Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: The report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 Journal Article

Authors: Gillessen, S.; Attard, G.; Beer, T. M.; Beltran, H.; Bossi, A.; Bristow, R.; Carver, B.; Castellano, D.; Chung, B. H.; Clarke, N.; Daugaard, G.; Davis, I. D.; de Bono, J.; dos Reis, R. B.; Drake, C. G.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Evans, C. P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heidenreich, A.; Higano, C. S.; James, N.; Kantoff, P.; Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P. L.; Khauli, R. B.; Kramer, G.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Morgans, A. K.; Morris, M. J.; Mottet, N.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.; Ost, P.; Padhani, A. R.; Parker, C.; Pritchard, C. C.; Roach, M.; Rubin, M. A.; Ryan, C.; Saad, F.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.; Sella, A.; Shore, N.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Sternberg, C. N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M. R.; Tannock, I.; Tombal, B.; Valdagni, R.; Wiegel, T.; Omlin, A.
Article Title: Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: The report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017
Abstract: Background In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. Objective To present the report of APCCC 2017. Design, setting, and participants Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; “oligometastatic” prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. Conclusions The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. Patient summary The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference, 10 important areas of controversy in advanced prostate cancer management were identified, discussed, and the experts voted on 150 predefined consensus questions. The full report of the results is summarised here. © 2017 European Association of Urology
Keywords: cancer chemotherapy; cancer surgery; unclassified drug; gene mutation; somatic mutation; histopathology; salvage therapy; advanced cancer; cancer combination chemotherapy; cancer growth; multimodality cancer therapy; side effect; systemic therapy; conference paper; drug targeting; cancer patient; cancer staging; molecular genetics; lymph node metastasis; antineoplastic agent; clinical practice; cancer palliative therapy; prostate specific antigen; dna repair; consensus; metastasis; gene amplification; local therapy; evidence based practice; bisphosphonic acid derivative; patient monitoring; practice guideline; tumor biopsy; diagnostic imaging; high risk patient; cancer hormone therapy; prostate cancer; cancer genetics; prostatectomy; tumor protein; prostate biopsy; delphi study; osteoclast; developing country; genetic screening; androgen deprivation therapy; adjuvant radiotherapy; biochemical recurrence; antineoplastic hormone agonists and antagonists; health care access; genetic counseling; bone disease; therapeutics; castration resistant prostate cancer; randomized controlled trial (topic); phase 2 clinical trial (topic); meta analysis (topic); phase 3 clinical trial (topic); clinical outcome; multicenter study (topic); germline mutation; oligometastasis; cancer prognosis; time to treatment; radium chloride ra 223; human; male; priority journal; medical terminology; disease assessment; advanced and high-risk localized prostate cancer; castration-naive and castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; androgen receptor splice variant 7 protein; castration naive prostate cancer; global disease burden
Journal Title: European Urology
Volume: 73
Issue: 2
ISSN: 0302-2838
Publisher: Elsevier Science, Inc.  
Date Published: 2018-02-01
Start Page: 178
End Page: 211
Language: English
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.002
PROVIDER: scopus
PUBMED: 28655541
Notes: Conference Paper -- Export Date: 6 February 2018 -- Source: Scopus
Citation Impact
MSK Authors
  1. Michael Morris
    355 Morris
  2. Howard Scher
    979 Scher
  3. Philip Wayne Kantoff
    123 Kantoff