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.)

Purpose: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) holds promise for image-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) in prostate cancer. However, challenges persist due to image distortion, artifacts, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) reproducibility issues. This study aimed to assess DWI image quality and ADC reproducibility on both a 1.5 T MR-simulator and a 1.5 T MR-Linac, employing measurements from both an ACR MRI phantom and prostate cancer patients undergoing MRgRT., Methods: DW-MRI scans were conducted on 19 patients (mean age = 69 ± 8 years, with 23 MR-visible intra-prostatic lesions) and an ACR MRI phantom using a 1.5 T MR-simulator (b-values = 0, 800, 1400s/mm 2 ) and a 1.5 T MR-Linac (b-values = 50, 500, 800 s/mm 2 ). ADC homogeneity in the phantom was evaluated via 1D profile flatness (FL) in three directions. Image quality was assessed through qualitative 5-point Likert scale ratings and quantitative ADC and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements. Intra-observer reproducibility of image quality scores was evaluated using ICC(1, 2). Geometric distortion was measured by comparing landmark sizes on the ACR phantom against the ground truth. Mean ADC and reproducibility were assessed using Bland-Altman plots., Results: Both MR-simulator and MR-Linac demonstrated high ADC homogeneity (FL > 87.5% - MR-simulator: 97.23 ± 0.62%, MR-Linac: 94.75 ± 0.62%, p < 0.05) in the phantom. Image quality scores revealed acceptable ratings (≥3) for capsule demarcation, image artifacts, and geometric distortion in patients. However, intra-prostatic lesions were barely discernible in b800 images for both MR-simulator (average score = 2.37 ± 1.33) and MR-Linac (average score = 2.16 ± 1.28). While MR-Linac DWI scans exhibited significantly more severe geometric distortion than MR-simulator scans (p < 0.01), most phantom measurements fell within the image in-plane resolution of 3 mm. Significant differences were noted in MR-simulator ADC (CTV: 1.20 ± 0.14 × 10 -3  mm 2 /s (MR-simulator) vs 1.06 ± 0.10 × 10-3 mm 2 /s (MR-Linac); GTV: 1.05 ± 0.21 × 10 -3  mm 2 /s vs 0.91 ± 0.16 × 10 mm 2 /s, all p < 0.05), with a small non-zero bias observed in the Bland-Altman analysis (CTV: 12.3%; GTV: 14.5%)., Conclusion: The significantly larger MR-simulator ADC and the small non-zero bias hint at potential systematic differences in ADC values acquired from an MR-simulator and an MR-Linac, both at 1.5 T. Although acceptable ADC homogeneity was noted, caution is warranted in interpreting MR-Linac DWI images due to occasional severe artifacts. Further studies are essential to validate DWI and ADC as reliable imaging markers in prostate cancer MRgRT., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors confirm that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aim of the third Asia-Pacific Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APAC APCCC 2023) was to discuss the application in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region of consensus statements from the 4th Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022)., Methods: The one-day meeting in July 2023 brought together 27 experts from 14 APAC countries. The meeting covered five topics: (1) Intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer; (2) Management of newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer; (3) Management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; (4) Homologous recombination repair mutation testing; (5) Management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Pre- and post-symposium polling gathered APAC-specific responses to APCCC consensus questions and insights on current practices and challenges in the APAC region., Results: APAC APCCC highlights APAC-specific considerations in an evolving landscape of diagnostic technologies and treatment innovations for advanced prostate cancer. While new technologies are available in the region, cost and reimbursement continue to influence practice significantly. Individual patient considerations, including the impact of chemophobia on Asian patients, also influence decision-making., Conclusion: The use of next-generation imaging, genetic testing, and new treatment combinations is increasing the complexity and duration of prostate cancer management. Familiarity with new diagnostic and treatment options is growing in the APAC region. Insights highlight the continued importance of a multidisciplinary approach that includes nuclear medicine, genetic counseling, and quality-of-life expertise. The APAC APCCC meeting provides an important opportunity to share practice and identify APAC-specific issues and considerations in areas of low evidence where clinical experience is growing., (© 2024 The Authors. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) with nodal involvement is associated with poor prognosis and high mortality. Treatment of node-positive MIBC is complex due to disease heterogeneity and a lack of evidence-based treatment options, especially alternatives to radical cystectomy. We describe a bladder-sparing management approach involving systemic therapy followed by maintenance therapy, illustrated with two cases of node-positive MIBC., Case Presentation: Two patients with node-positive MIBC received upfront gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), and avelumab (immune checkpoint inhibitor) maintenance therapy. Both patients achieved complete remission without recurrence or distant metastasis post-avelumab maintenance therapy. At the last follow-up, Patient 1 (45-year-old male) was in remission for over two years, and Patient 2 (57-year-old male) was in complete remission for over one year post-chemotherapy. Avelumab treatment was well-tolerated, with no immune-related adverse events, and quality of life (QoL) was maintained., Conclusion: Both cases showed a good response and extended remission on avelumab maintenance, supporting its use in conjunction with local consolidation therapy as a bladder-preserving approach in node-positive MIBC. Further research, such as the ongoing INSPIRE trial, is required to refine treatment strategies for this patient group., Competing Interests: Dr. DP serves as an advisory board member and speaker for Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, outside of the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Poon, Ho and Kwong.)

Background and Purpose: This prospective study aimed to investigate adaptive magnetic resonance (MR)-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) with rectal spacer for localized prostate cancer (PC) and report 1-year clinical outcomes., Materials and Methods: Thirty-four consecutive patients with low- to high-risk localized PC that underwent 5-fraction adaptive MRgSBRT with rectal spacer were enrolled. The dosimetric comparison was performed on a risk- and age-matched cohort treated with MRgSBRT but without a spacer at a similar timepoint. Clinician-reported outcomes were based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Patient-reported outcomes were based on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire at baseline, acute (1-3 months), subacute (4-12 months), and late (> 12 months) phases., Results: The median follow-up was 390 days (range 28-823) and the median age was 70 years (range 58-82). One patient experienced rectal bleeding soon after spacer insertion that subsided before MRgSBRT. The median distance between the midline of the prostate midgland and the rectum after spacer insertion measured 7.8 mm (range 2.6-15.3), and the median length of the spacer was 45.9 mm (range 16.8-62.9) based on T2-weighted MR imaging. The use of spacer resulted in significant improvements in target coverage (V100% > 95% = 98.6% [range 93.4-99.8] for spacer vs. 97.8% [range 69.6-99.7] for non-spacer) and rectal sparing (V95% < 3 cc = 0.7 cc [range 0-4.6] for spacer vs. 4.9 cc [range 0-12.5] for non-spacer). Nine patients (26.5%) experienced grade 1 gastrointestinal toxicities, and no grade ≥ 2 toxicities were observed. During the 1-year follow-up period, EPIC scores for the bowel domain remained stable and were the highest among all other domains., Conclusions: MRgSBRT with rectal spacer for localized PC showed exceptional tolerability with minimal gastrointestinal toxicities and satisfactory patient-reported outcomes. Improvements in dosimetry, rectal sparing, and target coverage were achieved with a rectal spacer. Randomized trials are warranted for further validation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Abiraterone acetate (ABI) or docetaxel (DOC), in addition to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), are current treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). No randomized head-to-head trial has compared these 2 mHSPC treatments, and real-world data regarding their outcomes in Asian patients are lacking., Patients and Methods: The medical records of mHSPC patients who began upfront ABI or DOC treatment in addition to ADT at seven public oncology centers in Hong Kong between 2015 and 2021 were reviewed. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, and toxicities. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed., Results: A total of 574 patients were included, of whom 419 received DOC and 155 received ABI. The median follow-up duration was 22.4 (DOC group: 23.8; ABI group: 17.3) months. The ABI group demonstrated significantly better PFS than the DOC group (not reached vs. 15.1 months: hazard ratio = 0.37; 95% confidence interval = 0.28-0.50; P < .001). No significant OS difference was observed (P = .58). Failure to achieve a ≥ 90% decline in PSA level at 3 months and failure to achieve an undetectable PSA nadir were each associated with unfavorable PFS and OS. Patients who received DOC had a higher rate of febrile neutropenia, whereas those who received ABI had higher rates of grade ≥ 3 hypokalemia and elevated alanine transaminase. Treatment discontinuation due to toxicities was more common in the DOC (3.6%) than the ABI (0.6%) group., Conclusion: In Asian mHSPC patients, upfront ABI + ADT was associated with better PFS than DOC + ADT, with no significant OS difference. PSA kinetics may help stratify the prognosis for treatment intensification. Toxicity profiles were different, with a higher rate of toxicity-related treatment discontinuation in the DOC group., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the foundational treatment for metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Androgen receptor (AR) axis-targeted therapies are a new standard of care for advanced PCa. Although these agents have significantly improved patient survival, the suppression of testosterone is associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic syndrome. This highlights the urgency of multidisciplinary efforts to address the cardiometabolic risk of anticancer treatment in men with PCa., Methods: Two professional organizations invited five urologists, five clinical oncologists, and two cardiologists to form a consensus panel. They reviewed the relevant literature obtained by searching PubMed for the publication period from April 2013 to April 2023, to address three discussion areas: (i) baseline assessment and screening for risk factors in PCa patients before the initiation of ADT and AR axis-targeted therapies; (ii) follow-up and management of cardiometabolic complications; and (iii) selection of ADT agents among high-risk patients. The panel convened four meetings to discuss and draft consensus statements using a modified Delphi method. Each drafted statement was anonymously voted on by every panelist., Results: The panel reached a consensus on 18 statements based on recent evidence and expert insights., Conclusion: These consensus statements serve as a practical recommendation for clinicians in Hong Kong, and possibly the Asia-Pacific region, in the management of cardiometabolic toxicities of ADT or AR axis-targeted therapies in men with PCa., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Poon, Tan, Chan, Chan, Chan, Kan, Lam, Leung, Wong, Kam, Ng and Chiu.)

