Search

Background and Objective: Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024., Methods: Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists")., Key Findings and Limitations: Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Radiotherapy (RT) and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ltADT; 18-36 mo) is a standard of care in the treatment of high-risk localized/locoregional prostate cancer (HRLPC). We evaluated the outcomes in patients treated with RT + ltADT to identify which patients have poorer prognosis with standard therapy., Methods: Individual patient data from patients with HRLPC (as defined by any of the following three risk factors [RFs] in the context of cN0 disease-Gleason score ≥8, cT3-4, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml, or cN1 disease) treated with RT and ltADT in randomized controlled trials collated by the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate group. The outcome measures of interest were metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), time to metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Multivariable Cox and Fine-Gray regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the three RFs and cN1 disease., Key Findings and Limitations: A total of 3604 patients from ten trials were evaluated, with a median PSA value of 24 ng/ml. Gleason score ≥8 (MFS HR = 1.45; OS HR = 1.42), cN1 disease (MFS HR = 1.86; OS HR = 1.77), cT3-4 disease (MFS HR = 1.28; OS HR = 1.22), and PSA >20 ng/ml (MFS HR = 1.30; OS HR = 1.21) were associated with poorer outcomes. Adjusted 5-yr MFS rates were 83% and 78%, and 10-yr MFS rates were 63% and 53% for patients with one and two to three RFs, respectively; corresponding 10-yr adjusted OS rates were 67% and 60%, respectively. In cN1 patients, adjusted 5- and 10-yr MFS rates were 67% and 36%, respectively, and 10-yr OS was 47%., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: HRLPC patients with two to three RFs (and cN0) or cN1 disease had the poorest outcomes on RT and ltADT. This will help in counseling patients treated in routine practice and in guiding adjuvant trials in HRLPC., Patient Summary: Radiotherapy and long-term hormone therapy are standard treatments for high-risk and locoregional prostate cancer. In this report, we defined prognostic groups within high-risk/locoregional prostate cancer and showed that outcomes to standard therapy are poorest in those with two or more "high-risk" factors or evidence of lymph node involvement. Such patients may therefore be the best candidates for intensification of treatment., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: High-risk localised prostate cancer (HRCaP) has high rates of biochemical recurrence; [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is effective in men with advanced prostate cancer., Objective: To investigate the dosimetry, safety, and efficacy of upfront [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in men with HRCaP prior to robotic radical prostatectomy (RP)., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-arm, phase I/II trial, we recruited men with HRCaP (any of prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group [GG] 3-5, and ≥cT2c), with high tumour uptake on [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT), and scheduled for RP., Intervention: Cohort A (n = 10) received one cycle and cohort B (n = 10) received two cycles of [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (5 GBq) followed by surgery 6 weeks later., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was tumour radiation absorbed dose. Adverse events (AEs; Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0), surgical safety (Clavien-Dindo), imaging, and biochemical responses were evaluated (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04430192)., Results and Limitations: Between May 29, 2020 and April 28, 2022, 20 patients were enrolled. The median PSA was 18 ng/ml (interquartile range [IQR] 11-35), Eighteen (90%) had GG ≥3, and six (30%) had N1 disease. The median (IQR) highest tumour radiation absorbed dose after cycle 1 for all lesions was 35.5 Gy (19.5-50.1), with 19.6 Gy (11.3-48.4) delivered to the prostate. Five patients received radiation to lymph nodes. Nine (45%) patients achieved >50% PSA decline. The most common AEs related to [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 were grade 1 fatigue in eight (40%), nausea in seven (35%), dry mouth in six (30%), and thrombocytopenia in four (20%) patients. No grade 3/4 toxicities or Clavien 3-5 complications occurred. Limitations include small a sample size., Conclusions: In men with HRCaP and high prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression, [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 delivered high levels of targeted radiation doses with few toxicities and without compromising surgical safety. Further studies of [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in this population are worthwhile to determine whether meaningful long-term oncological benefits can be demonstrated., Patient Summary: In this study, we demonstrate that up to two cycles of [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 given prior to radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer are safe and deliver targeted doses of radiation to tumour-affected tissues. It is tolerated well with minimal treatment-related adverse events, and surgery is safe with a low rate of complications. Activity measured through PSA reduction, repeat PSMA PET/CT, and histological response is promising., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Whether prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) should replace conventional imaging modalities (CIM) for initial staging of intermediate-high risk prostate cancer (PCa) requires definitive evidence on their relative diagnostic abilities., Objective: To perform head-to-head comparisons of PSMA-PET and CIM including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), computed tomography (CT) and bone scan (BS) for upfront staging of tumour, nodal, and bone metastasis., Evidence Acquisition: A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to December 2021. Only studies in which patients underwent both PSMA-PET and CIM and imaging was referenced against histopathology or composite reference standards were included. