Search

Your search keyword '"Soule, H."' showing total 202 results
Start Over Author "Soule, H."
202 results on '"Soule, H."'

4. Validation of metastasis-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in localized prostate cancer in the era of docetaxel for castration-resistant prostate cancer

Author

Xie, W., primary, Ravi, P., additional, Buyse, M., additional, Halabi, S., additional, Kantoff, P., additional, Sartor, O., additional, Soule, H., additional, Clarke, N., additional, Dignam, J., additional, James, N., additional, Fizazi, K., additional, Gillessen, S., additional, Mottet, N., additional, Murphy, L., additional, Parulekar, W., additional, Sandler, H., additional, Tombal, B., additional, Williams, S., additional, and Sweeney, C.J., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

Author

Gillessen, S., Bossi, A., Davis, I.D., Bono, J. de, Fizazi, K., James, N.D., Mottet, N., Shore, N., Small, E., Smith, M., Sweeney, C., Tombal, B., Antonarakis, E.S., Aparicio, A.M., Armstrong, A.J., Attard, G., Beer, T.M., Beltran, H., Bjartell, A., Blanchard, P., Briganti, A., Bristow, R.G., Bulbul, M., Caffo, O., Castellano, D., Castro, E., Cheng, H.H., Chi, K.N., Chowdhury, S., Clarke, C.S., Clarke, N., Daugaard, G., Santis, M. de, Duran, I., Eeles, R., Efstathiou, E., Efstathiou, J., Ekeke, O. Ngozi, Evans, C.P., Fanti, S., Feng, F.Y., Fonteyne, V., Fossati, N., Frydenberg, M., George, D., Gleave, M., Gravis, G., Halabi, S., Heinrich, D., Herrmann, K., Higano, C., Hofman, M.S., Horvath, L.G., Hussain, M., Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara A., Jones, R., Kanesvaran, R., Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.L., Khauli, R.B., Klotz, L., Kramer, G., Leibowitz, R., Logothetis, C.J., Mahal, B.A., Maluf, F. Cotait, Mateo, J., Matheson, D., Mehra, N., Merseburger, A., Morgans, A.K., Morris, M.J., Mrabti, H., Mukherji, D., Murphy, D.G.M., Murthy, V., Nguyen, P.L., Oh, W.K., Ost, P., O'Sullivan, J.M., Padhani, A.R., Pezaro, C., Poon, D.M.C., Pritchard, C.C., Rabah, D.M., Rathkopf, D., Reiter, R.E., Rubin, M.A., Ryan, C.J., Saad, F., Sade, J. Pablo, Sartor, O.A., Scher, H.I., Sharifi, N., Skoneczna, I., Soule, H., Spratt, D.E., Srinivas, S., Sternberg, C.N., Steuber, T., Oort, I.M. van, Zilli, T., Omlin, A., Gillessen, S., Bossi, A., Davis, I.D., Bono, J. de, Fizazi, K., James, N.D., Mottet, N., Shore, N., Small, E., Smith, M., Sweeney, C., Tombal, B., Antonarakis, E.S., Aparicio, A.M., Armstrong, A.J., Attard, G., Beer, T.M., Beltran, H., Bjartell, A., Blanchard, P., Briganti, A., Bristow, R.G., Bulbul, M., Caffo, O., Castellano, D., Castro, E., Cheng, H.H., Chi, K.N., Chowdhury, S., Clarke, C.S., Clarke, N., Daugaard, G., Santis, M. de, Duran, I., Eeles, R., Efstathiou, E., Efstathiou, J., Ekeke, O. Ngozi, Evans, C.P., Fanti, S., Feng, F.Y., Fonteyne, V., Fossati, N., Frydenberg, M., George, D., Gleave, M., Gravis, G., Halabi, S., Heinrich, D., Herrmann, K., Higano, C., Hofman, M.S., Horvath, L.G., Hussain, M., Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara A., Jones, R., Kanesvaran, R., Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.L., Khauli, R.B., Klotz, L., Kramer, G., Leibowitz, R., Logothetis, C.J., Mahal, B.A., Maluf, F. Cotait, Mateo, J., Matheson, D., Mehra, N., Merseburger, A., Morgans, A.K., Morris, M.J., Mrabti, H., Mukherji, D., Murphy, D.G.M., Murthy, V., Nguyen, P.L., Oh, W.K., Ost, P., O'Sullivan, J.M., Padhani, A.R., Pezaro, C., Poon, D.M.C., Pritchard, C.C., Rabah, D.M., Rathkopf, D., Reiter, R.E., Rubin, M.A., Ryan, C.J., Saad, F., Sade, J. Pablo, Sartor, O.A., Scher, H.I., Sharifi, N., Skoneczna, I., Soule, H., Spratt, D.E., Srinivas, S., Sternberg, C.N., Steuber, T., Oort, I.M. van, Zilli, T., and Omlin, A.

Abstract

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

Published
2023

6. What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Onyeanunam, NE, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Pablo Sade, J, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, Omlin, A, Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Onyeanunam, NE, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Pablo Sade, J, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, and Omlin, A

Abstract

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.

