Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Prostatic Neoplasms HELP
Based on 56,102 articles published since 2009
|||| 46 

These are the 56102 published articles about Prostatic Neoplasms that originated from Worldwide during 2009-2019.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20
1 Guideline Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO, ASCO and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline. 2019

Morgan, Scott C / Hoffman, Karen / Loblaw, D Andrew / Buyyounouski, Mark K / Patton, Caroline / Barocas, Daniel / Bentzen, Soren / Chang, Michael / Efstathiou, Jason / Greany, Patrick / Halvorsen, Per / Koontz, Bridget F / Lawton, Colleen / Leyrer, C Marc / Lin, Daniel / Ray, Michael / Sandler, Howard. ·Division of Radiation Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. · Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. · Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Health System, Palo Alto, California. · American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia. · Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. · Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. · Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Patient Representative, Tallahassee, Florida. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. · Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. · Radiology Associates of Appleton, ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center, Appleton, Wisconsin. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. ·J Urol · Pubmed #30759696.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The aim of this guideline is to present recommendations regarding moderately hypofractionated (240-340 cGy per fraction) and ultrahypofractionated (500 cGy or more per fraction) radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 8 key questions on appropriate indications and dose-fractionation for moderately and ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy, as well as technical issues, including normal tissue dose constraints, treatment volumes, and use of image guided and intensity modulated radiation therapy. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and Society-approved tools for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength. RESULTS: Based on high-quality evidence, strong consensus was reached for offering moderate hypofractionation across risk groups to patients choosing external beam radiation therapy. The task force conditionally recommends ultrahypofractionated radiation may be offered for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer but strongly encourages treatment of intermediate-risk patients on a clinical trial or multi-institutional registry. For high-risk patients, the task force conditionally recommends against routine use of ultrahypofractionated external beam radiation therapy. With any hypofractionated approach, the task force strongly recommends image guided radiation therapy and avoidance of nonmodulated 3-dimensional conformal techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated radiation therapy provides important potential advantages in cost and convenience for patients, and these recommendations are intended to provide guidance on moderate hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation for localized prostate cancer. The limits in the current evidentiary base-especially for ultrahypofractionation-highlight the imperative to support large-scale randomized clinical trials and underscore the importance of shared decision making between clinicians and patients.

2 Guideline Dataset for the reporting of prostate carcinoma in core needle biopsy and transurethral resection and enucleation specimens: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). 2019

Egevad, Lars / Judge, Meagan / Delahunt, Brett / Humphrey, Peter A / Kristiansen, Glen / Oxley, Jon / Rasiah, Krishan / Takahashi, Hiroyuki / Trpkov, Kiril / Varma, Murali / Wheeler, Thomas M / Zhou, Ming / Srigley, John R / Kench, James G. ·Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: Lars.Egevad@ki.se. · Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand. · Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. · Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. · Department of Cellular Pathology, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. · Department of Urology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia. · Department of Pathology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary and Calgary Laboratory Services, Alberta, Canada. · Department of Cellular Pathology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK. · Department of Pathology & Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. · Department of Pathology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. · Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. ·Pathology · Pubmed #30477882.

ABSTRACT: The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) is a project which issues datasets and guidelines for international standardisation of cancer reporting. This review summarises the required and recommended elements of the datasets for prostate core needle biopsies and transurethral resection (TURP) and enucleation specimens of the prostate. To obtain as much information as possible from needle biopsies there should be only one core in each specimen jar with the exception of saturation biopsies. The gross description of the specimens should include core lengths of needle biopsies and weight of resection specimens. The tumours should be classified according to the 4th World Health Organization (WHO) classification and graded both by Gleason scores and the grouping of these in International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grades (Grade groups). Percent high-grade cancer is an optional component of the report. Tumour extent in needle biopsies should be reported both by number of cores positive for cancer and the linear extent measured in either millimetre or percent core involvement by tumour. In needle biopsies where low-grade cancer is discontinuous and seen in few cores, it is recommended that the tumour extent should be reported both by including and subtracting intervening benign tissue. For resection specimens, the percentage of the tissue area (or percentage of number of TURP chips) involved with cancer should be estimated. Extraprostatic extension should be reported when seen, while the reporting of perineural, seminal vesicle/ejaculatory duct and lymphovascular invasion is only recommended. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) should be reported when present, because of its strong link with aggressive cancer. The current recommendation is that the IDC-P component should not be graded. The structured and standardised reporting of prostate cancer contributes to safer and more efficient patient care and facilitates the compilation and understanding of multiparametric diagnostic and prognostic data.

3 Guideline Consensus on management of castration-resistant prostate cancer on behalf of the Urological Tumours Working Group (URONCOR) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology. 2019

Gómez-Caamaño, A / González-San Segundo, C / Henríquez, I / Maldonado, X / Zapatero, A / Anonymous2671347. ·Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain. antonio.gomez.caamano@sergas.es. · Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. · Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Sant Joan de Reus, Tarragona, Spain. · Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Campus Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain. · Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain. ·Clin Transl Oncol · Pubmed #30293231.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The knowledge in the field of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is developing rapidly, with emerging new therapies and advances in imaging. Nonetheless, in multiple areas there is still a lack of or very limited evidence, and clear guidance from clinicians regarding optimal strategy is required. METHODS: A modified Delphi method, with 116 relevant questions divided into 7 different CRPC management topics, was used to develop a consensus statement by the URONCOR group. RESULTS: A strong consensus or unanimity was reached on 93% of the proposed questions. The seven topics addressed were: CRPC definition, symptomatic patients, diagnosis of metastasis, CRPC progression, M0 management, M1 management and sequencing therapy, and treatment monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations based on the radiation oncology experts' opinions are intended to provide cancer specialists with expert guidance and to standardise CRPC patient management in Spain, facilitating decision-making in different clinically relevant issues regarding CRPC patients.

