and the trial was terminated early. In the epidemiological study, no preventive effects were observed. The frail population of patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide had a higher risk of dying from COVID-19 (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.52-4.16). In vitro data showed no effect of enzalutamide on virus replication. The epidemiological study has limitations that include residual confounders. Conclusions: The results do not support a therapeutic effect of enzalutamide or preventive effects of bicalutamide or ADT in COVID-19. Thus, these antiandrogens should not be used for hospitalized COVID-19 patients or as prevention for COVID-19. Further research on these therapeutics in this setting are not warranted. Patient summary: We studied whether inhibition of testost

Background: Prostate cancer has a multifaceted treatment pattern. Evidence is lacking for optimal treatment sequences for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Objective: To increase the understanding of real-world treatment pathways and outcomes in patients with mCRPC. Design, setting, and participants: A prospective, noninterventional, real-world analysis of 3003 patients with mCRPC in the Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR; NCT02236637) from June 14, 2013 to July 9, 2018 was conducted. Intervention: Patients received first- and second-line hormonal treatment and chemotherapy as follows: abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone)-docetaxel (ABI-DOCE), abiraterone-enzalutamide (ABI-ENZA), abiraterone–radium-223 (ABI-RAD), docetaxel-abiraterone (DOCE-ABI), docetaxel-cabazitaxel (DOCE-CABA), docetaxel-enzalutamide (DOCE-ENZA), and enzalutamide-docetaxel (ENZA-DOCE). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Baseline patient characteristics, quality of life, mCRPC treatments, and efficacy outcomes (progression and survival) were presented descriptively. Results and limitations: Data from 727 patients were eligible for the analysis (ABI-DOCE n = 178, ABI-ENZA n = 99, ABI-RAD n = 27, DOCE-ABI n = 191, DOCE-CABA n = 74, DOCE-ENZA n = 116, and ENZA-DOCE n = 42). Demographics and disease characteristics among patients between different sequences varied greatly. Most patients who started on abiraterone or enzalutamide stopped therapy because of disease progression. No randomisation to allow treatment/sequence comparisons limited this observational study. Conclusions: The real-world PCR data complement clinical trial data, reflecting more highly selected patient populations than seen in routine clinical practice. Baseline characteristics play a role in mCRPC first-line treatment selection, but other factors, such as treatment availability, have an impact. Efficacy observations are limited and should be interpreted with caution. Patient summary: Base

Background: Men are more severely affected by COVID-19. Testosterone may influence SARS-CoV-2 infection and the immune response. Objective: To clinically, epidemiologically, and experimentally evaluate the effect of antiandrogens on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Designs, settings, and participants: A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (COVIDENZA) enrolled 42 hospitalized COVID-19 patients before safety evaluation. We also conducted a population-based retrospective study of 7894 SARS-CoV-2-positive prostate cancer patients and an experimental study using an air-liquid interface three-dimensional culture model of primary lung cells. Intervention: In COVIDENZA, patients were randomized 2:1 to 5 d of enzalutamide or standard of care. Outcome measurements: The primary outcomes in COVIDENZA were the time to mechanical ventilation or discharge from hospital. The population-based study investigated risk of hospitalization, intensive care, and death from COVID-19 after androgen inhibition. Results and limitations: Enzalutamide-treated patients required longer hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] for discharge from hospital 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.93) and the trial was terminated early. In the epidemiological study, no preventive effects were observed. The frail population of patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide had a higher risk of dying from COVID-19 (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.52-4.16). In vitro data showed no effect of enzalutamide on virus replication. The epidemiological study has limitations that include residual confounders. Conclusions: The results do not support a therapeutic effect of enzalutamide or preventive effects of bicalutamide or ADT in COVID-19. Thus, these antiandrogens should not be used for hospitalized COVID-19 patients or as prevention for COVID-19. Further research on these therapeutics in this setting are not warranted. Patient summary: We studied whether inhibition of testost