Published
2022

7. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Gillessen, S, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, CS, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, JS, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Ekeke, ON, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, DE, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, MR, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Omlin, A, Gillessen, S, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, CS, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, JS, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Ekeke, ON, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, DE, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, MR, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, and Omlin, A

Abstract

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 eviden

Published
2022

8. What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021 (vol 82, pg 6, 2022)

Author

Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ekeke, ON, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, HI, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, Omlin, A, Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ekeke, ON, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, HI, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, and Omlin, A

Published
2022

9. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Tilki, Derya, Gillessen, S.; Armstron, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.S.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Ekeke, O.N.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I., Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, School of Medicine, Tilki, Derya, Gillessen, S.; Armstron, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.S.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Ekeke, O.N.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I., Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, and School of Medicine

Abstract

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 eviden, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship; Prostate Cancer Foundation; Peter MacCallum Foundation; NHMRC Investigator Grant

Published
2022

10. What experts think about prostate cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic: report from The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Tilki, Derya, Turco, F.; Armstrong, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ekeke, O.N.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.-E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I.; Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Gillessen, S.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, School of Medicine, Tilki, Derya, Turco, F.; Armstrong, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ekeke, O.N.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.-E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I.; Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Gillessen, S.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, and School of Medicine

Abstract

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

Published
2022

12. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Gillessen, S. Armstrong, A. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Chi, K.N. Clarke, C.S. Clarke, N. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J.S. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Ekeke, O.N. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fizazi, K. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Hussain, M. James, N. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Maluf, F. Millman, R. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mottet, N. Mrabti, H. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Oh, W.K. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Parker, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Shore, N. Skoneczna, I. Small, E. Smith, M. Soule, H. Spratt, D.E. Sternberg, C.N. Suzuki, H. Sweeney, C. Sydes, M.R. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Tombal, B. Türkeri, L. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. van Oort, I. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Zapatero, A. Omlin, A.

Subjects
education
Abstract

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

Published
2022

13. Corrigendum to 'What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021' [Eur Urol 82(1):6–11] (European Urology (2022) 82(1) (6–11), (S0302283822016505), (10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.010))

Author

Turco, F. Armstrong, A. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Chi, K.N. Clarke, C. Clarke, N. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fizazi, K. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Hussain, M. James, N. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Maluf, F. Millman, R. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mottet, N. Mrabti, H. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Oh, W.K. Ekeke, O.N. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Parker, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Shore, N. Skoneczna, I. Small, E. Smith, M. Soule, H. Spratt, D. Sternberg, C.N. Suzuki, H. Sweeney, C. Sydes, M. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Tombal, B. Türkeri, L. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. van Oort, I. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Zapatero, A. Gillessen, S. Omlin, A.

Abstract

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

Published
2022

14. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: recommendations of the St Gallen Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2015

Author

Gillessen, S., Omlin, A., Attard, G., de Bono, J. S., Efstathiou, E., Fizazi, K., Halabi, S., Nelson, P. S., Sartor, O., Smith, M. R., Soule, H. R., Akaza, H., Beer, T. M., Beltran, H., Chinnaiyan, A. M., Daugaard, G., Davis, I. D., De Santis, M., Drake, C. G., Eeles, R. A., Fanti, S., Gleave, M. E., Heidenreich, A., Hussain, M., James, N. D., Lecouvet, F. E., Logothetis, C. J., Mastris, K., Nilsson, S., Oh, W. K., Olmos, D., Padhani, A. R., Parker, C., Rubin, M. A., Schalken, J. A., Scher, H. I., Sella, A., Shore, N. D., Small, E. J., Sternberg, C. N., Suzuki, H., Sweeney, C. J., Tannock, I. F., and Tombal, B.

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Metastasis-Free Survival Is a Strong Surrogate of Overall Survival in Localized Prostate Cancer

Author

Xie, W, Regan, M, Buyse, M, Halabi, S, Kantoff, P, Sartor, O, Soule, H, Clarke, N, Collette, L, Dignam, J, Fizazi, K, Paruleker, W, Sandler, H, Sydes, M, Tombal, B, Williams, S, Sweeney, C, Andren, O, Armstrong, J, Berry, D, Bolla, M, Chin, J, Chowdhury, S, Cooperberg, M, Denham, J, Di Stasi, S, Eisenberger, M, Freidlin, B, Gillessen, S, Gleave, M, Habibian, M, James, N, Jarow, J, Keating, N, Keloff, G, Klotz, L, Lukka, H, Mason, M, Miyahira, A, Mottet, N, Nakabayashi, M, Parulekar, W, Scardino, P, Scher, H, Simon, R, Simons, J, Small, E, Tangen, C, Thompson, I, Widmark, A, Wiegel, T, Wirth, M, Yeoh, E, and Zapatero, A

Subjects
Male, Oncology, Cancer Research, cancer surgery controlled study, medicine.medical_treatment, 030232 urology & nephrology, androgen deprivation therapy, localization cancer, Settore MED/24 - Urologia, law.invention, Prostatic Neoplasms randomized controlled trial (topic), Prostate cancer, 0302 clinical medicine, Randomized controlled trial, Risk Factors, law, risk factor survival analysis, Neoplasm Metastasis, skin and connective tissue diseases, disease free survival, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, follow up high risk patient, aged, Article, cancer, radiotherapy, correlational study, human intermediate risk patient, major clinical study, male metastasis free survival, overall survival, patient coding priority, journal prostate cancer prostatectomy treatment, duration, bio assay meta analysis, metastasis multimodality, cancer therapy, pathology, ORIGINAL REPORTS, Combined Modality Therapy, Darolutamide, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Meta-analysis, Adjuvant, medicine.medical_specialty, Endpoint Determination, Disease-Free Survival, 03 medical and health sciences, Internal medicine, medicine, Adjuvant therapy, Overall survival, Humans, Survival analysis, business.industry, Prostatic Neoplasms, medicine.disease, Survival Analysis, Surgery, business
Abstract