4 Guideline A Clinician's Guide to Next Generation Imaging in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer (RADAR III). 2019

Crawford, E David / Koo, Phillip J / Shore, Neal / Slovin, Susan F / Concepcion, Raoul S / Freedland, Stephen J / Gomella, Leonard G / Karsh, Lawrence / Keane, Thomas E / Maroni, Paul / Penson, David / Petrylak, Daniel P / Ross, Ashley / Mouraviev, Vlad / Reiter, Robert E / Divgi, Chaitanya / Yu, Evan Y / Anonymous2161193. ·University of Colorado , Aurora , Colorado. · Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center , Phoenix , Arizona. · Carolina Urologic Research Center , Charleston , South Carolina. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , New York , New York. · The Comprehensive Prostate Center , Nashville , Tennessee. · Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center , Los Angeles , California. · Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania. · The Urology Center of Colorado , Aurora , Colorado. · Myrtle Beach, Medical University of South Carolina , Charleston , South Carolina. · Denver and University of Colorado , Aurora , Colorado. · Vanderbilt University , Nashville , Tennessee. · Yale University , New Haven , Connecticut. · GenomeDx Biosciences , Flower Mound , Texas. · Nova Southeastern University , Fort Lauderdale , Florida. · University of California-Los Angeles , Los Angeles , California. · Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons , New York , New York. · University of Washington , Seattle , Washington. ·J Urol · Pubmed #30077557.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The advanced prostate cancer therapeutic landscape has changed dramatically in the last several years, resulting in improved overall survival of patients with castration naïve and castration resistant disease. The evolution and development of novel next generation imaging techniques will affect diagnostic and therapeutic decision making. Clinicians must navigate when and which next generation imaging techniques to use and how to adjust treatment strategies based on the results, often in the absence of correlative therapeutic data. Therefore, guidance is needed based on best available information and current clinical experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The RADAR (Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence) III Group convened to offer guidance on the use of next generation imaging to stage prostate cancer based on available data and clinical experience. The group also discussed the potential impact of next generation imaging on treatment options based on earlier detection of disease. RESULTS: The group unanimously agreed that progression to metastatic disease is a seminal event for patient treatment. Next generation imaging techniques are able to detect previously undetectable metastases, which could redefine the phases of prostate cancer progression. Thus, earlier systemic or locally directed treatment may positively alter patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The RADAR III Group recommends next generation imaging techniques in select patients in whom disease progression is suspected based on laboratory (biomarker) values, comorbidities and symptoms. Currently

5 Guideline Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions. 2019

Padhani, Anwar R / Weinreb, Jeffrey / Rosenkrantz, Andrew B / Villeirs, Geert / Turkbey, Baris / Barentsz, Jelle. ·Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK. · Department of Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, USA. · Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, USA. · Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium. · Molecular Imaging Program NCI, Bethesda, USA. · Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: jelle.barentsz@radboudumc.nl. ·Eur Urol · Pubmed #29908876.

ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 analysis system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) detection of prostate cancer (PCa) is based on PI-RADS v1, accumulated scientific evidence, and expert consensus opinion. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the accuracy, strengths and weaknesses of PI-RADS v2, discuss pathway implications of its use and outline opportunities for improvements and future developments. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: For this consensus expert opinion from the PI-RADS steering committee, clinical studies, systematic reviews, and professional guidelines for mpMRI PCa detection were evaluated. We focused on the performance characteristics of PI-RADS v2, comparing data to systems based on clinicoradiologic Likert scales and non-PI-RADS v2 imaging only. Evidence selections were based on high-quality, prospective, histologically verified data, with minimal patient selection and verifications biases. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: It has been shown that the test performance of PI-RADS v2 in research and clinical practice retains higher accuracy over systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsies for PCa diagnosis. PI-RADS v2 fails to detect all cancers but does detect the majority of tumors capable of causing patient harm, which should not be missed. Test performance depends on the definition and prevalence of clinically significant disease. Good performance can be attained in practice when the quality of the diagnostic process can be assured, together with joint working of robustly trained radiologists and urologists, conducting biopsy procedures within multidisciplinary teams. CONCLUSIONS: It has been shown that the test performance of PI-RADS v2 in research and clinical practice is improved, retaining higher accuracy over systematic TRUS biopsies for PCa diagnosis. PATIENT SUMMARY: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-directed biopsies using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System improves the detection of prostate cancers likely to cause harm, and at the same time decreases the detection of disease that does not lead to harms if left untreated. The keys to success are high-quality imaging, reporting, and biopsies by radiologists and urologists working together in multidisciplinary teams.