Background: Men are more severely affected by COVID-19. Testosterone may influence SARS-CoV-2 infection and the immune response. Objective: To clinically, epidemiologically, and experimentally evaluate the effect of antiandrogens on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Designs, settings, and participants: A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (COVIDENZA) enrolled 42 hospitalized COVID-19 patients before safety evaluation. We also conducted a population-based retrospective study of 7894 SARS-CoV-2–positive prostate cancer patients and an experimental study using an air-liquid interface three-dimensional culture model of primary lung cells. Intervention: In COVIDENZA, patients were randomized 2:1 to 5 d of enzalutamide or standard of care. Outcome measurements: The primary outcomes in COVIDENZA were the time to mechanical ventilation or discharge from hospital. The population-based study investigated risk of hospitalization, intensive care, and death from COVID-19 after androgen inhibition. Results and limitations: Enzalutamide-treated patients required longer hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] for discharge from hospital 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20–0.93) and the trial was terminated early. In the epidemiological study, no preventive effects were observed. The frail population of patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide had a higher risk of dying from COVID-19 (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.52–4.16). In vitro data showed no effect of enzalutamide on virus replication. The epidemiological study has limitations that include residual confounders. Conclusions: The results do not support a therapeutic effect of enzalutamide or preventive effects of bicalutamide or ADT in COVID-19. Thus, these antiandrogens should not be used for hospitalized COVID-19 patients or as prevention for COVID-19. Further research on these therapeutics in this setting are not warranted. Patient summary: We studied whether inhibition of testost, Funding agencies: This investigator-initiated trial was supported by an unconditional research grant from Astellas Pharma Ltd. The sponsor had no role in the study design; in the data collection, analysis, or interpretation; or in writing the manuscript. AJ is supported by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation and Swedish Prostate Cancer Federation. KW is supported by the Swedish Cancer Society (CAN 2017/478 and 20 1055 PjF) and the Swedish Prostate Cancer Federation. AKÖ is supported by the Swedish Heart Lung foundation (no. 20200385), and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (grants to Science for Life Laboratory, 2020.0182). AMFC is supported by Central ALF-funding, Region Västerbotten (RV-836351), Base unit ALF-funding (RV-939769); Strategic Funding during 2020 from the Department of Clinical Microbiology, Umeå University; and The Laboratory for Molecular Infection Medicine Sweden (MIMS)

Background: Prostate cancer has a multifaceted treatment pattern. Evidence is lacking for optimal treatment sequences for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Objective: To increase the understanding of real-world treatment pathways and outcomes in patients with mCRPC. Design, setting, and participants: A prospective, noninterventional, real-world analysis of 3003 patients with mCRPC in the Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR; NCT02236637) from June 14, 2013 to July 9, 2018 was conducted. Intervention: Patients received first- and second-line hormonal treatment and chemotherapy as follows: abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone)-docetaxel (ABI-DOCE), abiraterone-enzalutamide (ABI-ENZA), abiraterone–radium-223 (ABI-RAD), docetaxel-abiraterone (DOCE-ABI), docetaxel-cabazitaxel (DOCE-CABA), docetaxel-enzalutamide (DOCE-ENZA), and enzalutamide-docetaxel (ENZA-DOCE). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Baseline patient characteristics, quality of life, mCRPC treatments, and efficacy outcomes (progression and survival) were presented descriptively. Results and limitations: Data from 727 patients were eligible for the analysis (ABI-DOCE n = 178, ABI-ENZA n = 99, ABI-RAD n = 27, DOCE-ABI n = 191, DOCE-CABA n = 74, DOCE-ENZA n = 116, and ENZA-DOCE n = 42). Demographics and disease characteristics among patients between different sequences varied greatly. Most patients who started on abiraterone or enzalutamide stopped therapy because of disease progression. No randomisation to allow treatment/sequence comparisons limited this observational study. Conclusions: The real-world PCR data complement clinical trial data, reflecting more highly selected patient populations than seen in routine clinical practice. Baseline characteristics play a role in mCRPC first-line treatment selection, but other factors, such as treatment availability, have an impact. Efficacy observations are limited and should be interpreted with caution. Patient summary: Base