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist and its extension for comparative reviews (QUADAS-C). Pairwise comparisons of the sensitivity and specificity of PSMA-PET versus CIM were performed by adding imaging modality as a covariate to bivariate mixed-effects meta-regression models. The likelihood ratio test was applied to determine whether statistically significant differences existed., Evidence Synthesis: A total of 31 studies (2431 patients) were included. PSMA-PET/MRI was more sensitive than mpMRI for detection of extra-prostatic extension (78.7% versus 52.9%) and seminal vesicle invasion (66.7% versus 51.0%). For nodal staging, PSMA-PET was more sensitive and specific than mpMRI (73.7% versus 38.9%, 97.5% versus 82.6%) and CT (73.2% versus 38.5%, 97.8% versus 83.6%). For bone metastasis staging, PSMA-PET was more sensitive and specific than BS with or without single-photon emission computerised tomography (98.0% versus 73.0%, 96.2% versus 79.1%). A time interval between imaging modalities >1 month was identified as a source of heterogeneity across all nodal staging analyses., Conclusions: Direct comparisons revealed that PSMA-PET significantly outperforms CIM, which suggests that PSMA-PET should be used as a first-line approach for the initial staging of PCa., Patient Summary: We reviewed direct comparisons of the ability of a scan method called PSMA-PET (prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography) and current imaging methods to detect the spread of prostate cancer outside the prostate gland. We found that PSMA-PET is more accurate for detection of the spread of prostate cancer to adjacent tissue, nearby lymph nodes, and bones., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a promising molecular target for prostate cancer (PCa) that has allowed the development of a novel diagnostic approach to PCA in the primary and recurrent settings., Objective: To summarize available data and recommendations regarding the use of PSMA in newly diagnosed and recurrent PCa via a narrative review., Evidence Acquisition: A literature review was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Scopus. The search strategy included meta-analyses, reviews, and original studies on staging and restaging with 68 Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT)., Evidence Synthesis: Studies comparing PSMA-targeted imaging and conventional imaging suggest superior performance of PSMA-targeted imaging in primary and recurrent PCa, albeit with several clinically relevant limitations. Pretreatment 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT allowed more accurate PCa staging in compared to routine practice for high-risk cases, and identified a number of otherwise unknown metastatic lesions. In biochemically recurrent PCa, PSMA PET can reveal sites of recurrence with greater sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging, potentially detecting a major proportion of occult disease. This review will help providers in applying the most up-to-date and relevant literature to (1) determine which patients truly have oligometastatic disease and (2) ascertain who is most likely to experience a meaningful response to local consolidation in the biochemical recurrence setting., Conclusions: Data on PSMA diagnostic studies in primary and recurrent PCa highlight the accuracy and clinical application of PSMA PET. While this review and the evidence to date might lead to a perception of superiority in metastasis directed therapy, fundamental lack of phase III clinical trials with clinically meaningful outcomes are yet to be determined., Patient Summary: PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen) scans have shown great promise for initial evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa) and in detection of PCa recurrence. The benefits are more apparent for initial staging of PCa. There are more limited clinical trial results for PCa recurrence on how best to use this new technique to guide cancer treatment., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Context: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeting positron emission tomography (PET) is emerging to become a reference imaging tool for the staging and restaging of patients with prostate cancer for both clinical routine and trials. The prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE) criteria have been proposed as a framework for whole-body staging (molecular imaging TNM staging, denoted miTNM staging) to describe the prostate cancer disease extent on PSMA-PET., Objective: To create a comprehensive and integrated framework for PSMA-PET image interpretation and reporting., Evidence Acquisition: We propose the PROMISE V2 framework, which integrates an updated miTNM system, improved assessment of local disease, and a slightly modified PSMA-expression score for clinical routine. We have added a response monitoring framework defining qualitative and quantitative parameters to be recorded for a longitudinal