6 Guideline Consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer. 2018

Fanti, Stefano / Minozzi, Silvia / Antoch, Gerald / Banks, Ian / Briganti, Alberto / Carrio, Ignasi / Chiti, Arturo / Clarke, Noel / Eiber, Matthias / De Bono, Johann / Fizazi, Karim / Gillessen, Silke / Gledhill, Sam / Haberkorn, Uwe / Herrmann, Ken / Hicks, Rodney J / Lecouvet, Frederic / Montironi, Rodolfo / Ost, Piet / O'Sullivan, Joe M / Padhani, Anwar R / Schalken, Jack A / Scher, Howard I / Tombal, Bertrand / van Moorselaar, R Jeroen A / Van Poppel, Heindrik / Vargas, Hebert Alberto / Walz, Jochen / Weber, Wolfgang A / Wester, Hans-Jürgen / Oyen, Wim J G. ·Nuclear Medicine Division, Policlinico S Orsola, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: stefano.fanti@aosp.bo.it. · Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Rome, Italy. · Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany. · European Cancer Organisation and European Men's Health Forum, Ulster, UK. · Division of Oncology and Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. · Humanitas University and Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy. · The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. · Department of Cancer Medicine, Institut Gustave Roussy, Paris, France. · Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester and The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK; Division of Oncology and Division of Haematology, Kantonsspital St Gallen and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. · Movember Foundation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. · Department of Nuclear Medicine and German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany. · Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. · Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. · Genitourinary Cancer Program, Institute of Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy. · Genitourinary Program, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. · Department of Radiotherapy and Experimental Cancer Research, Queen's University, Belfast, UK. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, London, UK. · Department of Experimental Urology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. · Department of Urology, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Urology, University Hospital Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Centre, Marseille, France. · Lehrstuhl für Pharmazeutische Radiochemie, Technische Universität München, Garching, Germany. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands; Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, UK. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #30507436.

ABSTRACT: Rapid developments in imaging and treatment with radiopharmaceuticals targeting prostate cancer pose issues for the development of guidelines for their appropriate use. To tackle this problem, international experts representing medical oncologists, urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists convened at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 1 meeting to deliver a balanced perspective on available data and clinical experience of imaging in prostate cancer, which had been supported by a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process. Relevant conclusions included the following: diphosphonate bone scanning and contrast-enhanced CT are mentioned but rarely recommended for most patients in clinical guidelines; MRI (whole-body or multiparametric) and prostate cancer-targeted PET are frequently suggested, but the specific contexts in which these methods affect practice are not established; sodium fluoride-18 for PET-CT bone scanning is not widely advocated, whereas gallium-68 or fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen gain acceptance; and, palliative treatment with bone targeting radiopharmaceuticals (rhenium-186, samarium-153, or strontium-89) have largely been replaced by radium-223 on the basis of the survival benefit that was reported in prospective trials, and by other systemic therapies with proven survival benefits. Although the advances in MRI and PET-CT have improved the accuracy of imaging, the effects of these new methods on clinical outcomes remains to be established. Improved communication between imagers and clinicians and more multidisciplinary input in clinical trial design are essential to encourage imaging insights into clinical decision making.

7 Guideline [French ccAFU guidelines - Update 2018-2020: Prostate cancer]. 2018

Rozet, F / Hennequin, C / Beauval, J-B / Beuzeboc, P / Cormier, L / Fromont-Hankard, G / Mongiat-Artus, P / Ploussard, G / Mathieu, R / Brureau, L / Ouzzane, A / Azria, D / Brenot-Rossi, I / Cancel-Tassin, G / Cussenot, O / Rebillard, X / Lebret, T / Soulié, M / Renard Penna, R / Méjean, A. ·Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, institut mutualiste Montsouris, université René-Descartes, 42, boulevard Jourdan, 75674 Paris, France. Electronic address: francois.rozet@imm.fr. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service de radiothérapie, Saint-Louis Hospital, AP-HP, 75010 Paris, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, oncologie médicale, institut universitaire du cancer Toulouse-Oncopole, CHU Rangueil, 31100 Toulouse, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Foch, 92150 Suresnes, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, CHU François-Mitterrand, 21000 Dijon, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; CHU de Tours, 2, boulevard Tonnellé, 37000 Tours, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Saint-Louis, 1, avenue Claude-Vellefaux, Paris cedex 10, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, clinique La Croix du Sud-Saint-Jean Languedoc, institut universitaire du cancer, 31100 Toulouse, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital de Rennes, 2, rue Henri-le-Guilloux, 35033 Rennes cedex 9, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Inserm, U1085, IRSET, 97145 Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Claude-Huriez, CHRU de Lille, rue Michel-Polonovski, 59000 Lille, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Inserm U1194, ICM, université de Montpellier, 34298 Montpellier, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Institut Paoli-Calmettes, 232, boulevard de Sainte-Marguerite, 13009 Marseille, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; GRC n(o) 5 ONCOTYPE-URO, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne université, 75020 Paris, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Tenon, AP-HP, Sorbonne université, 75020 Paris, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, clinique mutualiste Beau-Soleil, 119, avenue de Lodève, 34070 Montpellier, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Centre hospitalier universitaire Rangueil, 31059 Toulouse, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; GRC n(o) 5 ONCOTYPE-URO, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne université, 75020 Paris, France; Service de radiologie, hôpital Tenon, AP-HP, 75020 Paris, France. · Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, université Paris Descartes, Assistance publique des hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), 75015 Paris, France. ·Prog Urol · Pubmed #30392712.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the guidelines national committee ccAFU was to propose updated French guidelines for prostate cancer. METHODS: A Medline search was achieved between 2016 and 2018, as regards diagnosis, options of treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer, and to evaluate the different references specifying their levels of evidence. RESULTS: Epidemiology, classification, staging systems, diagnostic evaluation of prostate cancer are reported. Disease management options are detailed. Recommandations are reported according to the different clinical situations. Active surveillance is a major option in low risk PCa. Radical prostatectomy remains a standard of care of localized PCa. The three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is the technical standard. A dose of≥76Gy is recommended. Moderate hypofractionation provides short-term biochemical control comparable to conventional fractionation. In case of intermediate risk PCa, radiotherapy can be combined with short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In case of high-risk disease, long-term ADT remains the standard of care. ADT is the backbone therapy of metastatic disease. In men with metastases at first presentation, upfront chemotherapy combined with ADT should be considered as a standard. In this situation, the combination of ADT and abiraterone acetate also becomes a new standard. In case of metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC), new hormonal treatments and chemotherapy provide a better control of tumor progression and increase survival. CONCLUSION: These updated French guidelines will contribute to increase the level of urological care for the diagnosis and treatment for prostate cancer.