Purpose Adjuvant therapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localized prostate cancer decreases the number of deaths from this disease. Surrogates for overall survival (OS) could expedite the evaluation of new adjuvant therapies. Methods By June 2013, 102 completed or ongoing randomized trials were identified and individual patient data were collected from 28 trials with 28,905 patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were determined for 21,140 patients from 24 trials and 12,712 patients from 19 trials, respectively. We evaluated the surrogacy of DFS and MFS for OS by using a two-stage meta-analytic validation model by determining the correlation of an intermediate clinical end point with OS and the correlation of treatment effects on both the intermediate clinical end point and OS. Results Trials enrolled patients from 1987 to 2011. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 45% of 21,140 men and 45% of 12,712 men experienced a DFS and MFS event, respectively. For DFS and MFS, 61% and 90% of the patients, respectively, were from radiation trials, and 63% and 66%, respectively, had high-risk disease. At the patient level, Kendall’s τ correlation with OS was 0.85 and 0.91 for DFS and MFS, respectively. At the trial level, R2 was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.88) from weighted linear regression of 8-year OS rates versus 5-year DFS and MFS rates, respectively. Treatment effects—measured by log hazard ratios—for the surrogates and OS were well correlated ( R2, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82] for DFS and 0.92 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95] for MFS). Conclusion MFS is a strong surrogate for OS for localized prostate cancer that is associated with a significant risk of death from prostate cancer.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

17. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019[Formula presented]

Author

Gillessen, S. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Chi, K.N. Clarke, N. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J. Drake, C.G. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fizazi, K. Frydenberg, M. Gleave, M. Halabi, S. Heidenreich, A. Heinrich, D. Higano, C.T.S. Hofman, M.S. Hussain, M. James, N. Kanesvaran, R. Kantoff, P. Khauli, R.B. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Maluf, F. Millman, R. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mottet, N. Mrabti, H. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Oh, W.K. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Parker, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Reiter, R.E. Roach, M. Rubin, M. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Shore, N. Small, E. Smith, M. Soule, H. Sternberg, C.N. Steuber, T. Suzuki, H. Sweeney, C. Sydes, M.R. Taplin, M.-E. Tombal, B. Türkeri, L. van Oort, I. Zapatero, A. Omlin, A.

Abstract

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

Published
2020

18. Event-Free Survival, a Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Composite End Point, Is Not a Surrogate for Overall Survival in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer Treated With Radiation.

Author

Xie W, Regan MM, Buyse M, Halabi S, Kantoff PW, Sartor O, Soule H, Berry D, Clarke N, Collette L, D'Amico A, Lourenco RDA, Dignam J, Eisenberger M, James N, Fizazi K, Gillessen S, Loriot Y, Mottet N, Parulekar W, Sandler H, Spratt DE, Sydes MR, Tombal B, Williams S, Sweeney CJ, ICECaP Working Group, Xie W, Regan MM, Buyse M, Halabi S, Kantoff PW, Sartor O, Soule H, Berry D, Clarke N, Collette L, D'Amico A, Lourenco RDA, Dignam J, Eisenberger M, James N, Fizazi K, Gillessen S, Loriot Y, Mottet N, Parulekar W, Sandler H, Spratt DE, Sydes MR, Tombal B, Williams S, Sweeney CJ, and ICECaP Working Group

Abstract

Purpose

Recently, we have shown that metastasis-free survival is a strong surrogate for overall survival (OS) in men with intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer and can accelerate the evaluation of new (neo)adjuvant therapies. Event-free survival (EFS), an earlier prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based composite end point, may further expedite trial completion.

Methods

EFS was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of first evidence of disease recurrence, including biochemical failure, local or regional recurrence, distant metastasis, or death from any cause, or was censored at the date of last PSA assessment. Individual patient data from trials within the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate-ICECaP-database with evaluable PSA and disease follow-up data were analyzed. We evaluated the surrogacy of EFS for OS using a 2-stage meta-analytic validation model by determining the correlation of EFS with OS (patient level) and the correlation of treatment effects (hazard ratios [HRs]) on both EFS and OS (trial level). A clinically relevant surrogacy was defined a priori as an R2 ≥ 0.7.

Results

Data for 10,350 patients were analyzed from 15 radiation therapy-based trials enrolled from 1987 to 2011 with a median follow-up of 10 years. At the patient level, the correlation of EFS with OS was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.44) as measured by Kendall's tau from a copula model. At the trial level, the R2 was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.60) from the weighted linear regression of log(HR)-OS on log(HR)-EFS.

Conclusion

EFS is a weak surrogate for OS and is not suitable for use as an intermediate clinical end point to substitute for OS to accelerate phase III (neo)adjuvant trials of prostate cancer therapies for primary radiation therapy-based trials.

Published
2020

20. Detection of human and animal rotavirus sequences in drinking water

Author

Gratacap-Cavallier, B., Genoulaz, O., Brengel-Pesce, K., Soule, H., Innocenti-Frencillard, P., Bost, M., Gofti, L., Zmirou, D., and Siegneurin, J.M.

