Search

Contains fulltext : 291600.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 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.

PURPOSE To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as acquired through a questionnaire administered to 99 physicians working in the field of prostate cancer in developing countries who attended the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS A total of 106 questions out of more than 300 questions addressed the use of imaging in staging mCRPC, treatment recommendations across availability and response to prior drug treatments, appropriate drug treatments, and follow-up, and those same scenarios when limited resources needed to be considered. Responses were compiled and the percentages were presented by clinicians to support each response. Most questions had five to seven relevant options for response including abstain and/or unqualified to answer, or in the case of yes or no questions, the option to abstain was offered. RESULTS Most of the recommendations from this panel were in line with prior consensus, including the preference of a new antiandrogen for first-line therapy of mCRPC. Important aspects highlighted in the scenario of limited resources included the option of docetaxel as treatment preference as first-line treatment in several scenarios, docetaxel retreatment, consideration for reduced doses of abiraterone, and alternative schedules of an osteoclast-targeted therapy. CONCLUSION There was wide-ranging consensus in the treatment for men with mCRPC in both optimal and limited resource settings.

PURPOSE To present a summary of the treatment and follow-up recommendations for the biochemical recurrence in castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa) acquired through a questionnaire administered to 99 PCa experts from developing countries during the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS A total of 27 questions were identified as related to this topic from more than 300 questions. The clinician's responses were tallied and presented in a percentage format. Topics included the use of imaging for staging biochemical recurrence, treatment recommendations for three different clinical scenarios, the field of radiation recommended, and follow-up. Each question had 5-7 relevant response options, including “abstain” and/or “unqualified to answer,” and investigated not only recommendations but also if a limitation in resources would change the recommendation. RESULTS For most questions, a clear majority (> 50%) of clinicians agreed on a recommended treatment for imaging, treatment scenarios, and follow-up, although only a few topics reached a consensus > 75%. Limited resources did affect several areas of treatment, although in many cases, they reinforced more stringent criteria for treatment such as prostate-specific antigen values > 0.2 ng/mL and STAMPEDE inclusion criteria as a basis for recommending treatment. CONCLUSION A majority of clinicians working in developing countries with limited resources use similar cutoff points and selection criteria to manage patients treated for biochemically recurrent castration-sensitive PCa.

El PET/TC-PSMA es una técnica de imagen no invasiva que demostró ser más sensible y específica comparado con el PET-Colina, sobre todo con valores de PSA

Background: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints. Methods: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334. Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7–36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50–0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (

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

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., NA

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (iPARPs) have shown efficacy in homologous recombination (HR) deficiency patients with advanced castration resistant prostate cancer and have shown a radiosensitizing effect in preclinical and early clinical trials. Preclinical data in prostate cancer cells suggest a similar cytotoxic effect with half the radiation dose under the effect of Olaparib or Rucaparib irrespective of HR status. Due to the biologic synergy of radiotherapy (RT) and iPARPs, the risk of recurrence of high-risk prostate cancer and the morbidity associated with prostate cancer local treatment, this interesting strategy seems promising, and a better understanding of the clinical implications remains to be elucidated.

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.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most frequent tumor among Latin American (LATAM) men. The incidence of de novo metastatic PCa is higher in LATAM than other parts of the world, and demographic changes in the region have increased disease burden. However, region-specific information regarding prevalence, progression, and treatment effectiveness is not currently available for nonmetastatic, castration-resistant PCa (nmCRPC). Nonmetastatic, castration-resistant PCa is a heterogeneous disease with varying potential to develop metastasis with limited treatments available, until recently. New clinical trials with promising results have allowed second-generation antiandrogen drugs to be used as first-line treatments, rendering guidelines outdated. As a result, this panel of experts reviewed the current status and challenges and developed recommendations for nmCRPC diagnosis and management in LATAM. The Americas Health Foundation (AHF) conducted a literature review and identified LATAM scientists and clinicians who have published in the field of PCa since 2012. The AHF convened a panel of 7 chosen experts urologists and medical oncologists from the region. The AHF developed specific questions relating to nmCRPC, which were answered by the experts prior to the multiday meeting. Each narrative was discussed and edited by the panel, through numerous rounds of discussion until a consensus was reached in a final manuscript. The panel proposes specific and realistic recommendations for improving access to diagnosis and management of PCa in LATAM. No treatment has yet shown improvement in overall survival; however, when including metastasis-free survival as an end point, second-generation antiandrogen drugs have emerged as effective treatment options and are currently included as first-line treatment. Although nmCRPC is a specific disease that represents a small percentage of patients with PCa, effective diagnostic and treatment strategies can contribute toward increasing quality of life and survival rates of patients with PCa in LATAM.