8 Guideline Use of modern imaging methods to facilitate trials of metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic disease in prostate cancer: a consensus recommendation from the EORTC Imaging Group. 2018

Lecouvet, Frédéric E / Oprea-Lager, Daniela E / Liu, Yan / Ost, Piet / Bidaut, Luc / Collette, Laurence / Deroose, Christophe M / Goffin, Karolien / Herrmann, Ken / Hoekstra, Otto S / Kramer, Gem / Lievens, Yolande / Lopci, Egesta / Pasquier, David / Petersen, Lars J / Talbot, Jean-Noël / Zacho, Helle / Tombal, Bertrand / deSouza, Nandita M. ·Department of Radiology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: frederic.lecouvet@uclouvain.be. · Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium. · College of Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK. · Nuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany. · Nuclear Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital, Milan, Italy. · Academic Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France; Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille, Lille University, Lille, France. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and Sorbonne Université, Paris, France. · Department of Radiology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. · Cancer Research UK Imaging Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital-Sutton, UK. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #30303127.

ABSTRACT: Oligometastatic disease represents a clinical and anatomical manifestation between localised and polymetastatic disease. In prostate cancer, as with other cancers, recognition of oligometastatic disease enables focal, metastasis-directed therapies. These therapies potentially shorten or postpone the use of systemic treatment and can delay further metastatic progression, thus increasing overall survival. Metastasis-directed therapies require imaging methods that definitively recognise oligometastatic disease to validate their efficacy and reliably monitor response, particularly so that morbidity associated with inappropriately treating disease subsequently recognised as polymetastatic can be avoided. In this Review, we assess imaging methods used to identify metastatic prostate cancer at first diagnosis, at biochemical recurrence, or at the castration-resistant stage. Standard imaging methods recommended by guidelines have insufficient diagnostic accuracy for reliably diagnosing oligometastatic disease. Modern imaging methods that use PET-CT with tumour-specific radiotracers (choline or prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand), and increasingly whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging, allow earlier and more precise identification of metastases. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging Group suggests clinical algorithms to integrate modern imaging methods into the care pathway at the various stages of prostate cancer to identify oligometastatic disease. The EORTC proposes clinical trials that use modern imaging methods to evaluate the benefits of metastasis-directed therapies.

9 Guideline Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline Amendment 2018. 2018

Lowrance, William T / Murad, Mohammad Hassan / Oh, William K / Jarrard, David F / Resnick, Matthew J / Cookson, Michael S. ·American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland. ·J Urol · Pubmed #30086276.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate newly-published literature to provide a rational basis for the management of patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The original systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature yielded 303 studies published from 1996 through 2013. This review informed the majority of the guideline statements from the 2013 guideline. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidence. The guideline was subsequently amended in April 2014 and March 2015. The current 2018 amendment search yielded 770 references with 47 studies eventually providing relevant data. The resulting amendment focuses on the incorporation of information relating to the treatment of patients with non-metastatic CRPC. RESULTS: Guideline statements based on six Index Patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice were amended appropriately. The additional literature provided the basis for an update of current supporting text as well as the incorporation of new guideline statements for asymptomatic non-metastatic CRPC. CONCLUSIONS: Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of individual patients' treatment goals. Shared decision-making incorporating patients' preferences and personal goals should be implemented when choosing management strategies. This guideline will be continually updated as new literature emerges.

10 Guideline Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2018. 2018

Briganti, Alberto / Fossati, Nicola / Catto, James W F / Cornford, Philip / Montorsi, Francesco / Mottet, Nicolas / Wirth, Manfred / Van Poppel, Hendrik. ·Division of Oncology, Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: briganti.alberto@hsr.it. · Division of Oncology, Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. · Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. · Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Urology, University Hospital, St. Etienne, France. · Department of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany. · Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. ·Eur Urol · Pubmed #29937198.

ABSTRACT: Active surveillance (AS) represents a well-recognized management option for many patients with low- and very low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). AS aims to reduce overtreatment whilst ensuring curative treatment for those in whom it is needed, without losing the window of curability. While long-term series have confirmed the safety of AS in carefully selected patients, this has resulted in new clinical questions. Can the inclusion criteria be expanded? Is there a role for biomarkers and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at diagnosis or during AS? What is the optimal follow-up schedule as well as the most meaningful trigger for definitive treatment? These questions, together with increasingly adopted heterogeneous protocols in AS, have prompted the European Association of Urology to produce a position paper corroborated by a summary of the scientific background on AS. PATIENT SUMMARY: Active surveillance (AS) is becoming a widely adopted strategy for patients affected by low-risk prostate cancer. While a formal systematic review on the topic will soon be available, the European Association of Urology has produced specific statements for different open questions on AS.

