Search

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and

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. © 2022 The Author(s)

The authors regret that Axel Heidenreich was added to the author list in error. The author list is now corrected as above, however the affiliations of remaining authors have been retained. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. © 2022 The Author(s)

BackgroundBefore 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.ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of PSMA-PET/CT when compared with conventional imaging.Design, setting, and participantsA cost-effectiveness analysis was developed using data from the proPSMA study. proPSMA included patients with high-risk prostate cancer assigned to conventional imaging or 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with planned health economics data collected. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an Australian societal perspective.Intervention68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT compared with conventional imaging (CT and bone scan).Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe 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 limitationsThe 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 68Ga-PSMA-11 production run. Subsequent research is required to assess the long-term costs and benefits of PSMA PET/CT-directed care.ConclusionsPSMA 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 summaryThe 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.

The authors regret that a co-author was mistakenly missed from the authorship. The following co-author should have been included in the authorship: Peter-Paul M. Willemse Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center, Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands © 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology

At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019, 10 important areas of controversy in advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on 123 predefined consensus questions. The full report of the results is summarised here. © 2020 The Authors 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. © 2020 The Authors

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach. Patient summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), 7–9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach. © 2019 European Society for Medical Oncology

© 2017 European Association of Urology Background In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. Objective To present the report of APCCC 2017. Design, setting, and participants Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; “oligometastatic” prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. Conclusions The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. Patient summary The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference, 10 important areas of controversy in advanced prostate cancer management were identified, discussed, and the experts voted on 150 predefined consensus questions. The full report of the results is summarised here.

BACKGROUNDSunitinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitor, is an effectivetreatment for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We sought to determine the efficacyand safety of sunitinib in patients with locoregional renal-cell carcinoma athigh risk for tumor recurrence after nephrectomy.METHODSIn this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we assigned 615 patients withlocoregional, high-risk clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive either sunitinib(50 mg per day) or placebo on a 4-weeks-on, 2-weeks-off schedule for 1 year oruntil disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primaryend point was disease-free survival, according to blinded independent central review.Secondary end points included investigator-assessed disease-free survival,overall survival, and safety.RESULTSThe median duration of disease-free survival was 6.8 years (95% confidence interval[CI], 5.8 to not reached) in the sunitinib group and 5.6 years (95% CI, 3.8 to6.6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.98; P=0.03). Overallsurvival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff. Dose reductions becauseof adverse events were more frequent in the sunitinib group than in theplacebo group (34.3% vs. 2%), as were dose interruptions (46.4% vs. 13.2%) anddiscontinuations (28.1% vs. 5.6%). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequentin the sunitinib group (48.4% for grade 3 events and 12.1% for grade 4 events)than in the placebo group (15.8% and 3.6%, respectively). There was a similarincidence of serious adverse events in the two groups (21.9% for sunitinib vs.17.1% for placebo); no deaths were attributed to toxic effects.CONCLUSIONSAmong patients with locoregional clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at high risk fortumor recurrence after nephrectomy, the median duration of disease-free survivalwas significantly longer in the sunitinib group than in the placebo group, at a costof a higher rate of toxic events. (Funded by Pfizer; S-TRAC ClinicalTrials.gov number,NCT00375674.)

Active surveillance (AS) is a strategy for the management of patients with low-risk, localized prostate cancer, in which men undergo regular monitoring of serum PSA levels and tumour characteristics, using multiparametric MRI and repeat biopsy sampling, to identify signs of disease progression. This strategy reduces overtreatment of clinically insignificant disease while also preserving opportunities for curative therapy in patients whose disease progresses. Preliminary studies of lifestyle interventions involving basic exercise advice have indicated that exercise reduces the numbers of patients undergoing active treatment, as well as modulating the biological processes involved in tumour progression. Therefore, preliminary evidence suggests that lifestyle and/or exercise interventions might have therapeutic potential in this growing population of men with prostate cancer. However, several important issues remain unclear: the exact value of different types of lifestyle and exercise medicine interventions during AS; the biological mechanisms of exercise in delaying disease progression; and the influence of the anxieties and distress created by having a diagnosis of cancer without then receiving active treatment. Future studies are required to confirm and expand these findings and determine the relative contributions of each lifestyle component to specific end points and patient outcomes during AS.