Subjects
Microbiological research -- Analysis, Rotavirus infections -- Causes of, Genomes -- Research, Polymerase chain reaction -- Analysis, Genetic transcription -- Analysis, Biological sciences
Abstract

Research has been conducted on the rotavirus genome. The reverse transcription-PCR analysis of drinking water to demonstrate the presence of this genome in the samples is described.

Published
2000

21. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: The Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 [Figure presented]

Author

Gillessen, S, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bossi, A, Bristow, R, Carver, B, Castellano, D, Chung, BH, Clarke, N, Daugaard, G, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Borges dos Reis, R, Drake, CG, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, F, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heidenreich, A, Higano, CS, James, N, Kantoff, P, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, PL, Khauli, RB, Kramer, G, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Murthy, V, Oh, W, Ost, P, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Pritchard, CC, Roach, M, Rubin, MA, Ryan, C, Saad, F, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Sella, A, Shore, N, Smith, M, Soule, H, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, MR, Tannock, I, Tombal, B, Valdagni, R, Wiegel, T, and Omlin, A

Abstract

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

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. Consensus Statement on Circulating Biomarkers for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Author

Sumanasuriya, S., Omlin, A., Armstrong, A., Attard, G., Chi, K.N. (Kim Nguyen), Bevan, C.L. (Charlotte), Shibakawa, A., Ijzerman, M.J., Laere, B, Lolkema, M., Lorente, D., Luo, J. (Jun), Mehra, N. (Niven), Olmos, D. (David), Scher, H., Soule, H., Stoecklein, N.H., Terstappen, L, Waugh, D., Bono, J.S. (Johann) de, Sumanasuriya, S., Omlin, A., Armstrong, A., Attard, G., Chi, K.N. (Kim Nguyen), Bevan, C.L. (Charlotte), Shibakawa, A., Ijzerman, M.J., Laere, B, Lolkema, M., Lorente, D., Luo, J. (Jun), Mehra, N. (Niven), Olmos, D. (David), Scher, H., Soule, H., Stoecklein, N.H., Terstappen, L, Waugh, D., and Bono, J.S. (Johann) de

Abstract

Context: In advanced prostate cancer (PC), there is increasing investigation of circulating biomarkers, including quantitation and characterization of circulating tumour cells and cell-free nucleic acids, for therapeutic monitoring and as prognostic and predictive biomarkers. However, there is a lack of consensus and standardisation regarding analyses, reporting, and integration of results into specific clinical contexts. A consensus meeting on circulating biomarkers was held to address these topics. Objective: To present a report of the consensus statement on circulating biomarkers in advanced PC. Evidence acquisition: Four important areas of controversy in the field of circulating biomarkers in PC management were identified: known clinical utility of circulating biomarkers; unmet clinical needs for circulating biomarkers in PC care; most pressing blood-based molecular assays required; and essential steps for developing circulating biomarker assays. A panel of 18 international PC experts in the field of circulating biomarkers developed the programme and consensus questions. The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 50 predefined questions developed following a modified Delphi process. Evidence synthesis: Voting was based solely on panellist opinions of the predefined topics and therefore not on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article and in the detailed voting results provided in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: The expert voting results presented can guide the future development of circulating biomarkers for PC care. Notably, the consensus meeting highlighted the importance of reproducibility and variability studies, among other significant areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. Patient summary: A panel of international experts met to discuss and vote on the use of different blood-based prostate cancer tests, and how they

Published
2018

23. Consensus Statement on Circulating Biomarkers for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Author

Sumanasuriya, S, Omlin, A, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Chi, KN, Bevan, CL, Shibakawa, A, Ijzerman, MJ, Laere, B, Lolkema, Martijn, Lorente, D, Luo, J, Mehra, N, Olmos, D, Scher, H, Soule, H, Stoecklein, NH, Terstappen, L, Waugh, D, de Bono, JS, Sumanasuriya, S, Omlin, A, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Chi, KN, Bevan, CL, Shibakawa, A, Ijzerman, MJ, Laere, B, Lolkema, Martijn, Lorente, D, Luo, J, Mehra, N, Olmos, D, Scher, H, Soule, H, Stoecklein, NH, Terstappen, L, Waugh, D, and de Bono, JS

Published
2018

25. A DREAM challenge to build prediction models for short-term discontinuation of docetaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Author

Seyednasrollah, F., Köstler, D.C., Wang, T., Piccolo, S.R., Vega, R., Greiner, R., Fuchs, C., Gofer, E., Kumar, L., Wolfinger, R.D., Kanigel-Winner, K., Bare, C., Neto, E.C., Yu, T., Shen, L., Abdallah, K., Norman, T., Stolovitzky, G., Soule, H., Sweeney, C.J., Ryan, C.J., Scher, H.I., Sartor, O, Elo, L.L., Zhou, F.L., Guinney, J., Costello, J.C., Prostate Cancer Challenge DREAM Community (Kondofersky, I., Krautenbacher, N., Laimighofer, M., Scherb, H., Söllner, J.F., Kurz, C.F.), and Universidade do Minho

Subjects
0301 basic medicine, Oncology, Adult, Male, medicine.medical_specialty, Time Factors, Adolescent, Antineoplastic Agents, Docetaxel, Castration resistant, ta3111, 03 medical and health sciences, Prostate cancer, Young Adult, 0302 clinical medicine, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Internal medicine, Original Reports, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, medicine, Humans, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Clinical Trials as Topic, Science & Technology, business.industry, General Medicine, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, medicine.disease, Prognosis, 3. Good health, Surgery, Discontinuation, Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant, 030104 developmental biology, Survival benefit, Treatment Outcome, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Prednisone, business, medicine.drug
Abstract

