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.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

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

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of European Association of Urology. 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.2022.11.002Background: 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.We gratefully acknowledge the following organisations for providing financial support for the APCCC 2022: The City of Lugano and Movember Foundation. Ros Eeles is supported by a National Institute of Health Research grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We also acknowledge sponsorship from several for-profit organisations for APCCC 2022, including Advanced Accelerator Applications, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, Debiopharm, MSD, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Orion Pharma, Pfizer Oncology, Roche, Telix Innovations SA, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Lantheus, and Tolmar. These for-profit organisations supported the conference financially but had no input on the scientific content or the final publication.Accepted versio

Importance of cycles of chemotherapy and postdocetaxel novel therapies in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Purpose: With the emergence of various novel therapies including new generation taxane and androgen-targeted therapies, the optimal sequence of systemic treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients remains to be defined. Our aim is to investigate the impact of duration of docetaxel-based chemotherapy and postdocetaxel treatment in mCRPC patients. Methods: The medical data of 57 Chinese mCRPC patients who received docetaxel-based chemotherapy in two oncology centers between 2003 and 2012 were reviewed. The treatment efficacy and toxicity were determined. The potential determinants of efficacy were also determined. Results: Fifty-seven patients (median age 66 years, range 51–82 years) were given docetaxel-based chemotherapy, of whom 48 (84.2%) received 3-weekly docetaxel (52.5–75 mg/m2) and nine (15.8%) received weekly docetaxel (35 mg/m2). Postdocetaxel treatments were received by 31 (57.4%) patients, including abiraterone in 13 patients and cabazitaxel in one patient. The median follow-up time was 14.3 months. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were 20.8 months and 5.8 months, respectively. In multivariate analysis, eight cycles or more of chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.151, P < 0.0358], use of postdocetaxel treatment (HR = 0.346, P = 0.0005), and hemoglobin level of <10 (HR = 5.224, P < 0.0001) were independent determinants of OS. Patients who had received abiraterone and cabazitaxel as postdocetaxel treatment had significantly longer OS compared with those who received other postdocetaxel treatments (including rechallenge of docetaxel) and those who did not receive any postdocetaxel treatment (35.3 months vs. 20.8 months vs. 15.3 months, P = 0.00057). Conclusions: The results suggest that maximizing exposure to docetaxel-based chemotherapy followed by novel therapies would have a favorable survival impact on mCRPC patients

Differences in clinical outcome between docetaxel and abiraterone acetate as the first-line treatment in chemo-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with or without the ineligible clinical factors of the COU-AA-302 study

Background: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of abiraterone acetate (AA) versus docetaxel (T) as first-line treatment in chemo-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with or without the ineligible factors of the COU-AA-302 study (presence of visceral metastases, symptomatic disease, and/or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2). Materials and methods: The clinical records of chemo-naïve mCRPC patients who received AA in six public oncology centers or T in two of these centers between 2003 and 2014 were reviewed. The survival time was compared among four subgroups of patients: those with ineligible factors administered AA (Group Ineligible–AA) or T (Group Ineligible–T), and those without ineligible factors and administered AA (Group Eligible–AA) or T (Group Eligible–T). Results: During the study period, we identified 115 mCRPC patients who received AA or T, among whom 29, 36, 29, and 21 patients were classified as Groups Ineligible–AA, Ineligible–T, Eligible–AA, and Eligible–T, respectively. Both Group Ineligible–AA and Group Eligible–AA had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and similar overall survival (OS) as Group Ineligible–T and Group Eligible–T (Ineligible, PFS: 6.3 vs. 5.9 months, P=0.0234, OS: 7.8 vs. 15.7 months, P=0.1601; Eligible, PFS: 9.8 vs. 5.6 months, P=0.0437, OS: 20.5 vs. 18.2 months, P=0.7820). Conclusions: Compared to T, AA treatment resulted in longer PFS and similar OS in chemo-naïve mCRPC patients, irrespective of the presence of ineligible factors, suggesting that the initial treatment by AA may still be beneficial to those with the aforementioned ineligible factors

Treatment outcomes of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in modern era after intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in Hong Kong: A report of 3328 patients (HKNPCSG 1301 study)

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd Purpose To evaluate treatment outcomes, failure patterns and late toxicities in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated by intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in 6 public hospitals in Hong Kong over a 10-year period from 2001 to 2010. Material and methods Eligible patients were identified through the Hong Kong Cancer Registry data base. Clinical information was retrieved and verified by oncologists working in the individual centers. Treatment details, survival outcomes and late toxicities were analyzed. Results A total of 3328 patients were recruited. The median follow-up time was 80.2 months. The 8-year actuarial overall survival (OS), local failure-free survival (LFFS), regional failure-free survival (RFFS), distant failure free survival (DFFS), progression-free survival (PFS) for the whole group was 68.5%, 85.8%, 91.5%, 81.5% and 62.6% respectively. Male gender, older age, advanced T and N stage were adverse prognostic factors for OS, DFFS and PFS, whereas use of chemotherapy in form of concurrent chemo-irradiation (CRT), neoadjuvant + CRT, or CRT + adjuvant chemotherapy were favorable prognostic factors for OS and PFS. The local control was adversely affected by advanced T stage. N stage remained as the single adverse prognostic factor for regional control. Distant metastasis was the commonest site of failure. Conclusion IMRT is an effective treatment for NPC with excellent overall loco-regional control. Distant metastasis is the major site of failure. Concurrent chemotherapy with cisplatin has an established role in NPC patients treated by IMRT.Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

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

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