11 Guideline Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. 2018

Anonymous4471324 / Grossman, David C / Curry, Susan J / Owens, Douglas K / Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten / Caughey, Aaron B / Davidson, Karina W / Doubeni, Chyke A / Ebell, Mark / Epling, John W / Kemper, Alex R / Krist, Alex H / Kubik, Martha / Landefeld, C Seth / Mangione, Carol M / Silverstein, Michael / Simon, Melissa A / Siu, Albert L / Tseng, Chien-Wen. ·Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle. · University of Iowa, Iowa City. · Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. · Stanford University, Stanford, California. · University of California, San Francisco. · Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. · Columbia University, New York, New York. · University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. · University of Georgia, Athens. · Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke. · Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. · Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia. · Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. · Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · University of Alabama at Birmingham. · University of California, Los Angeles. · Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. · Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. · Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. · James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York. · University of Hawaii, Honolulu. · Pacific Health Research and Education Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii. ·JAMA · Pubmed #29801017.

ABSTRACT: Importance: In the United States, the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer is approximately 13%, and the lifetime risk of dying of prostate cancer is 2.5%. The median age of death from prostate cancer is 80 years. Many men with prostate cancer never experience symptoms and, without screening, would never know they have the disease. African American men and men with a family history of prostate cancer have an increased risk of prostate cancer compared with other men. Objective: To update the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer and subsequent treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a review of existing decision analysis models and the overdiagnosis rate of PSA-based screening. The reviews also examined the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening in patient subpopulations at higher risk of prostate cancer, including older men, African American men, and men with a family history of prostate cancer. Findings: Adequate evidence from randomized clinical trials shows that PSA-based screening programs in men aged 55 to 69 years may prevent approximately 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over approximately 13 years per 1000 men screened. Screening programs may also prevent approximately 3 cases of metastatic prostate cancer per 1000 men screened. Potential harms of screening include frequent false-positive results and psychological harms. Harms of prostate cancer treatment include erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel symptoms. About 1 in 5 men who undergo radical prostatectomy develop long-term urinary incontinence, and 2 in 3 men will experience long-term erectile dysfunction. Adequate evidence shows that the harms of screening in men older than 70 years are at least moderate and greater than in younger men because of increased risk of false-positive results, diagnostic harms from biopsies, and harms from treatment. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the net benefit of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men aged 55 to 69 years is small for some men. How each man weighs specific benefits and harms will determine whether the overall net benefit is small. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the potential benefits of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older do not outweigh the expected harms. Conclusions and Recommendation: For men aged 55 to 69 years, the decision to undergo periodic PSA-based screening for prostate cancer should be an individual one and should include discussion of the potential benefits and harms of screening with their clinician. Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results that require additional testing and possible prostate biopsy; overdiagnosis and overtreatment; and treatment complications, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the balance of benefits and harms on the basis of family history, race/ethnicity, comorbid medical conditions, patient values about the benefits and harms of screening and treatment-specific outcomes, and other health needs. Clinicians should not screen men who do not express a preference for screening. (C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older. (D recommendation).

12 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2018

Anonymous1221079 / Froemming, Adam T / Verma, Sadhna / Eberhardt, Steven C / Oto, Aytekin / Alexander, Lauren F / Allen, Brian C / Coakley, Fergus V / Davis, Brian J / Fulgham, Pat F / Hosseinzadeh, Keyanoosh / Porter, Christopher / Sahni, V Anik / Schuster, David M / Showalter, Timothy N / Venkatesan, Aradhana M / Wang, Carolyn L / Remer, Erick M. ·Principal Author, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: froemming.adam@mayo.edu. · Co-author, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. · Panel Chair, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. · Panel Vice Chair, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. · Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. · Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. · Urology Clinics of North Texas, Dallas, Texas; American Urological Association. · Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina. · Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington; American Urological Association. · Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. · University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. · University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. · Specialty Chair, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #29724417.

ABSTRACT: Diagnosis and management of prostate cancer post treatment is a large and complex problem, and care of these patients requires multidisciplinary involvement of imaging, medical, and surgical specialties. Imaging capabilities for evaluation of men with recurrent prostate cancer are rapidly evolving, particularly with PET and MRI. At the same time, treatment options and capabilities are expanding and improving. These recommendations separate patients into three broad categories: (1) patients status post-radical prostatectomy, (2) clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments, and (3) metastatic prostate. This article is a review of the current literature regarding imaging in these settings and the resulting recommendations for imaging. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

13 Guideline [French CCAFU guidelines on prostate cancer: hormono-naive metastatic prostate cancer - update 2017]. 2018

Rozet, F / Hennequin, C / Mongiat-Artus, P / Beuzeboc, P / Beauval, J-B / Cormier, L / Fromont-Hankard, G / Ouzzane, A / Ploussard, G / Renard-Penna, R / Méjean, A. ·Groupe prostate, comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France. Electronic address: françois.rozet@imn.fr. · Groupe prostate, comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017 Paris, France. ·Prog Urol · Pubmed #29680190.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

14 Guideline Optimizing Anticancer Therapy in Metastatic Non-Castrate Prostate Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Summary. 2018

Morris, Michael J / Rumble, R Bryan / Milowsky, Matthew I. ·Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY; ASCO, Alexandria, VA; and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. ·J Oncol Pract · Pubmed #29648921.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

15 Guideline Dose constraints for moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: The French genito-urinary group (GETUG) recommendations. 2018