Purpose: The FLAME trial provides strong evidence that MR-guided external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) focal boost for localized prostate cancer increases biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) without increasing toxicity. Yet, there are many barriers to implementation of focal boost. Our objectives are to systemically review clinical outcomes for MR-guided EBRT focal boost and to consider approaches to increase implementation of this technique., Methods: We conducted literature searches in four databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guideline. We included prospective phase II/III trials of patients with localized prostate cancer underdoing definitive EBRT with MR-guided focal boost. The outcomes of interest were bDFS and acute/late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity., Results: Seven studies were included. All studies had a median follow-up of greater than 4 years. There were heterogeneities in fractionation, treatment planning, and delivery. Studies demonstrated effectiveness, feasibility, and tolerability of focal boost. Based on the Phoenix criteria for biochemical recurrence, the reported 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates ranged 69.7-100% across included studies. All studies reported good safety profiles. The reported ranges of acute/late grade 3 + gastrointestinal toxicities were 0%/1-10%. The reported ranges of acute/late grade 3 + genitourinary toxicities were 0-13%/0-5.6%., Conclusions: There is strong evidence that it is possible to improve oncologic outcomes without substantially increasing toxicity through MR-guided focal boost, at least in the setting of a 35-fraction radiotherapy regimen. Barriers to clinical practice implementation are addressable through additional investigation and new technologies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Radiomics has the potential to aid prostate cancer (PC) diagnoses and prediction by analyzing and modeling quantitative features extracted from clinical imaging. However, its reliability has been a concern, possibly due to its high-dimensional nature. This study aims to quantitatively investigate the impact of randomly generated irrelevant features on MRI radiomics feature selection, modeling, and performance by progressively adding randomly generated features. Two multiparametric-MRI radiomics PC datasets were used (dataset 1 ( n = 260), dataset 2 ( n = 100)). The endpoint was to differentiate pathology-confirmed clinically significant (Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7) from insignificant (GS < 7) PC. Random features were generated at 12 levels with a 10% increment from 0% to 100% and an additional 5%. Three feature selection algorithms and two classifiers were used to build the models. The area under the curve and accuracy were used to evaluate the model's performance. Feature importance was calculated to assess features' contributions to the models. The metrics of each model were compared using an ANOVA test with a Bonferroni correction. A slight tendency to select more random features with the increasing number of random features introduced to the datasets was observed. However, the performance of the radiomics-built models was not significantly affected, which was partially due to the higher contribution of radiomics features toward the models compared to the random features. These reliability effects also vary among datasets. In conclusion, while the inclusion of additional random features may still slightly impact the performance of the feature selection, it may not have a substantial impact on the MRI radiomics model performance.

BACKGROUND: We previously conducted a prospective study to show that nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) screening with circulating Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) DNA analysis can improve survival. However, the long-term significance of positive results in individuals without cancer was unclear. METHODS: We conducted a second-round screening at a median of 43 months after the initial screening. Participants with detectable plasma EBV DNA were retested in 4 weeks, and those with persistently positive results were investigated with nasal endoscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Of the 20,174 volunteers who participated in the first-round screening, 17,838 (88.6%) were rescreened. Among them, 423 (2.37%) had persistently detectable plasma EBV DNA. Twenty-four patients were identified as having NPC. A significantly higher proportion of patients had stage I/II cancer than in a historical cohort (67% vs. 20%; chi-square test, P<0.001), and they had superior 3-year progression-free survival (100% vs. 78.8%). Compared with participants with undetectable plasma EBV DNA in the first round of screening, participants with transiently and persistently positive results in the first round were more likely to have a cancer identified in the second round, with relative risks of 4.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 15.0) and 16.8 (95% confidence interval, 5.7 to 49.6), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with detectable plasma EBV DNA but without an immediately identifiable NPC were more likely to have the cancer identified in another round of screening performed 3 to 5 years later. (Funded by Kadoorie Charitable Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02063399.)

Background: Next-generation sequencing comprehensive genomic panels (NGS CGPs) have enabled the delivery of tailor-made therapeutic approaches to improve survival outcomes in patients with cancer. Within the China Greater Bay Area (GBA), territorial differences in clinical practices and health care systems and strengthening collaboration warrant a regional consensus to consolidate the development and integration of precision oncology (PO). Therefore, the Precision Oncology Working Group (POWG) formulated standardized principles for the clinical application of molecular profiling, interpretation of genomic alterations, and alignment of actionable mutations with sequence-directed therapy to deliver clinical services of excellence and evidence-based care to patients with cancer in the China GBA., Methods: Thirty experts used a modified Delphi method. The evidence extracted to support the statements was graded according to the GRADE system and reported according to the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, version 2.0., Results: The POWG reached consensus in six key statements: harmonization of reporting and quality assurance of NGS; molecular tumor board and clinical decision support systems for PO; education and training; research and real-world data collection, patient engagement, regulations, and financial reimbursement of PO treatment strategies; and clinical recommendations and implementation of PO in clinical practice., Conclusion: POWG consensus statements standardize the clinical application of NGS CGPs, streamline the interpretation of clinically significant genomic alterations, and align actionable mutations with sequence-directed therapies. The POWG consensus statements may harmonize the utility and delivery of PO in China's GBA.

Purpose: To investigate the potential value of MRI radiomics obtained from a 1.5 T MRI-guided linear accelerator (MR-LINAC) for D'Amico high-risk prostate cancer (PC) classification in MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT)., Methods: One hundred seventy-six consecutive PC patients underwent 1.5 T MRgRT treatment were retrospectively enrolled. Each patient received one or two pretreatment T 2 -weighted MRI scans on a 1.5 T MR-LINAC. The endpoint was to differentiate high-risk from low/intermediate-risk PC based on D'Amico criteria using MRI-radiomics. Totally 1023 features were extracted from clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). Intraclass correlation coefficient of scan-rescan repeatability, feature correlation, and recursive feature elimination were used for feature dimension reduction. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression was employed for model construction. Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis was used for model performance assessment in both training and testing data., Results: One hundred and eleven patients fulfilled all criteria were finally included: 76 for training and 35 for testing. The constructed MRI-radiomics models extracted from CTV and PTV achieved the AUC of 0.812 and 0.867 in the training data, without significant difference (P = 0.083). The model performances remained in the testing. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85.71%, 64.29%, and 77.14% for the PTV-based model; and 71.43%, 71.43%, and 71.43% for the CTV-based model. The corresponding AUCs were 0.718 and 0.750 (P = 0.091) for CTV- and PTV-based models., Conclusion: MRI-radiomics obtained from a 1.5 T MR-LINAC showed promising results in D'Amico high-risk PC stratification, potentially helpful for the future PC MRgRT. Prospective studies with larger sample sizes and external validation are warranted for further verification., (© 2022 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.)