TPS497 Background: There is lack of high-quality and comprehensive data on advanced urothelial cancer in Latin America. Pathological and clinical outcomes information of this cancer can help the scientific community to understand the current standard of treatment and identify possible gaps for optimal care. Very few translational studies were performed in advanced urothelial cancer in developing countries describing the prevalence of key biomarkers for targeted agents and immunotherapy. Methods: LACOG 1518 is a large multi-institutional retrospective study that will collect information about sociodemographic data, treatment and outcome of patients diagnosed with recurrent/ metastatic urothelial cancer in Latin America between January 2016 and December 2019. Socio-demographic characteristics, clinical-pathological features, treatment patterns and outcomes will be extracted from medical charts. Tumor tissue will be collected for fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) gene mutation or fusion test in a central laboratory. A biorepository will be built for future translational research including PD-L1 test and next generation sequencing. Primary endpoint consists on characterize demographic, socioeconomic factors, medical and oncological history of patients diagnosed with recurrent/metastatic urothelial cancer. This study aim to describe treatment sequence, duration, best response and progression time in each line of therapy as well as survival at 1 and 2 years. Translational research endpoints are biomarkers prevalence and association with treatment responses and outcomes.

El objetivo fue analizar retrospectivamente, en pacientes con cáncer de cuello uterino localmente avanzado tratados en nuestro centro, el perfil de toxicidad de la radioterapia concurrente con platinos mono droga o combinados con gemcitabine y su impacto en el tratamiento. Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo y observacional de pacientes con cáncer de cuello uterino localmente avanzado (estadios IIa/IVa) desde marzo de 2011 a febrero de 2016. Se analizaron características patológicas, dosis de tratamiento radiante y quimioterápico, así como toxicidades graves (GIII/IV) y su impacto en el tratamiento, observado como reducción o suspensión de dosis y/o split de radioterapia (RT). Se evaluaron 60 pacientes, edad mediana 47 años (17-75), 93% PS0-1. Histología: escamoso (89%) y adenocarcinoma (8%). Estadio IIb 24 (40%) y IIIb 16 (27%). Dosis de RT utilizada 5040cGy; 35 (58%) realizaron boost y 47 (78%) braquiterapia posterior. Cuarenta y cinco realizaron tratamiento concurrente con PLA y 15 con platinos/gemcitabine (PLA/GEM). En el grupo que recibió PLA, uno requirió reducción de dosis de quimioterapia (QT), dos suspendieron algún ciclo por toxicidad y tres realizaron split de RT. El 100% completó el tratamiento de quimio- radioterapia (QRT) concurrente. En el grupo que recibió PLA/GEM: 9 requirieron reducción de dosis de QT, 11 suspendieron algún ciclo y 4 no completaron el esquema por toxicidad; 4 hicieron split de RT, y 87% completó el tratamiento de RT. En este estudio, el esquema concurrente con quimioterapia combinada muestra mayor toxicidad que impacta en el cumplimiento del tratamiento, 15% no lo completó por toxicidades graves. No obstante, un correcto manejo institucional de toxicidades, permite utilizar la combinación de tratamiento para obtener potenciales beneficios.