Background: Men are more severely affected by COVID-19. Testosterone may influence SARS-CoV-2 infection and the immune response. Objective: To clinically, epidemiologically, and experimentally evaluate the effect of antiandrogens on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Designs, settings, and participants: A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (COVIDENZA) enrolled 42 hospitalized COVID-19 patients before safety evaluation. We also conducted a population-based retrospective study of 7894 SARS-CoV-2-positive prostate cancer patients and an experimental study using an air-liquid interface three-dimensional culture model of primary lung cells. Intervention: In COVIDENZA, patients were randomized 2:1 to 5 d of enzalutamide or standard of care. Outcome measurements: The primary outcomes in COVIDENZA were the time to mechanical ventilation or discharge from hospital. The population-based study investigated risk of hospitalization, intensive care, and death from COVID-19 after androgen inhibition. Results and limitations: Enzalutamide-treated patients required longer hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] for discharge from hospital 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.93) and the trial was terminated early. In the epidemiological study, no preventive effects were observed. The frail population of patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide had a higher risk of dying from COVID-19 (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.52-4.16). In vitro data showed no effect of enzalutamide on virus replication. The epidemiological study has limitations that include residual confounders. Conclusions: The results do not support a therapeutic effect of enzalutamide or preventive effects of bicalutamide or ADT in COVID-19. Thus, these antiandrogens should not be used for hospitalized COVID-19 patients or as prevention for COVID-19. Further research on these therapeutics in this setting are not warranted. Patient summary: We studied whether inhibition of testost

Background: Men are more severely affected by COVID-19. Testosterone may influence SARS-CoV-2 infection and the immune response. Objective: To clinically, epidemiologically, and experimentally evaluate the effect of antiandrogens on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Designs, settings, and participants: A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (COVIDENZA) enrolled 42 hospitalized COVID-19 patients before safety evaluation. We also conducted a population-based retrospective study of 7894 SARS-CoV-2–positive prostate cancer patients and an experimental study using an air-liquid interface three-dimensional culture model of primary lung cells. Intervention: In COVIDENZA, patients were randomized 2:1 to 5 d of enzalutamide or standard of care. Outcome measurements: The primary outcomes in COVIDENZA were the time to mechanical ventilation or discharge from hospital. The population-based study investigated risk of hospitalization, intensive care, and death from COVID-19 after androgen inhibition. Results and limitations: Enzalutamide-treated patients required longer hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] for discharge from hospital 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20–0.93) and the trial was terminated early. In the epidemiological study, no preventive effects were observed. The frail population of patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide had a higher risk of dying from COVID-19 (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.52–4.16). In vitro data showed no effect of enzalutamide on virus replication. The epidemiological study has limitations that include residual confounders. Conclusions: The results do not support a therapeutic effect of enzalutamide or preventive effects of bicalutamide or ADT in COVID-19. Thus, these antiandrogens should not be used for hospitalized COVID-19 patients or as prevention for COVID-19. Further research on these therapeutics in this setting are not warranted. Patient summary: We studied whether inhibition of testost, Funding agencies: This investigator-initiated trial was supported by an unconditional research grant from Astellas Pharma Ltd. The sponsor had no role in the study design; in the data collection, analysis, or interpretation; or in writing the manuscript. AJ is supported by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation and Swedish Prostate Cancer Federation. KW is supported by the Swedish Cancer Society (CAN 2017/478 and 20 1055 PjF) and the Swedish Prostate Cancer Federation. AKÖ is supported by the Swedish Heart Lung foundation (no. 20200385), and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (grants to Science for Life Laboratory, 2020.0182). AMFC is supported by Central ALF-funding, Region Västerbotten (RV-836351), Base unit ALF-funding (RV-939769); Strategic Funding during 2020 from the Department of Clinical Microbiology, Umeå University; and The Laboratory for Molecular Infection Medicine Sweden (MIMS)

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.