Purpose Docetaxel has a demonstrated survival benefit for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); however, 10% to 20% of patients discontinue docetaxel prematurely because of toxicity-induced adverse events, and the management of risk factors for toxicity remains a challenge. Patients and Methods The comparator arms of four phase III clinical trials in first-line mCRPC were collected, annotated, and compiled, with a total of 2,070 patients. Early discontinuation was defined as treatment stoppage within 3 months as a result of adverse treatment effects; 10% of patients discontinued treatment. We designed an open-data, crowd-sourced DREAM Challenge for developing models with which to predict early discontinuation of docetaxel treatment. Clinical features for all four trials and outcomes for three of the four trials were made publicly available, with the outcomes of the fourth trial held back for unbiased model evaluation. Challenge participants from around the world trained models and submitted their predictions. Area under the precision-recall curve was the primary metric used for performance assessment. Results In total, 34 separate teams submitted predictions. Seven models with statistically similar area under precision-recall curves (Bayes factor 3) outperformed all other models. A postchallenge analysis of risk prediction using these seven models revealed three patient subgroups: high risk, low risk, or discordant risk. Early discontinuation events were two times higher in the high-risk subgroup compared with the low-risk subgroup. Simulation studies demonstrated that use of patient discontinuation prediction models could reduce patient enrollment in clinical trials without the loss of statistical power. Conclusion This work represents a successful collaboration between 34 international teams that leveraged open clinical trial data. Our results demonstrate that routinely collected clinical features can be used to identify patients with mCRPC who are likely to discontinue treatment because of adverse events and establishes a robust benchmark with implications for clinical trial design., This work is supported in part by the following: in-kind contribution from Sanofi US Services Inc., Project Data Sphere LLC, National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine (2T15-LM009451), Boettcher Foundation, Doctoral Programme in Mathematics and Computer Sciences at the University of Turku, European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, Academy of Finland, the European Research Council, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and Sigrid Juselius Foundation, info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. Towards groundwater security in coastal East Africa: initiating a regional research network and integrated hydrogeological, climatic, socio-economic observatories in coastal aquifers of the Comoros Islands, Kenya and Tanzania

Author

Comte, J.C., Cassidy, R., Obando, J., Banton, Olivier, Bourhane, A., Ibrahim, K., Join, Jean-Lambert, Makokha, M., Marobhe, I., Melchioly, S., Mjemah, I., Mohamed, I., Mwega, B., Robins, N., Shauri, H., Soule, H., Laboratoire d'Hydrogéologie d'Avignon (LHA), Avignon Université (AU), and Déposants HAL-Avignon, bibliothèque Universitaire

Subjects
[SDU] Sciences of the Universe [physics], [SDU]Sciences of the Universe [physics], ComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUS
Abstract

International audience

Published
2014

29. Metastasis free survival (MFS) is a surrogate for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer (CaP)

Author

Xie, W., primary, Sweeney, C., additional, Regan, M., additional, Nakabayashi, M., additional, Buyse, M., additional, Clarke, N., additional, Collette, L., additional, Dignam, J., additional, Fizazi, K., additional, Habibian, M., additional, Halabi, S., additional, Kantoff, P., additional, Parulekar, W., additional, Sandler, H.M., additional, Sartor, O., additional, Soule, H., additional, Sydes, M., additional, Tombal, B., additional, and Williams, S., additional

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: recommendations of the St Gallen Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2015.

Author

UCL - SSS/IREC/CHEX - Pôle de chirgurgie expérimentale et transplantation, UCL - SSS/IREC/IMAG - Pôle d'imagerie médicale, UCL - (SLuc) Service d'urologie, UCL - (SLuc) Service de radiologie, Gillessen, S, Omlin, A, Attard, G, de Bono, J S, Efstathiou, E, Fizazi, K, Halabi, S, Nelson, P S, Sartor, O, Smith, M R, Soule, H R, Akaza, H, Beer, T M, Beltran, H, Chinnaiyan, A M, Daugaard, G, Davis, I D, De Santis, M, Drake, C G, Eeles, R A, Fanti, S, Gleave, M E, Heidenreich, A, Hussain, M, James, N D, Lecouvet, Frédéric, Logothetis, C J, Mastris, K, Nilsson, S, Oh, W K, Olmos, D, Padhani, A R, Parker, C, Rubin, M A, Schalken, J A, Scher, H I, Sella, A, Shore, N D, Small, E J, Sternberg, C N, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C J, Tannock, I F, Tombal, Bertrand, UCL - SSS/IREC/CHEX - Pôle de chirgurgie expérimentale et transplantation, UCL - SSS/IREC/IMAG - Pôle d'imagerie médicale, UCL - (SLuc) Service d'urologie, UCL - (SLuc) Service de radiologie, Gillessen, S, Omlin, A, Attard, G, de Bono, J S, Efstathiou, E, Fizazi, K, Halabi, S, Nelson, P S, Sartor, O, Smith, M R, Soule, H R, Akaza, H, Beer, T M, Beltran, H, Chinnaiyan, A M, Daugaard, G, Davis, I D, De Santis, M, Drake, C G, Eeles, R A, Fanti, S, Gleave, M E, Heidenreich, A, Hussain, M, James, N D, Lecouvet, Frédéric, Logothetis, C J, Mastris, K, Nilsson, S, Oh, W K, Olmos, D, Padhani, A R, Parker, C, Rubin, M A, Schalken, J A, Scher, H I, Sella, A, Shore, N D, Small, E J, Sternberg, C N, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C J, Tannock, I F, and Tombal, Bertrand