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence., Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022., Design, Setting, and Participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions., Results and Limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these 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 are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer., Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and 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 healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer., Twitter Summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer., Take-Home Message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Aurelis Omlin: Advisory role (compensated, institutional): Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Molecular Partners, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis. Research support (institutional): TEVA, Janssen. Travel support: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Sanofi Aventis. Speakers Bureau (compensated, institutional): Bayer, Astellas, Janssen. Fizazi Karim: Participation to advisory boards or talks for: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi. Honoraria are provided to Gustave Roussy, my institution. Participation to advisory boards with personal honorarium for: CureVac, Orion. Bossi Alberto: Honoraria: Astellas, Ipsen, Janssen, Myovant. Consulting or advisory role: Astellas, Ipsen, Janssen, Myovant. Speakers’ bureau: Astellas, Ipsen, Elketa. Research funding: Astellas, Ipsen, Myovant. Travel, accommodations, expenses: Janssen. Tombal Bertrand: Advisor for Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, Curium, Ferring, Myovant, Janssens, MSD, Novartis (AAA), Pfizer, Sanofi. Gillessen Silke: SG received personal honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Sanofi, Orion, Roche, Amgen, MSD; other honoraria from RSI (Televisione Svizzera Italiana); invited speaker for ESMO, Swiss group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary oncology (SAMO), Orikata academy research group, China Anti-Cancer Association Genitourinary Oncology Committee (CACA-GU); Speaker’s bureau for Janssen Cilag; travel grant from ProteoMEdiX; institutional honoraria for advisory boards for Bayer, Janssen Cilag, Roche, AAA International including Indipendent Data Monitoring Committee and IDMC and Steering Committee member for Amgen, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Astellas Pharma, Tolero Pharmaceutcials, MSD, Pfizer, Telixpharma, BMS and Orion; patent royalties and other intellectual property for a research method for biomarker WO2009138392. Ian Davis: Research Funding: Company: Astellas Pharma, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Pfizer, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Roche/Genentech, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: MSD Oncology, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: AstraZeneca, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Janssen Oncology, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Eisai, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Bayer, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Amgen, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Movember Foundation, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Exelixis, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Ipsen, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Medivation, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Seagen, Recipient: Your Institution. Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Please describe: International Patent Application No: PCT /US2004/032147 (NY-ESO-1) through Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research; Recipient: You. Christopher Sweeney: Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Dendreon; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Lilly, Genentech. Eric J. Small: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Jannsen, Johnson & Johnson; Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Jannsen, Fortis, Teon, Ulgragenyx, Fortis, Harpoon Johann de Bono: Receipt of grants/research supports: Professor De Bono is an employee of The Institute of Cancer Research, which has received funding or other support for his research work from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Genentech Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and which has a commercial interest in abiraterone, PARP inhibition in DNA repair defective cancers and PI3K/AKT pathway inhibitors (no personal income); Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Professor De Bono has served on advisory boards and received fees from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bioxcel Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, Janssen, Menarini Silicon. Biosystems, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Qiagen, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Terumo, Vertex Pharmaceuticals; Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: AstraZeneca, MSD. Matthew Smith: Receipt of grants/research supports: Clinical trial funding to my institution from: Amgen, Bayer, ESSA, Janssen, ORIC, Pfizer; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Janssen, ORIC, Pfizer. Neal Shore: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boston Scientific, Clovis Oncology, Cold Genesys, Dendreon, Exact Imaging, Exact Sciences, FerGene, Foundation Medicine, Genesis Care, Invitae, Janssen, MDxhealth, Merck, Myvovant, Myriad, Nymox, Pacific Edge, Pfizer, Phosphorous, Propella, Sanofi, Genzyme, Sesen Bio, Tolmar, Urogen; Partecipation in a company sponsored speaker's bureau: Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Foundation Medicina, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Guardant Health. Nicholas James: Receipt of grants/research supports: • Funding for STAMPEDE trial – Coordinating PI – financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: Astellas. • Funding for RADIO trial bladder cancer – Coordinating. PI – financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: AstraZeneca. • Funding for STAMPEDE trial – Coordinating PI – No. financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: Janssen; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: • Advisory Board – Advice around PARP inhibitors, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: AstraZeneca dvisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Clovis. Expert Testimony – Assisted with submissions. regarding licensing for abiraterone, Institutional>€100,001. Name of commercial company: Janssen. Advisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal, €5001–€10,000. Name of commercial company: Janssen. Advisory Board – Bladder cancer therapy, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Merck. Advisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Novartis Expert Testimony – Providing STAMPEDE trial data to facilitate licence extensions internationally for docetaxel, Institutional,>€100,001. Name of commercial company: Sanofi. Advisory Board - Docetaxel, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Sanofi. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Bayer, Novartis. Nicolas MOTTET: Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Sanofi Pasteur, Pierre Fabre; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Jansen, BMS, Bayer, IPSEN, Ferring, Sanofi, Steba, Astra Zeneca, Carrik, Arquer. diagnostics, GE, Takeda. Thomas ZILLI. AFFILIATION: Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Varian Medical Systems International AG; Debiopharm. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Janssen, Astellas, Debiopharm, Ferring, Varian Medical Systems International AG. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Janssen, Astellas, Debiopharm. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Geneva 07.02.2022. Christopher Logothetis. AFFILIATION: MD Anderson Cancer Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Aragon Pharmaceuticals. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Amgen. Participation in a company sponsored speakers bureau: None. Stock shareholder: None. Spouse/partner: None. Other support (please specify): None. Signature: Date: February 7, 2022. William Oh. AFFILIATION: Chief Medical Officer at Sema4 and Clinical Professor of Medicine, Div. of Hematology/Medical Oncology at Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speakers bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 7, 2022. Himisha Beltran. AFFILIATION: Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, AbbVie/Stemcentrx, Eli Lilly, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Janssen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Amgen, Oncorus, LOXO. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: NONE. Stock shareholder: NONE. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 7, 2022. Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen. AFFILIATION: Tampere University and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Only directly to my hospital; Lilly, Merck and Finnish Cancer Society. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: BMS, Merck. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: NONE. Stock shareholder: NONE. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify):reimbursement of expenses to attend conference; Sanofi. Signature: Date: Feb 7, 2022. Prof. Mark A. Rubin, MD. AFFILIATION: University of Bern, Department for BioMedical Research (DBMR). Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, Roche, Novartis. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: NeoGenomics Labs. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 8, 2022. Prof. Dr. Thomas Steuber. AFFILIATION: Martini-Klinik, Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: NONE. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, ProteoMedix, Sanofi, Merck, Astra Zeneca. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 8, 2022. Prof. Rob Bristow. AFFILIATION: University of Manchester. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. IGNACIO DURAN. AFFILIATION: HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO MARQUES DE VALDECILLA. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Roche and Astra-Zeneca. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Ipsen, Roche- Genentech, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, EUSA Pharma, Bayer, Novartis. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. FERNANDO MALUF. AFFILIATION: ONCOLOGIST. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Hiroyoshi Suzuki. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology, Toho University Sakura Medical Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Takeda, AsahiKasei, Taiho, Ono, Chugai, Sanofi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Nihon, Nippon Shinyaku. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Chuga-Roche, MSD. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Takeda, Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Sanofi. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Danny M. Rabah. AFFILIATION: King Saud University and king Faisal specialist hospital and research centre. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. LEVENT TÜRKERİ. AFFILIATION: ACIBADEM M.A. AYDINLAR UNIVERSITY, ISTANBUL, TURKEY. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Mark Frydenberg. AFFILIATION: ACIBADEM M.A. AYDINLAR UNIVERSITY, ISTANBUL, TURKEY. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Anders Bjartell. AFFILIATION: Dept. Of Urology, Skane University Hospital Malmö, Sweden. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Ferring, Bayer, Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, Recordati, Sandoz. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Bayer, IPSEN, Janssen, Recordati, Sandoz. Stock shareholder: LIDDS Pharma, Glactone Pharma, WntResearch. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Dingwei Ye. AFFILIATION: Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Ros Eeles. AFFILIATION: ………………………………………. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: GU-ASCO, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, University of Chicago, ESMO, AstraZeneca UK Limited. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Honorarium as speaker. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): January 2016. Signature: Date: February 15th 2022. Inge van Oort. AFFILIATION: Urology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Bayer, MSD-Astra Zeneca, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Bayer, Astellas. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 22nd 2022. Ravindran Kanesvaran. AFFILIATION: Urology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Sanofi, Eisai. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 22nd 2022. Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Nicola Fossati. AFFILIATION: Urology, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Lugano, CH. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 1st March 2022. Hiroji Uemura. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Yokohama City University Medical Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bayer, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Dai-ichi Sankyo, Pfizer, MSD, Chugai. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: none. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): none. Signature: Date: March 7th 2022. Lisa Horvath. AFFILIATION: Chris O′Brien Lifehouse. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Janssen, Bayer, Imagion Biosystems. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Janssen, Bayer. Stock shareholder: Imagion Biosystems. Spouse/partner: Connected Medicine Solutions (Employee, stocks). Other support (please specify): none. Signature: Date: March 9th 2022. Robert Reiter. AFFILIATION: UCLA Urology. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 11th 2022. Daniel Castellano. AFFILIATION: MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST HEAD GU UNIT HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO 12 DE OCTUBRE. MADRID-UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: JANSSEN. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:ASTELLAS, ROCHE, MERCK, PFIZER, NOVARTIS, MSD, BMS, IPSEN, GILEAD, JANSSEN, BAYER. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: none. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): none. Signature: 28th March 2022. Sandy Srinivas. AFFILIATION: Stanford University, CA. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:BAYER, JANSSEN, MERCK, NOVARTIS. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31ST March 2022. Matthew Sydes. AFFILIATION: MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:ASTELLAS, CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, JANSSEN, NOVARTIS, PFIZER, SANOFI AVENTIS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:ELI LILLY, JANSSEN. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Ekeke, Onyanunam Ngozi. AFFILIATION: DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY, UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT TEACHING HOSPITAL, PORT HARCOUT, NIGERIA. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 30 h 2022. Susan Halabi, PhD. AFFILIATION: Duke University. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:ASCO TAPUR, Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Sanofi, Aveo Oncology. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Cora N. Sternberg, MD, FACP. AFFILIATION: Eeill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas Pharma, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Genzyme, Gilead, Incyte, Medscape, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Msd, Pfizer, Roche, Impact Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, Urotoday, Cco Clinical, Nci. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Hirotsugu Uemura. AFFILIATION:. Kindai University Faculty of Medicine. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:AstraZeneca, Janssen, Takeda, Astellas, Sanofi, Taiho, Ono pharm, Kissei. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, MSD, Ono, BMS, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, MSD, Ono, BMS, Pfizer. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Orazio Caffo. AFFILIATION: Santa Chiara Hospital – Trento (Italy). Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AAA, Astella, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Valérie Fonteyne. AFFILIATION:Ghent University Hospital. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Ipsen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Ipsen, Astellas, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Muhammad Bulbul. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 31st 2022. Claire Vale. AFFILIATION: MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 31st 2022. MRABTI Hind. AFFILIATION: Institut National d′oncologie, Mohamed V University. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Sanofi, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Deborah Mukherji. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Janssen, MSD, Ipsen, BMS. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. AIQ Pharma. Epic Sciences. Janssen. Menarini Silicon Biosystems. ThermoFisher. Howard I. Scher, MD, FASCO. AFFILIATION: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Howard I. Scher, MD, FASCO - Disclosure Form. March 31, 2022. Honoraria. Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Jefferson Health. Elsevier, LTD. Arsenal Capital. Consultancy/Advisory Board. Ambry Genetics Corporation, Konica Minolta,Inc. Amgen. Bayer. Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Pfizer Inc. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. WCG Oncology. Research Funding to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. AIQ Pharma. Epic Sciences. Janssen. Menarini Silicon Biosystems. ThermoFisher. Evan Y. Yu, M.D. AFFILIATION: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and University of Washington. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Bayer, Blue Earth, Daiichi-Sankyo, Dendreon, Lantheus, Merck, Seagen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Abbvie, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Bayer, Clovis, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, Sanofi. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Gedske Daugaard. AFFILIATION: Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Bayer, Sanofi, Astellas, MSD, Bristol Myers. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 30th March 2022. Celestia S. Higano, MD, FACP. AFFILIATION: University of Columbia. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:None last 24 months. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AstraZeneca, Astellas, Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myovant, Tolmar, Vaccitech, Verity. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: CTI Biopharma. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): Expert testimony, Ferring. Signature: 31st March 2022. Dr. Vedang Murthy. AFFILIATION: Radiotion Oncology. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Varian Medical Systems. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Gero Kramer. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:None. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Ferring. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Niven Mehra. AFFILIATION: Radboudumc. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas, Astrazeneca, BMS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Juan Pablo Sade. AFFILIATION: Instituto Alexnder Fleming, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Janssen, Astellas, AtraZeneca, MSD, BMS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Janssen, Bayer, Pfizer, Astellas. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3rd April 2022. Dr Maria De Santis. AFFILIATION: Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Urology. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AAA, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Bioclin, BMS, EISAI, Ferring, Immunomedics, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, SeaGen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Iwona Skoneczna. AFFILIATION: Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Szpital Grochowski, Warsaw, Poland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Roche. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Laurence Klotz. AFFILIATION: University of Toronto. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:miR Scientific, Exact Imaging. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:miR Scientific, Antev. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 30th March 2022. Yüksel Ürün. AFFILIATION: Ankara University School of Medicine. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, AtraZeneca, BMS, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Pfizer, Roche. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Amgen, AtraZeneca, BMS, Janssen Oncology, Pfizer, Roche. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 01st April 2022. Howard R. Soule. AFFILIATION: Prostate Cancer Foundation. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Compugen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 4th April 2022. Simon Chowdhury. AFFILIATION:. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Janssen Oncology, Beigene, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer,. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Janssen Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Sandoz. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): Janssen Oncology (Advisory board). Novartis (advisory board, consultancy). Bayer (Advisory board). Astellas (advisory board, consultancy). Athenex (advisory board). Beigene (advisory board). Clovis Oncology (Advisory board). Telix (advisory board, consultancy). Curve.Life (founder and stock). Huma (consulting fees and Stock). Remedy Bio: consulting fees, Stock. Signature: 4th April 2022. Daniel Heinrich. AFFILIATION: Innlandet Hospital, Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Gjøvik, Norway. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: 28th February 2022. Raya Leibowitz. AFFILIATION: Shamir Medical Center, Zerifin, Be’er Yaakov, Israel. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:MSD, BMS, Isotopia, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 05th April 2022. Raja Khauli. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut Medical Ctr Clinical. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): honoraria: Astellas, Janssen, Algorithm SAL. Signature: 06th April 2022. Axel Merseburger. AFFILIATION: Campus Lübeck, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Lectures/Speaker/Honoraria:. Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ferring, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Janssen, Takeda, TEVA, Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer, Recordati and Roche. Consultant:. AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, EUSAPharm, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Takeda, Teva, Pfizer, Recordati and Roche. Research and clinical trials:. AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, EUSAPharm, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Takeda, Teva, Pfizer und Roche. Signature: 06th April 2022. Carmel Pezaro. AFFILIATION: Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Advanced Accelerator Applications, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): Bayer, Ipsen (travel support). Signature: 06th April 2022. All remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. 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.)