assessment in clinical trials., Evidence Synthesis: We provide a comprehensive literature review on the current use of the PROMISE framework in clinical research and prospective trials. PROMISE variables demonstrate a clear association with survival. PSMA expression assessed by the PSMA-expression score was used in several trials, and a low PSMA-expression score is a negative prognosticator of overall survival after 177 Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy. The proposed imaging parameters recorded for response assessment in clinical trials can be utilized to determine response according to PSMA-PET progression (PPP) or Response Evaluation Criteria in PSMA-PET/Computed Tomography (RECIP) frameworks, but also future response criteria., Conclusions: PROMISE V2 offers standardized reporting of disease extent for clinical routine and research. Parameters recorded within clinical trials facilitate objective response assessment., Patient Summary: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeting positron emission tomography (PET) has become a standard imaging examination for prostate cancer. We propose a comprehensive framework for the analysis and reporting of PSMA-PET findings that will improve the communication between imaging experts and uro-oncologists., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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 management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence., Objective: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021., Design, Setting, and Participants: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process., Results and Limitations: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material., Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has produced modest results. High-dose radiotherapy may be synergistic with checkpoint inhibitors., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in mCRPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: From November 2017 to July 2019, this prospective phase 2 study enrolled 31 men with progressive mCRPC after at least one prior androgen receptor-directed therapy. Median follow-up was 18.0 mo., Intervention: Avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk for 24 wk (12 cycles). A single fraction of SABR (20 Gy) was administered to one or two disease sites within 5 d before the first and second avelumab treatments., Outcomes Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was the disease control rate (DCR), defined as a confirmed complete or partial response of any duration, or stable disease/non-complete response/non-progressive disease for ≥6 mo (Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3-modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1). Secondary endpoints were the objective response rate (ORR), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. DCR and ORR were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact binomial method., Results and Limitations: Thirty-one evaluable men were enrolled (median age 71 yr, 71% with ≥2 prior mCRPC therapy lines, 81% with >5 total metastases). The DCR was 48% (15/31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 30-67%) and ORR was 31% (five of 16; 95% CI 11-59%). The ORR in nonirradiated lesions was 33% (four of 12; 95% CI 10-65%). Median rPFS was 8.4 mo (95% CI 4.5-not reached [NR]) and median OS was 14.1 mo (95% CI 8.9-NR). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in six patients (16%), with three (10%) requiring high-dose corticosteroid therapy. Plasma androgen receptor alterations were associated with lower DCR (22% vs 71%, p = 0.13; Fisher's exact test). Limitations include the small sample size and the absence of a control arm., Conclusions: Avelumab with SABR demonstrated encouraging activity and acceptable toxicity in treatment-refractory mCRPC. This combination warrants further investigation., Patient Summary: In this study of men with advanced and heavily pretreated prostate cancer, combining stereotactic radiotherapy with avelumab immunotherapy was safe and resulted in nearly half of patients experiencing cancer control for 6 months or longer. Stereotactic radiotherapy may potentially improve the effectiveness of immunotherapy in prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Female representation in urological meetings is important for gender equity., Objective: Our objective was to examine the prevalence of "manels" or all-male speaking panels at urological meetings., Design, Setting, and Participants: Urology meetings organized by major urological associations/societies from December 2019 to November 2020 were reviewed. Meeting information and details of the faculty were retrieved., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Primary outcomes were: (1) the percentage of male faculty in all included sessions and (2) the overall proportion of manels. We made further comparisons between manel and multigender sessions. Male and female faculty were stratified by quartiles of publications, citations, and H-index, and their mean numbers of sessions were compared., Results and Limitations: Among 285 meeting sessions, 181 (63.5%) were manels. The mean percentage of male faculty was 86.9%. Male representation was very high in urology meetings for most disciplines and urological associations/societies, except for female urology meeting sessions and those organized by the International Continence Society. Nonmanel sessions had higher numbers of chairs/moderators (p = 0.027), speakers (p < 0.001), and faculty (p < 0.001) than manel sessions. A total of 1037 faculty members were included, and 900 of them (86.8%) were male. Male faculty had