Abstract

The first St Gallen Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) Expert Panel identified and reviewed the available evidence for the ten most important areas of controversy in advanced prostate cancer (APC) management. The successful registration of several drugs for castration-resistant prostate cancer and the recent studies of chemo-hormonal therapy in men with castration-naïve prostate cancer have led to considerable uncertainty as to the best treatment choices, sequence of treatment options and appropriate patient selection. Management recommendations based on expert opinion, and not based on a critical review of the available evidence, are presented. The various recommendations carried differing degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of the article text and in the detailed voting results recorded in supplementary Material, available at Annals of Oncology online. Detailed decisions on treatment as always will involve consideration of disease extent and location, prior treatments, host factors, patient preferences as well as logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be encouraged.

Published
2015

34. Attenuation of the inflammatory response in an animal colitis model by neutrophil inhibitory factor, a novel beta 2-integrin antagonist

Author

Meenan, J., Hommes, D. W., Mevissen, M., Dijkhuizen, S., Soule, H., Moyle, M., Büller, H. R., ten Kate, F. W., Tytgat, G. N., van Deventer, S. J., and Other departments

Subjects
lipids (amino acids, peptides, and proteins)
Abstract

Neutrophils are significant effector cells in acute inflammatory bowel disease. Recruitment of these cells is dependent on beta 2-integrin-mediated adhesion and transmigration. The efficacy of neutrophil inhibitory factor (NIF), an antagonist of the beta 2-integrin CD11b/CD18, in ameliorating inflammation was tested in an animal model of acute colitis. Immune-complex colitis was induced in groups of rabbits by using various formalin concentrations (2%, 0.75%, and 0.5%). Animals were treated with rNIF, 10 mg/kg. After they had been killed the mucosal appearance was scored, and tissue saved for histology and quantitation of myeloperoxidase (MPO), leukotriene B4 (LTB4), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), and thromboxane B2 (TXB2). In the 2% formalin group therapy with rNIF resulted in lower LTB4 (p

Published
1996

35. The Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment - An overview

Author

Jacobowitz, H, Soule, H. V, Kyle, H. L, and House, F. B

Subjects
Geophysics
Abstract

The development of ERB observational systems is traced from its beginnings in the late 1950's through to the current ERB on the Nimbus 7 satellite. The instruments comprising the current 22-channel ERB experiment are described in some detail. Noteworthy are the inclusion in one solar channel, of a self-calibrating cavity to measure the solar constant and the use of biaxial scanning telescopes to determine the angular reflection and emission model required for processing the narrow-angle radiometric data. A fairly detailed description of the prelaunch and in-flight calibrations is given along with an analysis of the radiometric performance of the instruments. The data processing system is traced with the aid of a schematic flow diagram showing the steps required to produce the many tape and microfilm products archived. Future plans for improving the quality and accuracy of the data products are discussed. Finally, the upcoming Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) is briefly mentioned. It will be capable of simultaneously measuring the radiation budget from three satellites, each having a different equator crossing time and angle.

Published
1984

36. NIMBUS-7 ERB MATGEN Science Document

Author

Soule, H. V

Subjects
Computer Programming And Software
Abstract

The ERB algorithms and computer software data flow used to convert sensor data into equivalent radiometric data are described in detail. The NIMBUS satellite location, orientation and sensor orientation algorithms are given. The computer housekeeping and data flow and sensor/data status algorithms are also given.

Published
1983

37. Nimbus-6 and -7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) sensor details and component tests

Author

Soule, H. V, Kyle, H. L, Jacobowitz, H, and Hickey, J

Subjects
Instrumentation And Photography
Abstract

Construction details and operating characteristics are described for the thermopile (used in the solar and fixed-Earth channels) and the pyroelectric detector (used in the Earth-scanning channels) carried on the Nimbus 6 and the Nimbus 7 satellites for gathering Earth radiation budget data. Properties of the black coating for the detectors, and sensor testing and calibration are discussed.

Published
1983

38. Variations in the Nimbus-7 scanning multichannel microwave radiometer cold reference antenna signals and temperatures during two orbital periods

Author

Gloersen, P, Cavalieri, D. J, and Soule, H. V

Subjects
Launch Vehicles And Space Vehicles
Abstract

The observed effects of solar radiance on the Nimbus 7 scanning multichannel microwave radiometer (SMMR) cold reference signal are discussed. Unexpected diurnal responses in this signal sometimes larger than the typical cold reference signal resulted from acquisition of the solar disc. Solar heating of the SMMR components as a function of orbital locations was correlated with the cold reference radiances for two sets of sequential orbit six months apart.

Published
1980

39. An alternate algorithm for correction of the scanning multichannel microwave radiometer polarization radiances using Nimbus-7 observed data

Author

Gloersen, P, Cavalieri, D. J, and Soule, H. V

Subjects
Earth Resources And Remote Sensing
Abstract

The manner in which Nimbus-7 scanning multichannel microwave radiometer (SMMR) scan radiance data was used to determine its operational characteristics is described. The predicted SMMR scan radiance was found to be in disagreement at all wavelengths with a large area of average measured ocean radiances. A modified model incorporating a different phase shift for each of the SMMR horizontal and vertical polarization channels was developed and found to provide good data correlation. Additional study is required to determine the validity and accuracy of this model.