Purpose: To analyze and characterize the online plan adaptation of 1.5T magnetic resonance-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (MRgSBRT) of prostate cancer (PC)., Methods: PC patients (n = 107) who received adaptive 1.5 Tesla MRgSBRT were included. Online plan adaptation was implemented by either the adapt-to-position (ATP) or adapt-to-shape (ATS) methods. Patients were assigned to the ATS group if they underwent ≥ 1 ATS fraction (n = 51); the remainder were assigned to the ATP group (n = 56). The online plan adaptation records of 535 (107 × 5) fractions were retrospectively reviewed. Rationales for ATS decision-making were determined and analyzed using predefined criteria. Statistics of ATS fractions were summarized. Associations of patient characteristics and clinical factors with ATS utilization were investigated., Results: There were 87 (16.3%) ATS fractions and 448 ATP fractions (83.7%). The numbers of ATS adoptions in fractions 1-5 were 29 (29/107, 27.1%), 18 (16.8%), 15 (14.0%), 16 (15.0%), and 9 (8.4%), respectively, with significant differences in adoption frequency between fractions (p = 0.007). Other baseline patient characteristics and clinical factors were not significantly associated with ATS classification (all p > 0.05). Underlying criteria for the determination of ATS implementation comprised anatomical changes (77 fractions in 50 patients) and discrete multiple targets (15 fractions in 3 patients). No ATS utilization was determined using dosimetric or online quality assurance criteria., Conclusions: This study contributes to facilitating the establishment of a standardized protocol for online MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy in PC., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Determination of reliable change of radiomics feature over time is essential and vital in delta-radiomics, but has not yet been rigorously examined. This study attempts to propose a methodological approach using reliable change index (RCI), a statistical metric to determine the reliability of quantitative biomarker changes by accounting for the baseline measurement standard error, in delta-radiomics. The use of RCI was demonstrated with the MRI data acquired from a group of prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated by 1.5 T MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT)., Methods: Fifty consecutive PCa patients who underwent five-fractionated MRgRT were retrospectively included, and 1023 radiomics features were extracted from the clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). The two MRI datasets acquired at the first fraction (MRI11 and MRI21) were used to calculate the baseline feature reliability against image acquisition using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The RCI was constructed based on the baseline feature measurement standard deviation, ICC, and feature value differences at two time points between the fifth (MRI51) and the first fraction MRI (MRI11). The reliable change of features was determined in each patient only if the calculated RCI was over 1.96 or smaller than -1.96. The feature changes between MRI51 and MRI11 were correlated to two patient-reported quality-of-life clinical endpoints of urinary domain summary score (UDSS) and bowel domain summary score (BDSS) in 35 patients using the Spearman correlation test. Only the significant correlations between a feature that was reliably changed in ≥7 patients (20%) by RCI and an endpoint were considered as true significant correlations., Results: The 352 (34.4%) and 386 (37.7%) features among all 1023 features were determined by RCI to be reliably changed in more than five (10%) patients in the CTV and PTV, respectively. Nineteen features were found reliably changed in the CTV and 31 features in the PTV, respectively, in 10 (20%) or more patients. These features were not necessarily associated with significantly different longitudinal feature values (group p-value < 0.05). Most reliably changed features in more than 10 patients had excellent or good baseline test-retest reliability ICC, while none showed poor reliability. The RCI method ruled out the features to be reliably changed when substantial feature measurement bias was presented. After applying the RCI criterion, only four and five true significant correlations were confirmed with UDSS and BDSS in the CTV, respectively, with low true significance correlation rates of 10.8% (4/37) and 17.9% (5/28). No true significant correlations were found in the PTV., Conclusions: The RCI method was proposed for delta-radiomics and demonstrated using PCa MRgRT data. The RCI has advantages over some other statistical metrics commonly used in the previous delta-radiomics studies, and is useful to reliably identify the longitudinal radiomics feature change on an individual basis. This proposed RCI method should be helpful for the development of essential feature selection methodology in delta-radiomics., (© 2022 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Introduction: Kidney cancer, primarily renal cell carcinoma (RCC), ranks among the top 10 most common malignancies in the male population of Hong Kong. In 2019, members of two medical societies in Hong Kong formed an expert panel to establish a set of consensus statements for the management of metastatic RCC. On 22 June 2021, the same panel met to review recent evidence and reassess their positions regarding the management of advanced and metastatic RCC, with the aim of providing recommendations for physicians in Hong Kong., Participants: The panel included 12 experts (6 clinical oncologists and 6 urologists) who had extensive experience managing patients with RCC in Hong Kong., Evidence: The panel reviewed randomised controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, and international clinical guidelines to address key clinical questions that were identified before the meeting., Consensus Process: In total, 15 key clinical questions were identified before the meeting, covering the surgical and systemic treatment of advanced or metastatic clear cell, sarcomatoid, and non-clear cell RCCs. At the meeting, the panellists voted on these questions, then discussed relevant evidence and practical considerations., Conclusions: The treatment landscape for advanced and metastatic RCC continues to evolve. More immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination regimens will be indicated for the treatment of metastatic clear cell RCC. There is increasing evidence concerning the benefit of adjuvant ICI treatment for resected advanced RCC. This article summarises recent evidence and expert insights regarding a series of key clinical questions about the management of advanced and metastatic RCC., Competing Interests: All authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Aim: The second Asia-Pacific Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APAC APCCC 2020) gathered insights into the real-world application in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region of consensus statements from the 3rd Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2019)., Methods: The 4-h our virtual meeting in October 2020 brought together 26 experts from 14 APAC countries to discuss APCCC 2019 recommendations. Presentations were prerecorded and viewed prior to the meeting. A postmeeting survey gathered views on current practice., Results: The meeting and survey highlighted several developments since APAC APCCC 2018. Increased access and use in the region of PSMA PET/CT imaging is providing additional diagnostic and staging information for advanced prostate cancer and influencing local and systemic therapy choices. Awareness of oligometastatic disease, although not clearly defined, is increasing. Novel androgen receptor pathway antagonists are expanding treatment options. Cost and access to contemporary treatments and technologies continue to be a significant factor influencing therapeutic decisions in the region. With treatment options increasing, multidisciplinary treatment planning, shared decision making, and informed choice remain critical. A discussion on the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted challenges for diagnosis, treatment, and clinical trials and new service delivery models that will continue beyond the pandemic., Conclusion: APAC-specific prostate cancer research and data are important to ensure that treatment guidelines and recommendations reflect local populations and resources. Facilitated approaches to collaboration across the region such as that achieved through APAC APCCC meetings continue to be a valuable mechanism to ensure the relevance of consensus guidelines within the region., (© 2022 The Authors. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Purpose: To assess the image quality and delineation value of compressed sensing (CS)-accelerated 3D T2W turbo-spin-echo (TSE) sequence for radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP) of prostate cancer., Methods: An optimized CS-accelerated 3D-T2W-TSE was determined by volunteer imaging and applied for clinical RTP-MRI. This optimized CS-accelerated planning MRI and the standardized adaptive MRI acquired at 1.5T were retrospectively analyzed in 26 prostate cancer patients who were to receive MR-guided radiotherapy. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and relative contrast ratio (CR) were quantitatively assessed. Image quality and artifacts were qualitatively assessed using a five-point scale rating. Delineation value in the prostate and organs-at-risk (OARs) was also rated and compared. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for SNR, relative CR, and rating comparisons. The interobserver rating agreement was evaluated by percent agreement., Results: Significantly better SNR and relative CR in the prostate, rectum, bowel, penis, and penile bulb, while significantly worse in the cauda equina, were observed on the planning MRI. Significantly better ratings of image quality and artifacts were given to the planning MRI, with much less Gibbs ringing and reconstruction artifacts. Significantly better delineation value rating was achieved on the planning MRI in the prostate, seminal vesicle, rectum, penis, penile bulb, and testes, while significantly worse in the cauda equina. A strong to almost perfect interobserver rating agreement was obtained., Conclusion: This study suggested that CS acceleration is applicable and valuable in prostate RTP-MRI. CS-accelerated 3D-T2W-TSE images should benefit the delineation of prostate and many OARs., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Context: Several studies have investigated selection and sequencing of systemic agents to manage recurrent prostate cancer following local definitive treatment., Objective: To define the incidence of recurrent prostate cancer in different countries, and systematically review management options and efficacy of first-line systemic therapies for patients with prostate cancer previously treated with definitive radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy., Evidence Acquisition: We performed a systematic review of studies published from January 2010 to December 2021 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, or ClinicalTrials.gov according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Quality was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. The potential regional burdens of recurrent prostate cancer were estimated by analyzing various regional registry data., Evidence Synthesis: A total of 40 studies met the inclusion criteria and an additional landmark study published after the query was included in this review. Patients with metastatic recurrent disease derive benefit from the addition of androgen receptor signaling inhibitors to androgen deprivation therapy, while docetaxel should be reserved for patients with a high-volume metastatic burden by conventional imaging. Patients with biochemical-only recurrent disease benefit from continuous or intermittent androgen deprivation therapy if they possess high-risk features such as short prostate-specific antigen doubling time or high serum prostate-specific antigen. Current limitations to the published literature include no consideration of contemporary positron emission tomography imaging for evaluating metastatic recurrence or burden and few quality of life assessments., Conclusions: This systematic review summarizes the findings and recommendations for first-line systemic therapy for patients with recurrent prostate cancer following local therapy., Patient Summary: We performed a systematic evaluation and summary of all studies published within the past decade on the topic of medications used to treat prostate cancer after it has recurred following radiation therapy or surgery. This review can be used to inform guidelines for prostate cancer management., (Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In recent years, indications for genetic testing in prostate cancer (PC) have expanded from patients with a family history of prostate and/or related cancers to those with advanced castration-resistant disease, and even to early PC patients for determination of the appropriateness of active surveillance. The current consensus aims to provide guidance to urologists, oncologists and pathologists working with Asian PC patients on who and what to test for in selected populations., Methods: A joint consensus panel from the Hong Kong Urological Association and Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology was convened over a series of 5 physical and virtual meetings. A background literature search on genetic testing in PC was performed in PubMed, ClinicalKey, EBSCOHost, Ovid and ProQuest, and three working subgroups were formed to review and present the relevant evidence. Meeting agendas adopted a modified Delphi approach to ensure that discussions proceed in a structured, iterative and balanced manner, which was followed by an anonymous voting on candidate statements. Of 5 available answer options, a consensus statement was accepted if ≥ 75% of the panelists chose "Accept Completely" (Option A) or "Accept with Some Reservation" (Option B)., Results: The consensus was structured into three parts: indications for testing, testing methods, and therapeutic implications. A list of 35 candidate statements were developed, of which 31 were accepted. The statements addressed questions on the application of PC genetic testing data and guidelines to Asian patients, including patient selection for germline testing, selection of gene panel and tissue sample, provision of genetic counseling, and use of novel systemic treatments in metastatic castration-resistant PC patients., Conclusion: This consensus provides guidance to urologists, oncologists and pathologists working with Asian patients on indications for genetic testing, testing methods and technical considerations, and associated therapeutic implications., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Chiu, Lee, Chan, Chan, Cheung, Lam, Ma and Poon.)