Langrand-Escure, J / de Crevoisier, R / Llagostera, C / Créhange, G / Delaroche, G / Lafond, C / Bonin, C / Bideault, F / Sargos, P / Belhomme, S / Pasquier, D / Latorzeff, I / Supiot, S / Hennequin, C. ·Institut de cancérologie de La-Loire-Lucien-Neuwirth, 108 bis, avenue Albert-Raimond, 42270 Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France. · Département de radiothérapie, centre Eugène-Marquis, avenue de la Bataille-Flandres-Dunkerque, 35042 Rennes, France; Inserm 1099, laboratoire traitement du signal et de l'image (LTSI), 263, avenue du Général-Leclerc, 35042 Rennes, France. · Institut de cancérologie de l'Ouest René-Gauducheau, boulevard Jacques-Monod, 44805 Saint-Herblain, France. · Département de radiothérapie, centre Georges-François-Leclerc, 1, avenue du Professeur-Marion, 21000 Dijon, France. · Service de radiothérapie, CHU Jean-Minjoz, 3, boulevard Alexandre-Fleming, 25000 Besançon, France. · Département de radiothérapie, institut Bergonié, 229, cours de l'Argonne, 33000 Bordeaux, France. · Département de radiothérapie, centre Oscar-Lambret, 3, rue Fréderic-Combemale, 59020 Lille, France. · Département d'oncologie-radiothérapie, bât Atrium, clinique Pasteur, 1, rue de la Petite-Vitesse, 31300 Toulouse, France. · Service de cancérologie-radiothérapie, hôpital Saint-Louis, 1, avenue Claude-Vellefaux, 75010 Paris, France. Electronic address: christophe.hennequin2@aphp.fr. ·Cancer Radiother · Pubmed #29628205.

ABSTRACT: Considering recent phase III trials results, moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy can be considered as a standard treatment for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer management. This assessment call for a framework allowing homogeneous and reproducible practices in the different centers using this radiotherapy schedule. The French Genito-Urinary Group (GETUG) provides here recommendations for daily practice of moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer, with indications, dose, fractionation, pre-treatment planning, volume of interest delineation (target volume and organs at risk) and margins, dose constraints and radiotherapy techniques.

16 Guideline Optimizing Anticancer Therapy in Metastatic Non-Castrate Prostate Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. 2018

Morris, Michael J / Rumble, R Bryan / Basch, Ethan / Hotte, Sebastien J / Loblaw, Andrew / Rathkopf, Dana / Celano, Paul / Bangs, Rick / Milowsky, Matthew I. ·Michael J. Morris and Dana Rathkopf, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY · R. Bryan Rumble, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA · Ethan Basch and Matthew I. Milowsky, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC · Sebastien J. Hotte, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton · Andrew Loblaw, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada · Paul Celano, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Towson, MD · and Rick Bangs, patient representative. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #29608397.

ABSTRACT: Purpose This clinical practice guideline addresses abiraterone or docetaxel with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for metastatic prostate cancer that has not been treated (or has been minimally treated) with testosterone-lowering agents. Methods Standard therapy for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer has been ADT alone. Three studies have compared ADT alone with ADT and docetaxel, and two studies have compared ADT alone with ADT and abiraterone. Results Three prospective randomized studies (GETUG-AFU 15, STAMPEDE, and CHAARTED) examined overall survival (OS) with adding docetaxel to ADT. STAMPEDE and CHAARTED favored docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; n = 2,962 and HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; n = 790, respectively). GETUG-AFU 15 was negative. LATITUDE and STAMPEDE examined the impact on OS of adding abiraterone (with prednisone or prednisolone) to ADT. LATITUDE and STAMPEDE favored abiraterone (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.76; n = 1,199 and HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76; n = 1,917, respectively). Recommendations ADT plus docetaxel or abiraterone in newly diagnosed metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer offers a survival benefit as compared with ADT alone. The strongest evidence of benefit with docetaxel is in men with de novo high-volume (CHAARTED criteria) metastatic disease. Similar survival benefits are seen using abiraterone acetate in high-risk patients (LATITUDE criteria) and in the metastatic population in STAMPEDE. ADT plus abiraterone and ADT plus docetaxel have not been compared, and it is not known if some men benefit more from one regimen as opposed to the other. Fitness for chemotherapy, patient comorbidities, toxicity profiles, quality of life, drug availability, and cost should be considered in this decision. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

17 Guideline ESTRO ACROP consensus guideline on CT- and MRI-based target volume delineation for primary radiation therapy of localized prostate cancer. 2018

Salembier, Carl / Villeirs, Geert / De Bari, Berardino / Hoskin, Peter / Pieters, Bradley R / Van Vulpen, Marco / Khoo, Vincent / Henry, Ann / Bossi, Alberto / De Meerleer, Gert / Fonteyne, Valérie. ·Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. · Department of Radiation Oncology, CHRU Besançon, France. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, United Kingdom. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands. · Department of Clinical Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom. · Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, United Kingdom. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. Electronic address: Valerie.fonteyne@uzgent.be. ·Radiother Oncol · Pubmed #29496279.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Delineation of clinical target volumes (CTVs) remains a weak link in radiation therapy (RT), and large inter-observer variation is seen. Guidelines for target and organs at risk delineation for prostate cancer in the primary setting are scarce. The aim was to develop a delineation guideline obtained by consensus between a broad European group of radiation oncologists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An ESTRO contouring consensus panel consisting of leading radiation oncologists and one radiologist with known subspecialty expertise in prostate cancer was asked to delineate the prostate, seminal vesicles and rectum on co-registered CT and MRI scans. After evaluation of the different contours, literature review and multiple informal discussions by electronic mail a CTV definition was defined and a guide for contouring the CTV of the prostate and the rectum was developed. RESULTS: The panel achieved consensus CTV contouring definitions to be used as guideline for primary RT of localized prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: The ESTRO consensus on CT/MRI based CTV delineation for primary RT of localized prostate cancer, endorsed by a broad base of the radiation oncology community, is presented to improve consistency and reliability.