Published
1980

40. A Study of the Effect of Increased Size and Speed of Pursuit Airplanes on the Aileron Balancing Problem

Author

Soule, H. A and Harmon, S. M

Subjects
Aircraft Design, Testing And Performance
Abstract

The present trend is toward faster and larger pursuit airplanes. Because both speed and size increase the aileron control forces, the design of ailerons for manual operation is becoming increasingly difficult. In order to obtain a clearer picture of the future problem of balancing ailerons, and inspection has been made of the effects of airplane size and speed on the control forces. Computations were made of the aileron control forces required to meet specified rolling conditions for plain ailerons on wings with spans from 40 to 80 feet and for speeds up to 500 miles per hour. The rolling conditions were specified by two alternative criterions. One was the rolling criterion pb/2V of reference 1. For reasons, which will be discussed later, a value of 0.09 rather than the recommended value of 0.07 was assigned to this criterion. For the criterion pb/2V, the required value of the rolling velocity p varies inversely with the airplane span b. There is some question as to whether the rolling velocity of a pursuit airplane can be permitted to decrease simply because its size is increased. For the second criterion, therefore, the rolling velocity is independent of span (p/V is a constant). The value assigned to this criterion was so chosen that for a wing of 40-foot span the value of pb/2V would be 0.09. The computations neglected compressibility effects. Available experimental data and the results of tests given in reference 2 indicate that the effect of compressibility is to increase the control force. Recent flight tests have indicated that, with certain types of aileron, serious compressibility effects may cause discontinuity at speeds of approximately 400 miles per hour in the aileron control force curves.

Published
1942

41. Design charts relating to the stalling of tapered wings

Author

Soule, H A and Anderson, R F

Abstract

An aid in airplane design, charts have been prepared to show the effects of wing taper, thickness ratio, and Reynolds number on the spanwise location of the initial stalling point. Means of improving poor stalling characteristics resulting from certain combinations of the variables have also been considered; additional figures illustrate the influence of camber increase to the wing tips, washout, central sharp leading edges, and wing-tip slots on the stalling characteristics. Data are included from which the drag increases resulting from the use of these means can be computed. The application of the data to a specific problem is illustrated by an example.

Published
1940

42. Preliminary Investigation of the Flying Qualities of Airplanes

Author

Soule, H A

Abstract

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics is undertaking an investigation of the flying qualities of airplanes. The work consists in the determination of the significant qualities susceptible of measurement, the development of the instruments required to make the measurements, and the accumulation of data on the flying qualities of existing airplanes, which data are to serve as a basis for quantitative specifications for the flying qualities of future designs. A tentative schedule of measurable flying qualities has been prepared and the instruments needed for their measurements have been assembled. A trial of the schedule and the instruments has been made using the Stinson SR-8e airplane. The results showed that, although the original schedule and instruments are basically satisfactory some further development is required to eliminate nonessential items and to expedite flight testing. The report describes and discusses the work done with this airplane.

Published
1940

43. A flight investigation of the reduction of aileron operating force by means of fixed tabs and differential linkage, with notes on linkage design

Author

Soule, H A and Hootman, James A

Abstract

Flight tests were made to demonstrate the particularity of employing fixed tabs in conjunction with a suitably designed differential linkage to reduce the force required to operate ailerons. The tests showed the system to be practicable with tabs of the inset type. The relative ineffectiveness of attached tabs for changing the aileron floating angle rendered them unsuitable. Experience gained in the investigation has indicated that the use of the system is limited to maximum deflections of one aileron relative to the other of less than 30 degrees and that the differential linkage should always be designed on the basis of the highest probable floating angle.

Published
1938

44. A Flight Comparison of Conventional Ailerons on a Rectangular Wing and of Conventional and Floating Wing-Tip Ailerons on a Tapered Wing

Author

Soule, H A and Gracey, W

Abstract

Report presents the results of flight tests comparing the relative effectiveness of conventional ailerons of the same size on wings of rectangular and tapered plan forms made with a Fairchild 22 airplane. Information is included comparing conventional and floating wing-tip ailerons on a tapered wing. The results showed that the conventional ailerons were somewhat more effective on the tapered than on the rectangular wing. The difference, however, was so small as to be imperceptible to the pilots. The floating wing-tip ailerons were only half as effective as the conventional ailerons and, for this reason, were considered unsatisfactory.

Published
1938

45. Improvement of aileron effectiveness by the prevention of air leakage through the hinge gap as determined in flight

Author

Soule, H A and Gracey, W

Abstract

A flight investigation was made of the increase in effectiveness of ailerons that can be obtained by preventing flow of air through the wing at the hinges and of the possibility of reducing the aileron operating force by replacing ailerons having normal open hinge gaps with narrower but equally effective ailerons having sealed hinge gaps. Tests were made with a Fairchild 22 airplane with two sizes of plain unbalanced ailerons, one set having a chord equal to 0.18c, and the other chord equal to 0.09c. The results of the investigation show that improvement of the lateral-control effectiveness is obtained by completely preventing the flow of air through the wing at the hinge axis of conventional ailerons. The magnitude of the improvement depends on the aileron chord. For the 0.18c ailerons the gain in aileron effectiveness due to sealing the gap at the hinge axis was of the order of one-fifth and for the 0.09c ailerons the gain was about one-third. The importance of sealing the gap was demonstrated by the fact that the 0.09c ailerons with a slight increase in deflection range were made as effective as the 0.18c ailerons with an unsealed gap but required only about one-third as large an operating force.

