Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Report from the 2024 advanced prostate cancer consensus conference (APCCC)

© in press The Authors. Published by Elsevier. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.017BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024. METHODS: Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists"). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.Published onlin

An angulated common bile duct predisposes to recurrent symptomatic bile duct stones after endoscopic stone extraction

Abstract Background: Endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone extraction are standard procedures for the removal of bile duct stones. Stone recurrence can, however, occur in up to 25% of cases. Risk factors have been poorly defined, but are believed to be related to bile stasis. This study investigated whether an angulated common bile duct (CBD) that may predispose to bile stasis influences symptomatic stone recurrence after successful endoscopic therapy. Methods: This study included 232 consecutive patients (mean age, 64.1 years; 86 men) who had undergone therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for bile duct stones. Data from the follow-up period (36 ± 17 months) were obtained from medical records and patient questioning. Common bile duct angulation and diameter were measured from the cholangiogram after stone removal. Results: Symptomatic bile duct stones recurred in 16% of the patients (36/232). Three independent risk factors were identified by multivariate analysis: an angulated CBD (angle, £145°; relative risk [RR], 5.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-12.5; p = 0.0002), a dilated CBD (diameter, ‡13 mm; RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7; p = 0.017), and a previous open cholecystectomy (RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-5.9; p = 0.0117). Gender, age, urgency of procedure, or a periampullary diverticulum did not influence the recurrence rate. Conclusions: Angulation of the CBD (£145°) on endoscopic cholangiography, a dilated CBD, and a previous open cholecystectomy are independent risk factors for symptomatic recurrence of bile duct stones. The findings support the role of bile stasis in stone recurrence. Further studies using these data prospectively to identify high-risk patients are warranted