18 Guideline Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options. 2018

Sanda, Martin G / Cadeddu, Jeffrey A / Kirkby, Erin / Chen, Ronald C / Crispino, Tony / Fontanarosa, Joann / Freedland, Stephen J / Greene, Kirsten / Klotz, Laurence H / Makarov, Danil V / Nelson, Joel B / Rodrigues, George / Sandler, Howard M / Taplin, Mary Ellen / Treadwell, Jonathan R. ·American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland; ASTRO, Arlington, Virginia; Society of Urologic Oncology, Schamburg, Illinois. ·J Urol · Pubmed #29331546.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/). RESULTS: The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

19 Guideline Role of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer Risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017. 2018

Giri, Veda N / Knudsen, Karen E / Kelly, William K / Abida, Wassim / Andriole, Gerald L / Bangma, Chris H / Bekelman, Justin E / Benson, Mitchell C / Blanco, Amie / Burnett, Arthur / Catalona, William J / Cooney, Kathleen A / Cooperberg, Matthew / Crawford, David E / Den, Robert B / Dicker, Adam P / Eggener, Scott / Fleshner, Neil / Freedman, Matthew L / Hamdy, Freddie C / Hoffman-Censits, Jean / Hurwitz, Mark D / Hyatt, Colette / Isaacs, William B / Kane, Christopher J / Kantoff, Philip / Karnes, R Jeffrey / Karsh, Lawrence I / Klein, Eric A / Lin, Daniel W / Loughlin, Kevin R / Lu-Yao, Grace / Malkowicz, S Bruce / Mann, Mark J / Mark, James R / McCue, Peter A / Miner, Martin M / Morgan, Todd / Moul, Judd W / Myers, Ronald E / Nielsen, Sarah M / Obeid, Elias / Pavlovich, Christian P / Peiper, Stephen C / Penson, David F / Petrylak, Daniel / Pettaway, Curtis A / Pilarski, Robert / Pinto, Peter A / Poage, Wendy / Raj, Ganesh V / Rebbeck, Timothy R / Robson, Mark E / Rosenberg, Matt T / Sandler, Howard / Sartor, Oliver / Schaeffer, Edward / Schwartz, Gordon F / Shahin, Mark S / Shore, Neal D / Shuch, Brian / Soule, Howard R / Tomlins, Scott A / Trabulsi, Edouard J / Uzzo, Robert / Vander Griend, Donald J / Walsh, Patrick C / Weil, Carol J / Wender, Richard / Gomella, Leonard G. ·Veda N. Giri, Karen E. Knudsen, William K. Kelly, Robert B. Den, Adam P. Dicker, Jean Hoffman-Censits, Mark D. Hurwitz, Colette Hyatt, Grace Lu-Yao, Mark J. Mann, James R. Mark, Peter A. McCue, Ronald E. Myers, Stephen C. Peiper, Edouard J. Trabulsi, and Leonard G. Gomella, Jefferson Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center · Justin E. Bekelman, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine · S. Bruce Malkowicz, University of Pennsylvania · Elias Obeid and Robert Uzzo, Fox Chase Cancer Center · Gordon F. Schwartz, Foundation for Breast and Prostate Health, Philadelphia · Mark S. Shahin, Hanjani Institute for Gynecologic Oncology, Abington Hospital-Jefferson Health, Abington, PA · Wassim Abida, Philip Kantoff, and Mark E. Robson, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · Mitchell C. Benson, Columbia University, New York, NY · Gerald L. Andriole, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO · Chris H. Bangma, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands · Amie Blanco, and Matthew Cooperberg, University of California, San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco · Christopher J. Kane, University of California San Diego, San Diego · Howard Sandler, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles · Howard R. Soule, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Santa Monica, CA · Arthur Burnett, William B. Isaacs, Christian P. Pavlovich, and Patrick C. Walsh, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore · Peter A. Pinto and Carol J. Weil, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD · William J. Catalona and Edward Schaeffer, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine · Scott Eggener, Sarah M. Nielsen, and Donald J. Vander Griend, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL · Kathleen A. Cooney, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT · David E. Crawford, University of Colorado, Aurora · Lawrence I. Karsh, The Urology Center of Colorado, Denver · Wendy Poage, Prostate Conditions Education Council, Elizabeth, CO · Neil Fleshner, University of Toronto Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada · Matthew L. Freedman, Kevin R. Loughlin, and Timothy R. Rebbeck, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA · Freddie C. Hamdy, University of Oxford, Oxford, England · R. Jeffrey Karnes, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN · Eric A. Klein, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland · Robert Pilarski, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH · Daniel W. Lin, University of Washington, Seattle, WA · Martin M. Miner, Brown University, Providence, RI · Todd Morgan and Scott A. Tomlins, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor · Matt T. Rosenberg, Mid-Michigan Health Center, Jackson, MI · Judd W. Moul, Duke University, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC · David F. Penson, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN · Daniel Petrylak and Brian Shuch, Yale University, New Haven, CT · Curtis A. Pettaway, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston · Ganesh V. Raj, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX · Oliver Sartor, Tulane University Medical School, New Orleans, LA · Neal D. Shore, Atlantic Urology Clinics/Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC · and Richard Wender, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #29236593.