Background: Conventionally fractionated whole-pelvic nodal radiotherapy (WPRT) improves clinical outcome compared to prostate-only RT in high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PC). MR-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (MRgSBRT) with concomitant WPRT represents a novel radiotherapy (RT) paradigm for HR-PC, potentially improving online image guidance and clinical outcomes. This study aims to report the preliminary clinical experiences and treatment outcome of 1.5 Tesla adaptive MRgSBRT with concomitant WPRT in HR-PC patients. Materials and methods: Forty-two consecutive HR-PC patients (72.5 ± 6.8 years) were prospectively enrolled, treated by online adaptive MRgSBRT (8 Gy(prostate)/5 Gy(WPRT) × 5 fractions) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and followed up (median: 251 days, range: 20−609 days). Clinical outcomes were measured by gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Scale v. 5.0, patient-reported quality of life (QoL) with EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) questionnaire, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses. Results: All MRgSBRT fractions achieved planning objectives and dose specifications of the targets and organs at risk, and they were successfully delivered. The maximum cumulative acute GI/GU grade 1 and 2 toxicity rates were 19.0%/81.0% and 2.4%/7.1%, respectively. The subacute (>30 days) GI/GU grade 1 and 2 toxicity rates were 21.4%/64.3% and 2.4%/2.4%, respectively. No grade 3 toxicities were reported. QoL showed insignificant changes in urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal domain scores during the follow-up period. All patients had early post-MRgSBRT biochemical responses, while biochemical recurrence (PSA nadir + 2 ng/mL) occurred in one patient at month 18. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that showed the clinical outcomes of MRgSBRT with concomitant WPRT in HR-PC patients. The early results suggested favorable treatment-related toxicities and encouraging patient-reported QoLs, but long-term follow-up is needed to confirm our early results.

