Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Report from the 2024 advanced prostate cancer consensus conference (APCCC)
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Authors
Gillessen, SilkeTurco, Fabio
Davis, Ian D.
Efstathiou, Jason
Fizazi, Karim
James, Nicholas D.
Shore, Neal
Small, Eric
Smith, Matthew
Sweeney, Christopher
Tombal, Bertrand
Zilli, Thomas
Agarwal, Neeraj
Antonarakis, Emmanuel S.
Aparicio, Ana M.
Armstrong, Andrew J.
Bastos, Diogo Assed
Attard, Gerhardt
Axcrona, Karol
Ayadi, Mouna
Beltran, Himisha
Bjartell, Anders
Blanchard, Pierre
Bourlon, Maria T.
Briganti, Alberto
Bulbul, Muhammad
Buttigliero, Consuelo
Caffo, Orazio
Castellano, Daniel
Castro, Elena
Cheng, Heather H.
Chi, Kim N.
Clarke, Caroline S.
Clarke, Noel W.
de Bono, Johann S.
De Santis, Maria
Duran, Ignacio
Efstathiou, Eleni
Ekeke, Onyeanunam
El Nahas, Tamer I.H.
Emmett, Louise
Fanti, Stefano
Fatiregun, Omolara A.
Feng, Felix Y.
Fong, Peter C.C.
Fonteyne, Valerie
Fossati, Nicola
George, Daniel
Gleave, Martin
Gravis, Gwenaelle
Halabi, Susan
Heinrich, Daniel
Herrmann, Ken
Hofman, Michael S.
Hope, Thomas A.
Horvath, Lisa G.
Hussain, Maha
Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja
Jones, Robert J.
Joshua, Anthony M.
Kanesvaran, Ravindran
Keizman, Daniel
Khauli, Raja B.
Kramer, Gero
Loeb, Stacy
Mahal, Brandon A.
Maluf, Fernando
Mateo, Joaquin
Matheson, David
Matikainen, Mika P.
McDermott, Ray
McKay, Rana R.
Mehra, Niven
Merseburger, Axel
Morgans, Alicia K.
Morris, Michael J.
Mrabti, Hind
Mukherji, Deborah
Murphy, Declan G.
Murthy, Vedang
Mutambirwa, Shingai B.A.
Nguyen, Paul L.
Oh, William K.
Ost, Piet
O’Sullivan, Joe M.
Padhani, Anwar R.
Parker, Chris C.
Poon, Darren M.C.
Pritchard, Colin C.
Rabah, Danny M.
Rathkopf, Dana
Reiter, Robert E.
Renard-Penna, Raphaele
Ryan, Charles J.
Saad, Fred
Sade, Juan Pablo
Sandhu, Shahneen
Sartor, Oliver A.
Schaeffer, Edward
Scher, Howard I.
Sharifi, Nima
Skoneczna, Iwona
Soule, Howard
Spratt, Daniel E.
Srinivas, Sandy
Sternberg, Cora N.
Suzuki, Hiroyoshi
Taplin, Mary-Ellen
Thellenberg-Karlsson, Camilla
Tilki, Derya
Türkeri, Levent
Uemura, Hiroji
Ürün, Yüksel
Vale, Claire L.
Vapiwala, Neha
Walz, Jochen
Yamoah, Kosj
Ye, Dingwei
Yu, Evan Y.
Zapatero, Almudena
Omlin, Aurelius
Issue Date
2024-10-11
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
BACKGROUND 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.Citation
Gillessen, S., Turco, F., Davis, I.D. et al. (in press) Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Report from the 2024 advanced prostate cancer consensus conference (APCCC). European Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.017Publisher
ElsevierJournal
European UrologyAdditional Links
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.017Type
Journal articleLanguage
enDescription
© 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.2024.09.017ISSN
0302-2838EISSN
1873-7560ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.017
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022Gillessen, Silke; Bossi, Alberto; Davis, Ian D.; de Bono, Johann S.; Fizazi, Karim; James, Nicholas D.; Mottet, Nicolas; Shore, Neal; Small, Eric; Smith, Mathew; et al. (Elsevier, 2023-03-02)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 2022Gillessen, Silke; Bossi, Alberto; Davis, Ian D.; de Bono, Johann S.; Fizazi, Karim; James, Nicholas D.; Mottet, Nicolas; Shore, Neal; Small, Eric; Smith, Mathew; et al. (Elsevier, 2023-02-16)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.
-
Improving construction management practice in the Gibraltar construction industryDaniel, Emmanuel I.; Garcia, Daniel; Marasini, Ramesh; Kolo, Shaba; Oshodi, Olalekan; Pasquire, Christine; Hamzeh, Farook (Annual Conference of the International. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), 2019-07-03)Research has shown that 57% of activities in a construction project is non-value adding (waste) which contributes to the poor performance of the sector. While other countries of the world such the USA, UK, Brazil, Nigeria and Israel among others are seeking to understand this challenge and deploy innovative ways and modern techniques to improve it, limited studies have explored factors that contribute to non-value adding activities (NVA) in the Gibraltar construction industry. The current study aims to identify the factors that contribute to NVA on construction sites in Gibraltar and to present an outlook on how this could be minimised using Last Planner System(LPS). A combination of quantative and qualitative research approaches were used. Thirtyone questionnaire responses were analysed and seven semi-structured interviews were conducted. The investigation reveals that the development of unrealistic schedules, lack of adequate training, delayed approval process and work interruption due to the community are the key factors that contribute to NVA. The study found that the suggestions offered by construction professional for minimising NVA align with some LPS principles. The study concludes that some of the current practices, could serve as justification for the introduction of LPS in the construction sector of Gibraltar.