longer mean years of practice (23.8 vs 17.7 yr, p < 0.001) and was more likely to include professors (43.2% vs 17.5%, p < 0.001) than female faculty. Male faculty within the first quartile (ie, lower quartile) of publications and H-index had a significantly higher number of sessions than female faculty within the same quartile., Conclusions: Our study showed that manels are prevalent in urology meetings. There is evidence showing that males received more opportunities than females. A huge gender imbalance exists in urology meetings; urological associations and societies should actively strive for greater gender parity., Patient Summary: Women are under-represented in urology meetings. Urological associations and societies should play an active role to ensure a more balanced gender representation., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Men who initially present with localized prostate cancer and later develop metachronous metastases have a better prognosis than men with de novo metastatic disease and often have a low burden of disease on conventional imaging. Some have disease amenable to metastasis-directed therapy for lymph node or bone metastases, a strategy used by some because no documented overall survival (OS) benefit of combination systemic therapy in this setting. We report data for patients prospectively classified as "M0" at initial diagnosis from the interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial, with 34 mo of median follow-up for survivors. A total of 312 (28%) of the 1125 enrolled patients were classified as M0 at diagnosis, and 205 (66%) of the 312 patients had low-volume disease at study entry as per the CHAARTED criteria. The hazard ratio for OS, that is, HR(OS), was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-1.06) with the addition of enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and for the low-volume subset the HR(OS) was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.16-0.97). The 3-yr OS was 83% without and 89% with enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastases, and 83% and 92%, respectively, for the low-volume subset. Intensification of hormonal therapy should strongly be considered for these men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many men present with prostate cancer that has spread to distant sites beyond the prostate gland years after their initial diagnosis and treatment, while others have distant spread at the time the cancer is diagnosed. On average, men whose cancer comes back years after the initial diagnosis often survive much longer than men whose cancer has been found to spread to distant sites when it is first diagnosed. In this report, we demonstrate strong evidence for the first time that the survival of men whose cancer comes back years later is improved when drugs such as enzalutamide or apalutamide are added to testosterone suppression in this setting., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Before integrating prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) into routine care, it is important to assess if the benefits justify the differences in resource use., Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of PSMA-PET/CT when compared with conventional imaging., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cost-effectiveness analysis was developed using data from the proPSMA study. proPSMA included patients with high-risk prostate cancer assigned to conventional imaging or 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with planned health economics data collected. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an Australian societal perspective., Intervention: 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT compared with conventional imaging (CT and bone scan)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary outcome from proPSMA was diagnostic accuracy (nodal and distant metastases). This informed a decision tree analysis of the cost per accurate diagnosis., Results and Limitations: The estimated cost per scan for PSMA PET/CT was AUD$1203, which was less than the conventional imaging cost at AUD$1412. PSMA PET/CT was thus dominant, having both better accuracy and a lower cost. This resulted in a cost of AUD$959 saved per additional accurate detection of nodal disease, and AUD$1412 saved for additional accurate detection of distant metastases. The results were most sensitive to variations in the number of men scanned for each 68 Ga-PSMA-11 production run. Subsequent research is required to assess the long-term costs and benefits of PSMA PET/CT-directed care., Conclusions: PSMA PET/CT has lower direct comparative costs and greater accuracy compared to conventional imaging for initial staging of men with high-risk prostate cancer. This provides a compelling case for adopting PSMA PET/CT into clinical practice., Patient Summary: The proPSMA study demonstrated that prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) better detects disease that has spread beyond the prostate compared with conventional imaging. Our analysis shows that PSMA PET/CT is also less costly than conventional imaging for the detection of disease spread. This research was presented at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Scientific Meeting in October 2020., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Activating mutations in AKT1 and PIK3CA are undercharacterised in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but are linked to activation of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) signalling and sensitivity to pathway inhibitors in other cancers., Objective: To determine the prevalence, genomic context, and clinical