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.)

The purpose of this work was to study the radiobiological effect of using Acuros XB (AXB) vs Analytic Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Seventy SBRT volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for HCC were calculated using AAA and AXB respectively with the same treatment parameters. Published tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models were used to quantify the effect of dosimetric difference between AAA and AXB on TCP, NTCP and uncomplicated tumor control probability (UTCP). There was an average decrease of 2.5% in 6-month TCP. Normal liver has the largest average decrease in NTCP which was 59.7%. Bowels followed with 26.6% average decrease in NTCP. Duodenum, stomach and esophagus had 10.2%, 5.1%, and 4.3% average decrease in NTCP. There was an average decrease of 1.8% and up to 7.2% in 6-month UTCP. There was an overall decrease in TCP, NTCP, and UTCP for HCC SBRT plans calculated using AXB compared to AAA which could be clinically significant., (Copyright © 2022 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The dosimetric advantages of proton therapy (PT) treatment plans are demonstrably superior to photon-based external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer, but the reported clinical outcomes are similar. This may be due to inadequate dose prescription, especially in high-risk disease, as indicated by the ASCENDE-RT trial. Alternatively, the lack of clinical benefits with PT may be attributable to improper dose delivery, mainly due to geometric and dosimetric uncertainties during treatment planning, as well as delivery procedures that compromise the dose conformity of treatments. Advanced high-precision PT technologies, and treatment planning and beam delivery techniques are being developed to address these uncertainties. For instance, external magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided patient setup rooms are being developed to improve the accuracy of patient positioning for treatment. In-room MRI-guided patient positioning systems are also being investigated to improve the geometric accuracy of PT. Soon, high-dose rate beam delivery systems will shorten beam delivery time to within one breath hold, minimizing the effects of organ motion and patient movements. Dual-energy photon-counting computed tomography and high-resolution Monte Carlo-based treatment planning systems are available to minimize uncertainties in dose planning calculations. Advanced in-room treatment verification tools such as prompt gamma detector systems will be used to verify the depth of PT. Clinical implementation of these new technologies is expected to improve the accuracy and dose conformity of PT in the treatment of localized prostate cancers, and lead to better clinical outcomes. Improvement in dose conformity may also facilitate dose escalation, improving local control and implementation of hypofractionation treatment schemes to improve patient throughput and make PT more cost effective.

Magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT), enabled by the clinical introduction of the integrated MRI and linear accelerator (MR-LINAC), is a novel technique for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, promising to further improve clinical outcome and reduce toxicity. The role of prostate MRI has been greatly expanded from the traditional PCa diagnosis to also PCa screening, treatment and surveillance. Diagnostic prostate MRI has been relatively familiar in the community, particularly with the development of Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). But, on the other hand, the use of MRI in the emerging clinical practice of PCa MRgRT, which is substantially different from that in PCa diagnosis, has been so far sparsely presented in the medical literature. This review attempts to give a comprehensive overview of MRI acquisition techniques currently used in the clinical workflows of PCa MRgRT, from treatment planning to online treatment guidance, in order to promote MRI practice and research for PCa MRgRT. In particular, the major differences in the MRI acquisition of PCa MRgRT from that of diagnostic prostate MRI are demonstrated and explained. Limitations in the current MRI acquisition for PCa MRgRT are analyzed. The future developments of MRI in the PCa MRgRT are also discussed., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the I CMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-21-697). JY reports that he received honoraria for a lecture from Philips Healthcare in 2019. JY serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Progression to metastatic disease occurs in about half of all men who develop prostate cancer (PC), one of the most common cancers in men worldwide. Androgen deprivation therapy has been the mainstay therapy for patients with metastatic PC (mPC) since the 1940s. In the last decade, there has been unprecedented advancement in systemic therapies, e.g., taxane, androgen-signalling pathway inhibitors, and biomarker-driven targeted therapies for various stages of disease, resulting in overall survival improvement. Adding to ongoing controversies over how best to treat these patients is the recognition that ethnicity may influence prognosis and outcomes. This review discusses recent evidence for the impacts of Asian ethnicity specifically, which includes environmental, sociocultural, and genetic factors, on the approach to pharmacological management of mPC. Clear inter-ethnic differences in drug tolerability, serious adverse events (AEs), and genetic heterogeneity must all be considered when dosing and scheduling for treatment, as well as designing future precision studies in PC.

Magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy is reported for treating patients with an insertable cardiac monitor and implantable cardiac pacemakers. All treatments were delivered using a 1.5 T MR-Linac. Among the 4 patients, 2 were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy at a dose of 40 Gy in 5 fractions. A clinical safety protocol was developed to address the decision-making and patient selection, as well as the clarified responsibilities of different parties for management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Dose estimation based on out-of-field dose data are necessary for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices located outside the treatment fields., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has potential radiobiologic and economic advantages over conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) in localized prostate cancer (PC). This study aimed to compare the effects of these two distinct fractionations on patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL) and tolerability., Methods: In this prospective phase II study, patients with low- and intermediate-risk localized PC were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the SBRT (36.25 Gy/5 fractions/2 weeks) or CFRT (76 Gy/38 fractions/7.5 weeks) treatment groups. The primary endpoint of variation in PRQOL at 1 year was assessed by changes in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire scores and analysed by z-tests and t -tests., Results: Sixty-four eligible Chinese men were treated (SBRT, n = 31; CFRT, n = 33) with a median follow-up of 2.3 years. At 1 year, 40.0%/46.9% of SBRT/CFRT patients had a >5-point decrease in bowel score ( p = 0.08/0.28), respectively, and 53.3%/46.9% had a >2-point decrease in urinary score ( p = 0.21/0.07). There were no significant differences in EPIC score changes between the arms at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, but SBRT was associated with significantly fewer grade ≥ 1 acute and 1-year late gastrointestinal toxicities (acute: 35% vs. 87%, p < 0.0001; 1-year late: 64% vs. 84%, p = 0.03), and grade ≥ 2 acute genitourinary toxicities (3% vs. 24%, p = 0.04) compared with CFRT., Conclusion: SBRT offered similar PRQOL and less toxicity compared with CFRT in Chinese men with localized PC.

Radiomics research is rapidly growing in recent years, but more concerns on radiomics reliability are also raised. This review attempts to update and overview the current status of radiomics reliability research in the ever expanding medical literature from the perspective of a single reliability metric of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). To conduct this systematic review, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. After literature search and selection, a total of 481 radiomics studies using CT, PET, or MRI, covering a wide range of subject and disease types, were included for review. In these highly heterogeneous studies, feature reliability to image segmentation was much more investigated than reliability to other factors, such as image acquisition, reconstruction, post-processing, and feature quantification. The reported ICCs also suggested high radiomics feature reliability to image segmentation. Image acquisition was found to introduce much more feature variability than image segmentation, in particular for MRI, based on the reported ICC values. Image post-processing and feature quantification yielded different levels of radiomics reliability and might be used to mitigate image acquisition-induced variability. Some common flaws and pitfalls in ICC use were identified, and suggestions on better ICC use were given. Due to the extremely high study heterogeneities and possible risks of bias, the degree of radiomics feature reliability that has been achieved could not yet be safely synthesized or derived in this review. More future researches on radiomics reliability are warranted., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-21-86). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. JY serves as an unpaid Associate Editor of Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: Magnetic resonance-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (MRgSBRT) offers the potential for achieving better prostate cancer (PC) treatment outcomes. This study reports the preliminary clinical results of 1.5T MRgSBRT in localized PC, based on both clinician-reported outcome measurement (CROM) and patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM)., Methods: Fifty-one consecutive localized PC patients were prospectively enrolled with a median follow-up of 199 days. MRgSBRT was delivered in five fractions of 7.25-8 Gy with daily online adaptation. Clinician-reported gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) adverse events based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Scale v. 5.0 were assessed. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Questionnaire was collected at baseline, 1 month, and every 3 months thereafter. Serial prostate-specific antigen measurements were longitudinally recorded., Results: The maximum cumulative clinician-reported grade ≥ 2 acute GU and GI toxicities were 11.8% (6/51) and 2.0% (1/51), respectively, while grade ≥ 2 subacute GU and GI toxicities were 2.3% (1/43) each. Patient-reported urinary, bowel, and hormonal domain summary scores were reduced at 1 month, then gradually returned to baseline levels, with the exception of the sexual domain. Domain-specific subscale scores showed similar longitudinal changes. All patients had early post-MRgSBRT biochemical responses., Conclusions: The finding of low toxicity supports the accumulation of clinical evidence for 1.5T MRgSBRT in localized PC.

Background: Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have the potential to automatically delineate primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but currently, the literature lacks a module to introduce valuable pre-computed features into a CNN. In addition, most CNNs for primary NPC delineation have focused on contrast-enhanced MRI. To enable the use of CNNs in clinical applications where it would be desirable to avoid contrast agents, such as cancer screening or intra-treatment monitoring, we aim to develop a CNN algorithm with a positional-textural fully-connected attention (FCA) module that can automatically delineate primary NPCs on contrast-free MRI., Methods: This retrospective study was performed in 404 patients with NPC who had undergone staging MRI. A proposed CNN algorithm incorporated with our positional-textural FCA module ( A proposed ) was trained on manually delineated tumours ( M 1st ) to automatically delineate primary NPCs on non-contrast-enhanced T2-weighted fat-suppressed (NE-T2W-FS) images. The performance of A proposed , three well-established CNNs, Unet ( A unet ), Attention-Unet ( A att ) and Dense-Unet ( A dense ), and a second manual delineation repeated to evaluate human variability ( M 2 nd ) were measured by comparing to the reference standard M 1 st to obtain the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and average surface distance (ASD). The Wilcoxon rank test was used to compare the performance of A proposed against A unet , A att , A dense and M 2 nd ., Results: A proposed showed a median DSC of 0.79 (0.10) and ASD of 0.66 (0.84) mm. It performed better than the well-established networks A unet [DSC =0.75 (0.12) and ASD =1.22 (1.73) mm], A att [DSC =0.75 (0.10) and ASD =0.96 (1.16) mm] and A dense [DSC =0.71 (0.14) and ASD =1.67 (1.92) mm] (all P<0.01), but slightly worse when compared to M 2 nd [DSC =0.81 (0.07) and ASD =0.56 (0.80) mm] (P<0.001)., Conclusions: The proposed CNN algorithm has potential to accurately delineate primary NPCs on non-contrast-enhanced MRI., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-21-196). Dr. LMW reports this study was presented, in part, by the first author at the 19th International Cancer Imaging Society annual meeting, October 7-9 2019; Verona, Italy. Attending cost was covered partially by the Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology of The Chinese University of Hong Kong. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This work was to establish an uncomplicated tumor control probability (UTCP) model using hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) clinical data in our institution. The model was then used to analyze the current dose prescription method and to seek the opportunity for improvement., Methods and Materials: A tumor control probability (TCP) model was generated based on local clinical data using the maximum likelihood method. A UTCP model was then formed by combining the established TCP model with the normal tissue complication probability model based on the study by Dawson et al. The authors investigated the dependence of maximum achievable UTCP on planning target volume equivalent uniform dose (EUD) at various ratio between planning target volume EUD and normal liver EUD (T/N EUD ratios). A new term uncomplicated tumor control efficiency (UTCE) was also introduced to analyze the outcome. A UTCE value of 1 implied that the theoretical maximum UTCP for the corresponding T/N EUD ratio was achieved., Results: The UTCE of the HCC SBRT patients based on the current dose prescription method was found to be 0.93 ± 0.05. It was found that the UTCE could be increased to 0.99 ± 0.03 by using a new dose prescription scheme, for which the UTCP could be maximized while keeping the normal tissue complication probability value smaller than 5%., Conclusions: The dose prescription method of the current HCC SBRT in our institution was analyzed using a UTCP model established based on local clinical data. It was shown that there could be a potential to increase the prescription dose of HCC SBRT. A new dose prescription scheme was proposed to achieve better UTCP. Additional clinical trials would be required to validate the proposed dose prescription scheme in the future., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Purpose: Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) show potential for delineating cancers on contrast-enhanced MRI (ce-MRI) but there are clinical scenarios in which administration of contrast is not desirable. We investigated performance of the CNN for delineating primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) on non-contrast-enhanced images and compared the performance to that on ce-MRI., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed primary NPC in 195 patients using a well-established CNN, U-Net, for tumor delineation on the non-contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed (fs)-T2W, ce-T1W and ce-fs-T1W images. The CNN-derived delineations were compared to manual delineations to obtain Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and average surface distance (ASD). The DSC and ASD on fs-T2W were compared to those on ce-MRI. Primary tumor volumes (PTVs) of CNN-derived delineations were compared to that of manual delineations., Results: The CNN for NPC delineation on fs-T2W images showed similar DSC (0.71 ± 0.09) and ASD (0.21 ± 0.48 cm) to those on ce-T1W images (0.71 ± 0.09 and 0.17 ± 0.19 cm, respectively) (p > 0.05), and lower DSC but similar ASD to ce-fs-T1W images (0.73 ± 0.09, p < 0.001; and 0.17 ± 0.20 cm, p > 0.05). The CNN overestimated PTVs on all sequences (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The CNN showed promise for NPC delineation on fs-T2W images in cases where it is desirable to avoid contrast agent injection. The CNN overestimated PTVs on all sequences.

