Search

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

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

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

The aim of this epidemiological study is to assess the incidence of prostate carcinoma and age adjusted age references of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) in Turkish population. For this purpose, 93 men, living in a village in Turkey, all older than 50 years of age, underwent screening for prostate cancer with digital rectal examination and PSA determinations. Five men in the population underwent Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) guided systematic biopsies because of PSA values exceeding age adjusted levels. All biopsies of the Turkish population revealed Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH). Mean and median PSA levels showed an Increasing trend according to the age decades. Since PSA shows a correlation with age, it seems more appropriate to use age adjusted PSA cut-off levels in screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer, rather than a single cutoff level for all age references. However, there is no data about PSA median levels in different populations. In our study PSA revealed a similar trend in the Turkish population as in the US population.

The male partner is the reason for infertility in about 50% of childless marriages. New surgical and reproductive technologic improvements have expanded the horizon of male Infertility surgery. Recent advances in microsurgical techniques applied to male infertility will be discussed

Like tuberculous infection the overall incidence of genitourinary tuberculosis has increased in many countries during the recent years.Two cases of testicular tuberculosis manifesting as acute epididymo-orchitis are presented., Like tuberculous infection the overall incidence of genitourinary tuberculosis has increased in many countries during the recent years.Two cases of testicular tuberculosis manifesting as acute epididymo-orchitis are presented.Key Words: Tuberculosis, Orchitis

Introduction: Ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is the standard method for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of the present survey is to assess the variability in patient preparation and technique of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy among Turkish Urologists. Materials and Methods: In July 2004, a questionnaire was sent out to e-mail addresses of the members of Urooncological Association, asking about the details of prostate biopsy protocol of the members. The survey consisted of multiple choice questions about the patient preparation and prostate biopsy technique. Responses were acquired via e-mail and analyzed in detail. Results: Thirty two urologists from 24 centers responded. The biopsy procedure was performed by the urologist only in 54.16% of the centers, both urologist and radiologist in 37.5%, and radiologist only in 8.33%. Transrectal route was the most common method for ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. A half of the responders performed biopsy when PSA was greater than 4 ng/ml. All of the centers administered antibiotic and a half of them used enema before the procedure. Approximately 37% of responders did not administer any type of analgesia, but 29.1% of all responders administered a periprostatic nerve block for reducing pain during the procedure. Most urologists obtained 10 or 12 biopsy cores and only 20.8% of them obtained routine transitional zone biopsy during the initial biopsy session. Conclusion: This survey demonstrated that patient preparation and technique of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is not standardized among Turkish Urologists, and a guideline on prostate biopsy is needed.

Introduction: Ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is the standard method for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of the present survey is to assess the variability in patient preparation and technique of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy among Turkish Urologists. Materials and Methods: In July 2004, a questionnaire was sent out to e-mail addresses of the members of Urooncological Association, asking about the details of prostate biopsy protocol of the members. The survey consisted of multiple choice questions about the patient preparation and prostate biopsy technique. Responses were acquired via e-mail and analyzed in detail. Results: Thirty two urologists from 24 centers responded. The biopsy procedure was performed by the urologist only in 54.16% of the centers, both urologist and radiologist in 37.5%, and radiologist only in 8.33%. Transrectal route was the most common method for ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. A half of the responders performed biopsy when PSA was greater than 4 ng/ml. All of the centers administered antibiotic and a half of them used enema before the procedure. Approximately 37% of responders did not administer any type of analgesia, but 29.1% of all responders administered a periprostatic nerve block for reducing pain during the procedure. Most urologists obtained 10 or 12 biopsy cores and only 20.8% of them obtained routine transitional zone biopsy during the initial biopsy session. Conclusion: This survey demonstrated that patient preparation and technique of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is not standardized among Turkish Urologists, and a guideline on prostate biopsy is needed.