associations of AKT1/PIK3CA activating mutations in mCRPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: We analysed targeted cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing data from 599 metastatic prostate cancer patients with circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) content above 2%., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: In patients with AKT1/PIK3CA mutations, cfDNA was subjected to PTEN intron sequencing and matched diagnostic tumour tissue was analysed when possible., Results and Limitations: Of the patients, 6.0% (36/599) harboured somatic clonal activating mutation(s) in AKT1 or PIK3CA. Mutant allele-specific imbalance was common. Clonal mutations in mCRPC ctDNA were typically detected in pretreatment primary tissue and were consistent across serial ctDNA collections. AKT1/PIK3CA-mutant mCRPC had fewer androgen receptor (AR) gene copies than AKT1/PIK3CA wild-type mCRPC (median 4.7 vs 10.3, p =  0.003). AKT1 mutations were mutually exclusive with PTEN alterations. Patients with and without AKT1/PIK3CA mutations showed similar clinical outcomes with standard of care treatments. A heavily pretreated mCRPC patient with an AKT1 mutation experienced a 50% decline in prostate-specific antigen with Akt inhibitor (ipatasertib) monotherapy. Ipatasertib also had a marked antitumour effect in a patient-derived xenograft harbouring an AKT1 mutation. Limitations include the inability to assess AKT1/PIK3CA correlatives in ctDNA-negative patients., Conclusions: AKT1/PIK3CA activating mutations are relatively common and delineate a distinct mCRPC molecular subtype with low-level AR copy gain. Clonal prevalence and evidence of mutant allele selection propose PI3K pathway dependency in selected patients. The use of cfDNA screening enables prospective clinical trials to test PI3K pathway inhibitors in this population., Patient Summary: Of advanced prostate cancer cases, 6% have activating mutations in the genes AKT1 or PIK3CA. These mutations can be identified using a blood test and may help select patients suitable for clinical trials of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence., Objective: To present the results from the APCCC 2019., Design, Setting, and Participants: Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process., Results and Limitations: Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material., Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has become the recommended management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the optimal follow-up schedule in terms of the tests to perform and their frequency., Objective: To assess the costs and benefits of different AS follow-up strategies compared to watchful waiting (WW) or immediate treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: A state-transition Markov model was developed to simulate the natural history (ie, no testing or intervention) of prostate cancer for a hypothetical cohort of 50-yr-old men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Following diagnosis, men were hypothetically managed with immediate treatment, watchful waiting, or one of several AS strategies. AS follow-up was performed either with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which was scheduled annually, biennially, every 3yrs, according to the PRIAS protocol (yrs 1, 4, 7, and 10, and then every 5yr) or every 5yr. Diagnosis of higher-grade or -stage disease while on AS resulted in curative treatment., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: We measured discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), discounted lifetime medical costs (2017 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results and Limitations: Compared to WW, MRI-based surveillance performed every 5yr improved quality-adjusted survival by 4.47 quality-adjusted months and represented high-value health care at the Medicare reimbursement rate using standard cost-effectiveness metrics. Biopsy-based strategies were less effective and less costly than the corresponding MRI-based strategies for each testing interval. MRI-based surveillance at more frequent intervals had ICERs greater than $800000 per QALY and would not be considered cost-effective according to standard metrics. Our results were sensitive to the diagnostic accuracy and costs of both biopsy modes in detecting clinically significant cancer., Conclusions: Incorporation of MRI into surveillance protocols at Medicare reimbursement rates and decreasing the intensity of repeat testing may be cost-effective options for men opting for conservative management of low-risk prostate cancer., Patient Summary: Our study modeled outcomes for men with low-risk prostate cancer undergoing watchful waiting, immediate treatment, or active surveillance with different follow-up schedules. We found that conservative management of low-risk disease optimizes health outcomes and costs. Furthermore, we showed that decreasing the intensity of active surveillance follow-up and incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into surveillance protocols can be cost-effective, depending on the MRI costs., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Radiotherapy used for treating localized prostate cancer is effective at prolonging cancer-specific and overall survival. Still, acute and late pelvic toxicities are a concern, with gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) sequelae being most common as well as other pelvic complications., Objective: To present a critical review of the literature regarding the incidence and risk factors of pelvic toxicity following primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer and