Radical Prostatectomy: Sequelae in the Course of Time

Objective: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a frequent treatment for men suffering from localized prostate cancer (PCa). Whilst offering a high chance for cure, it does not come without a significant impact on health-related quality of life. Herein we review the common adverse effects RP may have over the course of time. Methods: A collaborative narrative review was performed with the identification of the principal studies on the topic. The search was executed by a relevant term search on PubMed from 2010 to February 2021. Results: Rates of major complications in patients undergoing RP are generally low. The main adverse effects are erectile dysfunction varying from 11 to 87% and urinary incontinence varying from 0 to 87% with a peak in functional decline shortly after surgery, and dependent on definitions. Different less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. The highest rate of recovery is seen within the first year after RP, but even long-term improvements are possible. Nevertheless, for some men these adverse effects are long lasting and different, less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. Despite many technical advances over the last two decades no surgical approach can be clearly favored when looking at long-term outcome, as surgical volume and experience as well as individual patient characteristics are still the most influential variables. Conclusions: The frequency of erectile function and urinary continence side effects after RP, and the trajectory of recovery, need to be taken into account when counseling patients about their treatment options for prostate cancer

Biomarkers to personalize treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617 in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer - a state of the art review

Radioligand therapy with Lutetium-177 (177Lu)-Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has shown to prolong survival in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). One of the major challenges for clinicians in the future is to select those patients who would benefit most from this therapy to position it in the treatment landscape of mCRPC. This, in turn, will lead to the delivery of personalized therapies. In this narrative review article we summarize recent studies investigating both predictive and prognostic clinical, imaging-based, and molecular biomarkers to predict treatment response to 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy with the aim of identifying men who should be considered for this approach. Of note, the evidence on the role of biomarkers currently relies on small retrospective trials and their validation in larger prospective cohorts is necessary before these results can be translated in the clinical practice

Benefits and Risks of Primary Treatments for High-risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer : An International Multidisciplinary Systematic Review

Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Peer reviewedPostprin

Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy

none38siContext: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy. Evidence acquisition: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed. Evidence synthesis: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy. Conclusions: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified. Patient summary: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).noneWillemse, Peter-Paul M; Davis, Niall F; Grivas, Nikolaos; Zattoni, Fabio; Lardas, Michael; Briers, Erik; Cumberbatch, Marcus G; De Santis, Maria; Dell'Oglio, Paolo; Donaldson, James F; Fossati, Nicola; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Gillessen, Silke; Grummet, Jeremy P; Henry, Ann M; Liew, Matthew; MacLennan, Steven; Mason, Malcolm D; Moris, Lisa; Plass, Karin; O'Hanlon, Shane; Omar, Muhammad Imran; Oprea-Lager, Daniela E; Pang, Karl H; Paterson, Catherine C; Ploussard, Guillaume; Rouvière, Olivier; Schoots, Ivo G; Tilki, Derya; van den Bergh, Roderick C N; Van den Broeck, Thomas; van der Kwast, Theodorus H; van der Poel, Henk G; Wiegel, Thomas; Yuan, Cathy Yuhong; Cornford, Philip; Mottet, Nicolas; Lam, Thomas B LWillemse, Peter-Paul M; Davis, Niall F; Grivas, Nikolaos; Zattoni, Fabio; Lardas, Michael; Briers, Erik; Cumberbatch, Marcus G; De Santis, Maria; Dell'Oglio, Paolo; Donaldson, James F; Fossati, Nicola; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Gillessen, Silke; Grummet, Jeremy P; Henry, Ann M; Liew, Matthew; Maclennan, Steven; Mason, Malcolm D; Moris, Lisa; Plass, Karin; O'Hanlon, Shane; Omar, Muhammad Imran; Oprea-Lager, Daniela E; Pang, Karl H; Paterson, Catherine C; Ploussard, Guillaume; Rouvière, Olivier; Schoots, Ivo G; Tilki, Derya; van den Bergh, Roderick C N; Van den Broeck, Thomas; van der Kwast, Theodorus H; van der Poel, Henk G; Wiegel, Thomas; Yuan, Cathy Yuhong; Cornford, Philip; Mottet, Nicolas; Lam, Thomas B

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high- level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. Results and limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these 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 are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and 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 healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Twitter summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. Take-home message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer is summarised here

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

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

Surgery vs Radiotherapy in the Management of Biopsy Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer and the Risk of Mortality

Importance: It is unknown how treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) and adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or both (termed MaxRP) compares with treatment with EBRT, brachytherapy, and ADT (termed MaxRT). Objective: To investigate whether treatment of Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer with MaxRP vs MaxRT was associated with prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: The study cohort comprised 639 men with clinical T1-4,N0M0 biopsy Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer. Between February 6, 1992, and April 26, 2013, a total of 80 men were consecutively treated with MaxRT at the Chicago Prostate Cancer Center, and 559 men were consecutively treated with RP and pelvic lymph node dissection at the Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center. Follow-up started on the day of prostate EBRT or RP and concluded on October 27, 2017. Exposures: Of the 559 men managed with RP and pelvic lymph node dissection, 88 (15.7%) received adjuvant EBRT, 49 (8.8%) received ADT, and 50 (8.9%) received both. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment propensity score-adjusted risk of PCSM and ACM and the likelihood of equivalence of these risks between treatments using a plausibility index. Results: The cohort included 639 men, with a mean (SD) age of 65.83 (6.52) years. After median follow-ups of 5.51 years (interquartile range, 2.19-6.95 years) among 80 men treated with MaxRT and 4.78 years (interquartile range, 4.01-6.05 years) among 559 men treated with RP-containing treatments, 161 men had died, 106 (65.8%) from prostate cancer. There was no significant difference in the risk of PCSM (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.49-3.64; P =.58) and ACM (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.36-1.81; P =.60) when comparing men who underwent MaxRP vs MaxRT, with plausibility indexes for equivalence of 76.75% for the end point of the risk of PCSM and 77.97% for the end point of the risk of ACM. Plausibility indexes for all other treatment comparisons were less than 63%. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that it is plausible that treatment with MaxRP or MaxRT for men with biopsy Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer can lead to equivalent risk of PCSM and ACM.