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.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions

Group A rotavirus genotypes and the ongoing Brazilian experience: a review

Brazil was the first Latin American country to introduce universal group A rotavirus (RV-A) vaccination in March 2006, resulting in a unique epidemiological scenario. Since RV-A first identification in Brazil, 2,691 RV-A-positive stool samples, collected between 1982- 2007, were typed by independent research groups throughout the country. In the pre-vaccination era, 2,492 RV-A-positive samples collected from 1982-2005 were successfully typed, while 199 samples were analyzed from 2006-2007. According to the reviewed studies, there were two important times in the pre-vaccination era: (i) the period from 1982-1995, during which the detection of G5P[8] RV-A, in addition to the classical genotypes G1-4, challenged vaccine development programs; and (ii) the period from 1996-2005, during which genotype G9P[8] emerged, following a global trend. The rate of G2P[4] RV-A detection decreased from 26% (173/653) during 1982-1995 to 2% (43/1,839) during 1996-2005. The overall detection rate of RV-A genotypes from 1982-2005 was as follows: 43% (n = 1,079) G1P[8]/G1P[not typed (NT)]; 20% (n = 488) G9P[8]/G9P[NT]; 9% (n = 216) G2P[4]/G2P[NT]; 6% (n = 151) G3P[8]/G3P[NT]; 4% (n = 103) G4P[8]/G4P[NT]; and 4% (n = 94) G5P[8]/G5P[NT]. Mixed infections accounted for 189 (7%) of the positive samples, while atypical G/P combinations or other genotypes, including G6, G8, G10 and G12, were identified in 172 (7%) samples. The initial surveillance studies carried out in several Brazilian states with RV-A-positive samples collected in 2006 and 2007 show a predominance of G2P[4] strains (148/199 or 74%). Herein, we review RV-A typing studies carried out since the 1980s in Brazil, highlighting the dynamics of RV-A strain circulation profiles before and early after universal use of RV-A vaccine in Brazil