to provide a narrative review regarding its management., Evidence Acquisition: A collaborative narrative review of the literature from 2010 to present was conducted., Evidence Synthesis: Regardless of the modality used, the incidence of acute high-grade pelvic toxicity is low following conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). After moderate hypofractionation, the crude cumulative incidences for late grade 3 or higher (G3+) GI and GU complications are as high as 6% and 7%, respectively. After extreme hypofractionation, the 5-yr incidences of G2+ GU and GI toxicities are 3-9% and 0-4%, respectively. Following brachytherapy monotherapy, crude rates of late G3+ GU toxicity range from 6% to 8%, while late GI toxicity is rare. With combination therapy (EBRT and brachytherapy), the cumulative incidence of late GU toxicity is high, between 18% and 31%; however, the prevalence is lower at 4-14%. Whole pelvic radiotherapy remains a controversial treatment option as there is increased G3+ GI toxicity compared with prostate-only treatment, with no overall survival benefit. Proton beam therapy appears to have similar toxicity to photon therapies currently in use. With respect to specific complications, urinary obstruction and urethral stricture are the most common severe urinary toxicities. Rectal and urinary bleeding can be recurrent long-term toxicities. The risk of hip fracture is also increased following prostate radiotherapy. The literature is mixed on the risk of in-field secondary pelvic malignancies following prostate radiotherapy. Urinary and GI fistulas are rare complications. Management of these toxicities may require invasive treatment and reconstructive surgery for refractory and severe symptoms., Conclusions: There has been progress in the delivery of radiotherapy, enabling the administration of higher doses with minimal tradeoff in terms of slightly increased or equal toxicity. There is a need to focus future improvements in radiotherapy on sparing critical structures to reduce GU and GI morbidities. While complications such as fistulae, bone toxicity, and secondary malignancy are rare, there is a need for higher-quality studies assessing these outcomes and their management., Patient Summary: In this report, we review the literature regarding pelvic complications following modern primary prostate cancer radiotherapy and their management. Modern radiotherapy technologies have enabled the administration of higher doses with minimal increases in toxicity. Overall, high-grade long-term toxicity following prostate radiotherapy is uncommon. Management of late high-grade pelvic toxicities can be challenging, with patients often requiring invasive therapies for refractory cases., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Social media (SoMe) has transformed communication among health care professionals by enabling rapid and global information exchange. Yet, the novelty of SoMe and concerns about potential risks continue to be barriers to adoption., Objective: To encourage appropriate professional use of SoMe by physicians in concordance with best practices and to update practical guidelines for effective and professional use of these communication technologies., Evidence Aquisition: The European Association of Urology (EAU; @Uroweb) brought together a committee of SoMe stakeholders in the urology field. PubMed and the grey literature were searched to identify SoMe position papers by other medical societies and organizations., Evidence Synthesis: Updated practical guidelines for effective and professional use of SoMe communication technologies. A core of 10 practical recommendations for the responsible, ethical, and constructive use of SoMe communication technologies was articulated. The guidelines are limited by their inherent subjective nature and lack of robust evidence supporting their utility., Conclusions: SoMe is reshaping the way the urological care providers communicate; however, appropriate engagement requires courtesy, professionalism, and honesty. Adherence to guidelines will help users harness the benefits of SoMe in a safe and effective manner., Patient Summary: Social media has transformed communication among health care professionals. This narrative review article provides an update of practical guidelines for effective and professional use of these communication technologies., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Germline DNA damage repair gene mutation (gDDRm) is found in >10% of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). Their prognostic and predictive impact relating to standard therapies is unclear., Objective: To determine whether gDDRm status impacts benefit from established therapies in mPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective, international, observational study. Medical records were reviewed for 390 mPC patients with known gDDRm status. All 372 patients from Royal Marsden (UK), Weill-Cornell (NY), and University of Washington (WA) were previously included in a prevalence study (Pritchard, NEJM 2016); the remaining 18 were gBRCA1/2m carriers, from the kConFab consortium, Australia., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) data were collected. To account for potential differences between cohorts, a mixed-effect model (Weibull distribution) with random intercept per cohort was used., Results and Limitations: The gDDRm status was known for all 390 patients (60 carriers of gDDRm [gDDRm+], including 37 gBRCA2m, and 330 cases not found to carry gDDRm [gDDRm-]); 74% and 69% were treated with docetaxel and abiraterone/enzalutamide, respectively, and 36% received PARP inhibitors (PARPi) and/or platinum. Median OS