Résumé
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.
langue originale | Anglais |
---|---|
journal | European Urology |
Les DOIs | |
état | Accepté/sous presse - 1 janv. 2024 |
Accès au document
Autres fichiers et liens
Contient cette citation
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
Dans: European Urology, 01.01.2024.
Résultats de recherche: Contribution à un journal › Article › Revue par des pairs
TY - JOUR
T1 - Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Report from the 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC)
AU - Gillessen, Silke
AU - Turco, Fabio
AU - Davis, Ian D.
AU - Efstathiou, Jason A.
AU - Fizazi, Karim
AU - James, Nicholas D.
AU - Shore, Neal
AU - Small, Eric
AU - Smith, Matthew
AU - Sweeney, Christopher J.
AU - Tombal, Bertrand
AU - Zilli, Thomas
AU - Agarwal, Neeraj
AU - Antonarakis, Emmanuel S.
AU - Aparicio, Ana
AU - Armstrong, Andrew J.
AU - Bastos, Diogo Assed
AU - Attard, Gerhardt
AU - Axcrona, Karol
AU - Ayadi, Mouna
AU - Beltran, Himisha
AU - Bjartell, Anders
AU - Blanchard, Pierre
AU - Bourlon, Maria T.
AU - Briganti, Alberto
AU - Bulbul, Muhammad
AU - Buttigliero, Consuelo
AU - Caffo, Orazio
AU - Castellano, Daniel
AU - Castro, Elena
AU - Cheng, Heather H.
AU - Chi, Kim N.
AU - Clarke, Caroline S.
AU - Clarke, Noel
AU - de Bono, Johann S.
AU - De Santis, Maria
AU - Duran, Ignacio
AU - Efstathiou, Eleni
AU - Ekeke, Onyeanunam N.
AU - El Nahas, Tamer I.H.
AU - Emmett, Louise
AU - Fanti, Stefano
AU - Fatiregun, Omolara A.
AU - Feng, Felix Y.
AU - Fong, Peter C.C.
AU - Fonteyne, Valerie
AU - Fossati, Nicola
AU - George, Daniel J.
AU - Gleave, Martin E.
AU - Gravis, Gwenaelle
AU - Halabi, Susan
AU - Heinrich, Daniel
AU - Herrmann, Ken
AU - Hofman, Michael S.
AU - Hope, Thomas A.
AU - Horvath, Lisa G.
AU - Hussain, Maha H.A.
AU - Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja
AU - Jones, Robert J.
AU - Joshua, Anthony M.
AU - Kanesvaran, Ravindren
AU - Keizman, Daniel
AU - Khauli, Raja B.
AU - Kramer, Gero
AU - Loeb, Stacy
AU - Mahal, Brandon A.
AU - Maluf, Fernando C.
AU - Mateo, Joaquin
AU - Matheson, David
AU - Matikainen, Mika P.
AU - McDermott, Ray
AU - McKay, Rana R.
AU - Mehra, Niven
AU - Merseburger, Axel S.
AU - Morgans, Alicia K.
AU - Morris, Michael J.
AU - Mrabti, Hind
AU - Mukherji, Deborah
AU - Murphy, Declan G.
AU - Murthy, Vedang
AU - Mutambirwa, Shingai B.A.
AU - Nguyen, Paul L.
AU - Oh, William K.
AU - Ost, Piet
AU - O'Sullivan, Joe M.
AU - Padhani, Anwar R.
AU - Parker, Chris
AU - Poon, Darren M.C.
AU - Pritchard, Colin C.
AU - Rabah, Danny M.
AU - Rathkopf, Dana
AU - Reiter, Robert E.
AU - Renard-Penna, Raphaele
AU - Ryan, Charles J.
AU - Saad, Fred
AU - Sade, Juan Pablo
AU - Sandhu, Shahneen
AU - Sartor, Oliver A.
AU - Schaeffer, Edward
AU - Scher, Howard I.
AU - Sharifi, Nima
AU - Skoneczna, Iwona A.
AU - Soule, Howard R.
AU - Spratt, Daniel E.
AU - Srinivas, Sandy
AU - Sternberg, Cora N.
AU - Suzuki, Hiroyoshi
AU - Taplin, Mary Ellen
AU - Thellenberg-Karlsson, Camilla
AU - Tilki, Derya
AU - Türkeri, Levent N.
AU - Uemura, Hiroji
AU - Ürün, Yüksel
AU - Vale, Claire L.
AU - Vapiwala, Neha
AU - Walz, Jochen
AU - Yamoah, Kosj
AU - Ye, Dingwei
AU - Yu, Evan Y.
AU - Zapatero, Almudena
AU - Omlin, Aurelius
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Authors
PY - 2024/1/1
Y1 - 2024/1/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Adjuvant therapy
KW - Biochemical recurrence
KW - Bone protection
KW - Genetics and genomics
KW - Hormonal treatment
KW - Next-generation imaging
KW - Positron emission tomography
KW - Prostate cancer
KW - Prostate-specific membrane antigen
KW - Salvage therapy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85206186686&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.017
DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.017
M3 - Article
C2 - 39394013
AN - SCOPUS:85206186686
SN - 0302-2838
JO - European Urology
JF - European Urology
ER -