Published
1938

46. Flight Tests of an Airplane Showing Dependence of the Maximum Lift Coefficient on the Test Conditions

Author

Soule, H A and Hootman, James A

Abstract

Data are presented to show the extent to which the maximum lift coefficient and consequently the minimum speed of an airplane, determined by flight tests, may vary with test conditions. The data show that cl-max may vary as much as 14 percent, depending on the altitude and wing loading at which the tests were made, the position or motion of the propeller, and the rate at which the angle of attack is changing when the maximum lift coefficient is obtained. The variation of the maximum lift coefficient with these factors, which are under the control of the test engineer, shows the need of standardizing the test procedure. A further variation is shown with wing conditions as affected by weathering and vibration, factors that cannot be completely controlled.

Published
1937

47. Full-scale Wind-tunnel and Flight Test of a Fairchild 22 Airplane Equipped with a Zap Flap and Zap Ailerons

Author

Dearborn, C H and Soule, H A

Abstract

A wing equipped with a Zap flap and Zap ailerons was tested on a Fairchild 22 airplane in the full-scale wind tunnel and in flight to determine the effect of the flaps and ailerons on the performance and the control characteristics of the airplane. The flaps were 0.30 of the wing chord and 0.83 of the wing span. Two sets of ailerons having equal areas but different proportions were tested, one set being 0.56 of the semispan and 0.18 of the chord and the other set being 0.46 of the semispan and 0.22 of the chord. The wind-tunnel tests showed that, when the ailerons and horizontal tail surfaces were removed, the flaps increased the maximum lift coefficient from 1.48 to 2.39. In flight, the fully deflected flaps decreased the minimum speed from 48.2 to 38.8 miles per hour. The take-off and landing distances were both reduced by the flaps. The wind-tunnel tests showed the ailerons to increase the drag coefficient, at a lift coefficient and Reynolds Number corresponding to the high speed of the airplane, from 0.0432 to 0.0498 and 0.0514, the 0.46 semispan ailerons giving the highest drag. In the flight tests both sets of ailerons were found to give satisfactory rolling action in the normal-flight range. They required relatively large stick forces for their operation, however, and the variation of the forces with aileron deflection was not linear.

Published
1937

48. Full-scale Wind-tunnel and Flight Tests of a Fairchild 22 Airplane Equipped with a Fowler Flap

Author

Dearborn, C H and Soule, H A

Abstract

Full-scale wind-tunnel and flight tests were made of a Fairchild 22 airplane equipped with a Fowler flap to determine the effect of the flap on the performance and control characteristics of the airplane. In the wind-tunnel tests of the airplane with the horizontal tail surfaces removed, the flap was found to increase the maximum lift coefficient from 1.27 to 2.41. In the flight test, the flap was found to decrease the minimum speed from 58.8 to 44.4 miles per hour. The required take-off run to attain an altitude of 50 feet was reduced from 935 feet to 700 feet by the use of the flap, the minimum distance being obtained with five-sixths full deflection. The landing run from a height of 50 feet was reduced one-third. The longitudinal and directional control was adversely affected by the flap, indicating that the design of the tail surfaces is more critical with a flapped than a plain wing.

Published
1936

49. Flight Investigation of Lateral Control Devices for Use with Full-Span Flaps

Author

Soule, H A and Mcavoy, W H

Abstract

This report presents the results of flight tests made on five different lateral control devices that appeared adaptable to wings fitted with full span flaps: controllable auxiliary airfoils (airfoils mounted above and forward of the leading edge of the wings), external ailerons (airfoils mounted above the wing and slightly forward of its maximum ordinate), upper-surface ailerons (similar to split trailing-edge flaps except that they constitute the upper surface of the wing), ailerons that retract into the wing when in neutral, and narrow-chord conventional ailerons in combination with a special type of split flap that retracts into the under surface of the wing forward of the ailerons. The devices were tested on a small parasol monoplane. Experienced gained in the use of flaps during these tests has indicated the desirability of a flap that can be operated quickly and easily.

Published
1936

50. Flight Tests of a Balanced Split Flap with Particular Reference to Rapid Operation

Author

Soule, H A

Abstract

The flight path of a small parasol monoplane equipped with a special type of balanced split flap was determined for a series of glides during which the time taken to deflect or retract the flap was varied from 1 to 15 seconds in order to study the effect of the time taken to complete a flap movement on the motion of an airplane between the start of a flap movement and the attainment of steady flight with the new flap setting. For flap movements accompanied by a change of lift characteristics, and consequently of velocity, there is an appreciable delay in obtaining a desired change in glide angle even though the flap is operated instantaneously. Immediate control of the glide path is obtained only when the speed is maintained during the flap movement. When the speed is changed, the deviation from the desired path during the transition increases in proportion to the rapidity with which the flap is moved so that, with a high-lift flap, abrupt retraction at speeds less than the minimum speed with the flap retracted may be dangerous if practiced close to the ground.

Published
1935

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results