from castration resistance was similar among groups (3.2 vs 3.0 yr, p=0.73). Median docetaxel PFS for gDDRm+ (6.8 mo) was not significantly different from that for gDDRm- (5.1 mo), and RRs were similar (gDDRm+=61%; gDDRm-=54%). There were no significant differences in median PFS and RR on first-line abiraterone/enzalutamide (gDDRm+=8.3 mo, gDDRm-=8.3 mo; gDDRm+=46%, gDDRm-=56%). Interaction test for PARPi/platinum and gDDRm+ resulted in an OS adjusted hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.28-1.25; p=0.17). Results are limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis., Conclusions: mPC patients with gDDRm appeared to benefit from standard therapies similarly to the overall population; prospective studies are ongoing to investigate the impact of PARPi/platinum., Patient Summary: Patients with inherited DNA repair mutations benefit from standard therapies similarly to other metastatic prostate cancer patients., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evaluation of treatment options for localized prostate cancer (PCa) remains among the highest priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Surgery and radiotherapy (RT) are the two interventions most commonly used., Objective: To provide a critical narrative review of evidence of the comparative effectiveness and harms of surgery and RT in the treatment of localized PCa., Evidence Acquisition: A collaborative critical narrative review of the literature was conducted., Evidence Synthesis: Evidence to clearly guide treatment choice in PCa remains insufficient. Randomized trials are underpowered for clinically meaningful endpoints and have demonstrated no difference in overall or PCa-specific survival. Observational studies have consistently demonstrated an absolute survival benefit for men treated with radical prostatectomy, but are limited by selection bias and residual confounding errors. Surgery and RT are associated with comparable health-related quality of life following treatment in three randomized trials. Randomized data regarding urinary, erectile, and bowel function show few long-term (>5 yr) differences, although short-term continence and erectile function were worse following surgery and short-term urinary bother and bowel function were worse following RT. There has been recent recognition of other complications that may significantly affect the life trajectory of those undergoing PCa treatment. Of these, hospitalization, the need for urologic, rectoanal, and other major surgical procedures, and secondary cancers are more common among men treated with RT. Androgen deprivation therapy, frequently co-administered with RT, may additionally contribute to treatment-related morbidity. Technological innovations in surgery and RT have shown inconsistent oncologic and functional benefits., Conclusions: Owing to underpowered randomized control studies and the selection biases inherent in observational studies, the question of which treatment provides better PCa control cannot be definitively answered now or in the near future. Complications following PCa treatment are relatively common regardless of treatment approach. These include the commonly identified issues of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, and others including hospitalization and invasive procedures to manage complications and secondary malignancies. Population-based outcome studies, rather than clinical trial data, will be necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the relative benefits and risks of each therapeutic approach., Patient Summary: Surgery and radiotherapy are the most common interventions for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Comparisons of survival after these treatments are limited by various flaws in the relevant studies. Complications are common regardless of the treatment approach., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is associated with poor prognosis. While it is often regarded as a rare pathology, the prevalence of IDC-P remains unclear, with variable reports from small and disparate patient populations. To determine how common IDC-P is across the spectrum of prostate cancer, we conducted a systematic review correlating IDC-P prevalence with prostate cancer risk. Electronic searches of the OVID Medline, PubMed, and Scopus literature databases identified 38 patient cohorts in 24 articles, which were divided between four prostate cancer risk categories (low, moderate, high, and recurrent or metastatic disease). This review, which included radical prostatectomy and prostate biopsy specimens from >7000 patients, revealed an unexpectedly high rate of IDC-P. The IDC-P prevalence increased from 2.1% in low-risk patient cohorts to 23.1%, 36.7%, and 56.0% in moderate-risk, high-risk, and metastatic or recurrent disease risk categories, respectively (p<0.0001). IDC-P was also highly prevalent in tumours following androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy (60%). Contrary to common perceptions, this study demonstrates a strong association between IDC-P prevalence and aggressive prostate cancer, with a significantly higher frequency in high-risk disease. Greater recognition and systematic reporting of IDC-P may improve patient risk stratification., Patient Summary: Prostate cancer can grow within ducts of the prostate, as well as in prostate tissue. By reviewing all reports describing prostate cancer growing within ducts, we found that it occurs more commonly than many scientists and clinicians appreciate, especially in aggressive prostate cancers. We conclude that there should be more awareness of this pattern of prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)