Background: The durability of improved xerostomia with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients with early stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is uncertain. We conducted a long-term prospective assessment of participants treated with IMRT or two-dimensional radiotherapy (2DRT) in a prior randomized study., Methods: Parent study participants (IMRT, n = 28; 2DRT, n = 28) who were free of second malignancy or recurrence were eligible. Long-term radiotherapy-related toxicities were graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria. Long-term patient-reported outcomes were assessed by the six-item xerostomia (XQ) and two European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires (QLQ-C30, QLQ-H&N35). Overall survival (OS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), and the rate of symptomatic late complications (SLCs) were estimated for the entire cohort (n = 56)., Results: Totally, 21 (IMRT, n = 10; 2DRT, n = 11) patients gave consent and were assessed for an overall median follow-up of 15.5 years. There was significantly less RTOG ≥grade 2 xerostomia with IMRT versus 2DRT (20% vs. 90%; p = 0.001), but no significant difference in XQ scores. Patients in the IMRT arm reported lower mean scores for the "dry mouth" domain of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 (p = 0.02) and showed trends toward better 15-year OS (81.5% vs. 53.8%, p = 0.06), LRFS (70.6% vs. 53.8%, p = 0.38), and DRFS (81.5% vs. 53.8%, p = 0.07). SLCs were more frequent in the 2DRT arm., Conclusions: The parotid-sparing effect of IMRT in NPC treatment is durable, with significantly less physician- and patient-scored xerostomia at 15 years. IMRT results in better long-term survival and fewer SLCs., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: A convolutional neural network (CNN) was adapted to automatically detect early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and discriminate it from benign hyperplasia on a non-contrast-enhanced MRI sequence for potential use in NPC screening programs., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 412 patients who underwent T2-weighted MRI, 203 of whom had biopsy-proven primary NPC confined to the nasopharynx (stage T1) and 209 had benign hyperplasia without NPC. Thirteen patients were sampled randomly to monitor the training process. We applied the Residual Attention Network architecture, adapted for three-dimensional MR images, and incorporated a slice-attention mechanism, to produce a CNN score of 0-1 for NPC probability. Threefold cross-validation was performed in 399 patients. CNN scores between the NPC and benign hyperplasia groups were compared using Student's t test. Receiver operating characteristic with the area under the curve (AUC) was performed to identify the optimal CNN score threshold., Results: In each fold, significant differences were observed in the CNN scores between the NPC and benign hyperplasia groups (p < .01). The AUCs ranged from 0.95 to 0.97 with no significant differences between the folds (p = .35 to .92). The combined AUC from all three folds (n = 399) was 0.96, with an optimal CNN score threshold of > 0.71, producing a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92.4%, 90.6%, and 91.5%, respectively, for NPC detection., Conclusion: Our CNN method applied to T2-weighted MRI could discriminate between malignant and benign tissues in the nasopharynx, suggesting that it as a promising approach for the automated detection of early-stage NPC., Key Points: • The convolutional neural network (CNN)-based algorithm could automatically discriminate between malignant and benign diseases using T2-weighted fat-suppressed MR images. • The CNN-based algorithm had an accuracy of 91.5% with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.96 for discriminating early-stage T1 nasopharyngeal carcinoma from benign hyperplasia. • The CNN-based algorithm had a sensitivity of 92.4% and specificity of 90.6% for detecting early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Purpose: To study the dynamic changes in plasma Epstein-Barr virus (pEBV) DNA after radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC)., Experimental Design: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with NPC who had detectable pEBV DNA at 6 weeks post-radiotherapy. Randomized patients had a second pEBV DNA checked at 6 months post-randomization. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: We prospectively enrolled 789 patients. Baseline post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA was undetectable in 573 (72.6%) patients, and detectable in 216 (27.4%) patients, of whom 104 (13.2%) patients were eligible for randomization to adjuvant chemotherapy ( n = 52) versus observation ( n = 52). The first post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA had a sensitivity of 0.48, specificity of 0.81, area under receiver-operator characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.65, false positive (FP) rate of 13.8%, and false negative (FN) rate of 14.4% for disease progression. The second post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA had improved sensitivity of 0.81, specificity of 0.75, AUC of 0.78, FP rate of 14.3%, and FN rate of 8.1%. Patients with complete clearance of post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA (51%) had survival superior to that of patients without post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA clearance (5-year PFS, 85.5% vs. 23.3%; HR, 9.6; P < 0.0001), comparable with patients with initially undetectable post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA (5-year PFS, 77.1%), irrespective of adjuvant chemotherapy or observation., Conclusions: Patients with NPC with detectable post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA who experienced subsequent pEBV DNA clearance had superior survival comparable with patients with initially undetectable post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA. Post-radiotherapy pEBV DNA clearance may serve as an early surrogate endpoint for long-term survival in NPC., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: Asian prostate cancer (PC) patients are particularly susceptible to docetaxel-related febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) for preventing FN in Chinese patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC (mHSPC) and castration-resistant PC (mCRPC)., Patients and Methods: Data from two cohorts of 377 Chinese patients with mHSPC (100; 26.5%) and mCRPC (277; 73.5%) treated with docetaxel at six public oncology centres were analysed with multivariate regression. Primary GCSF prophylaxis was defined as administration within 5 days of starting docetaxel. The primary outcome was FN within 21 days of the first docetaxel cycle (1st FN)., Results: Primary GCSF was given to 71 (18.8%) patients. FN occurred in 61 patients (16.2%) including 37 (9.8%) during the first cycle. Among patients who developed 1st cycle FN (n = 37) or not (n = 340), 2 and 69 received primary GCSF (5.4 vs. 20.3%, P = .03). Primary GCSF was associated with an overall reduced risk of 1st cycle FN (odds ratio [OR] = 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-0.96, P = .04), and similar trends were observed in the mHSPC (OR = 0.36, P = .35) and mCRPC (OR = 0.16, P = .08) subgroups. Poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (>1) was associated with an increased risk of 1st FN (OR = 3.90; 95% CI: 1.66-9.13, P = .002)., Conclusions: To alleviate the risk of docetaxel-related FN, primary GCSF prophylaxis is suggested for Asian mCRPC and mHSPC patients, particularly those with poor performance status., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background and Purpose: T1ρ imaging is a new quantitative MR imaging pulse sequence with the potential to discriminate between malignant and benign tissue. In this study, we evaluated the capability of T1ρ imaging to characterize tissue by applying T1ρ imaging to malignant and benign tissue in the nasopharynx and to normal tissue in the head and neck., Materials and Methods: Participants with undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma and benign hyperplasia of the nasopharynx prospectively underwent T1ρ imaging. T1ρ measurements obtained from the histogram analysis for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in 43 participants were compared with those for benign hyperplasia and for normal tissue (brain, muscle, and parotid glands) in 41 participants using the Mann-Whitney U test. The area under the curve of significant T1ρ measurements was calculated and compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis and the Delong test, respectively. A P  < .   05 indicated statistical significance., Results: There were significant differences in T1ρ measurements between nasopharyngeal carcinoma and benign hyperplasia and between nasopharyngeal carcinoma and normal tissue (all, P  < .   05). Compared with benign hyperplasia, nasopharyngeal carcinoma showed a lower T1ρ mean (62.14 versus 65.45 × ms), SD (12.60 versus 17.73 × ms), and skewness (0.61 versus 0.76) (all P  < .05), but no difference in kurtosis ( P  = .   18). The T1ρ SD showed the highest area under the curve of 0.95 compared with the T1ρ mean (area under the curve  = 0.72) and T1ρ skewness (area under the curve  = 0.72) for discriminating nasopharyngeal carcinoma and benign hyperplasia (all, P  < .05)., Conclusions: Quantitative T1ρ imaging has the potential to discriminate malignant from benign and normal tissue in the head and neck., (© 2020 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.)