ABSTRACT: Purpose Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-driven working framework for comprehensive genetic evaluation of inherited PCA in the multigene testing era addressing genetic counseling, testing, and genetically informed management. Methods An expert consensus conference was convened including key stakeholders to address genetic counseling and testing, PCA screening, and management informed by evidence review. Results Consensus was strong that patients should engage in shared decision making for genetic testing. There was strong consensus to test HOXB13 for suspected hereditary PCA, BRCA1/2 for suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and DNA mismatch repair genes for suspected Lynch syndrome. There was strong consensus to factor BRCA2 mutations into PCA screening discussions. BRCA2 achieved moderate consensus for factoring into early-stage management discussion, with stronger consensus in high-risk/advanced and metastatic setting. Agreement was moderate to test all men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA, regardless of family history, with stronger agreement to test BRCA1/2 and moderate agreement to test ATM to inform prognosis and targeted therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary consensus statement to address a genetic evaluation framework for inherited PCA in the multigene testing era. Future research should focus on developing a working definition of familial PCA for clinical genetic testing, expanding understanding of genetic contribution to aggressive PCA, exploring clinical use of genetic testing for PCA management, genetic testing of African American males, and addressing the value framework of genetic evaluation and testing men at risk for PCA-a clinically heterogeneous disease.

20 Guideline SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (2017). 2018

Cassinello, J / Arranz, J Á / Piulats, J M / Sánchez, A / Pérez-Valderrama, B / Mellado, B / Climent, M Á / Olmos, D / Carles, J / Lázaro, M. ·Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Spain. jcassinelloespinosa@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. · Medical Oncology Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain. · Medical Oncology Department, Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, Castellón de la Plana, Spain. · Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain. · Medical Oncology Department, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain. · Medical Oncology Department, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain. · CNIO-IBIMA Genito-Urinary Cancer Unit, Medical Oncology Department, Hospitales Universitarios Virgen de la Victoria y Regional de Málaga, Malaga, Spain. · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain. · Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain. ·Clin Transl Oncol · Pubmed #29134562.

ABSTRACT: Androgen deprivation treatment was the only treatment available for metastatic prostate cancer until recently, with docetaxel as the only treatment with a proven survival benefit in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Several drugs have been approved in the castration-resistant disease (sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, radium-223). More recently, docetaxel and abiraterone have been moved to the hormone-sensitive disease setting, achieving better patient survival. The purpose of this article is to define the state of the art in the treatment of prostate carcinoma.

21 Guideline Consensus statement on definition, diagnosis, and management of high-risk prostate cancer patients on behalf of the Spanish Groups of Uro-Oncology Societies URONCOR, GUO, and SOGUG. 2018

Henríquez, I / Rodríguez-Antolín, A / Cassinello, J / Gonzalez San Segundo, C / Unda, M / Gallardo, E / López-Torrecilla, J / Juarez, A / Arranz, J. ·Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario of Sant Joan, Institute d'Investigació Sanitaria Pere Virgili (IISPV), Josep Laporte 2, 43204, Reus, Spain. ivanhenriquezlopez@me.com. · Urology Department, 12 de Octubre University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. · Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Spain. · Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. · Urology Department, Hospital Barakaldo, Bilbao, Spain. · Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Spain. · Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Eresa, Valencia, Spain. · Urology Department, Hospital Cádiz, Andalucía, Spain. · Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. ·Clin Transl Oncol · Pubmed #28785912.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent malignancy in men and the second cause of mortality in industrialized countries. METHODS: Based on Spanish Register of PCa, the incidence of high-risk PCa is 29%, approximately. In spite of the evidence-based beneficial effect of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk PCa, these patients (pts) are still a therapeutic challenge for all specialists involved, in part due to the absence of comparative studies to establish which of the present disposable treatments offer better results. RESULTS: Nowadays, high-risk PCa definition is not well consensual through the published oncology guides. Clinical stage, tumour grade, and number of risk factors are relevant to be considered on PCa prognosis. However, these factors are susceptible to change depending on when surgical or radiation therapy is considered to be the treatment of choice. Other factors, such as reference pathologist, different diagnosis biopsy schedules, surgical or radiotherapy techniques, adjuvant treatments, biochemical failures, and follow-up, make it difficult to compare the results between different therapeutic options. CONCLUSIONS: This article reviews important issues concerning high-risk PCa. URONCOR, GUO, and SOGUG on behalf of the Spanish Groups of Uro-Oncology Societies have reached a consensus addressing a practical recommendation on definition, diagnosis, and management of high-risk PCa.

22 Guideline Prostate cancer - Therapy with radium-223. 2017

Brito, Ana Emília / Amorim, Bárbara Juarez / Martello, Milena / Bernardo, Wanderley Marques / Etchebehere, Elba / Anonymous290974. ·Real Hospital Português de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital de Clínicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil. · AMB Guidelines Program, Brazil. ·Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) · Pubmed #29489974.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

23 Guideline Evidenced-based clinical practice guideline for prostate cancer (summary: Japanese Urological Association, 2016 edition). 2017

Kakehi, Yoshiyuki / Sugimoto, Mikio / Taoka, Rikiya / Anonymous571124. ·Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan. ·Int J Urol · Pubmed #28667698.

ABSTRACT: These guidelines cover a wide range of topics from prostate cancer epidemiology to palliative care. Questions arising in daily clinical practice have been extracted and formulated as clinical questions. In the 4 years since the previous edition, there have been major changes - for example, robot-assisted prostatectomy has rapidly come into widespread use, and new hormones and anticancer drugs have been developed for castration-resistant prostate cancer. In response to these developments, the number of fields included in this guideline was increased from 11 in the 2012 edition to 16, and the number of clinical questions was increased from 63 to 70. The number of papers identified in searches of the existing literature increased from 4662 in the first edition, published in 2006, to 10 490 in the 2012 edition. The number of references has reached 29 448 just during this review period, indicating the exponential increase in research on the topic of prostate cancer. Clinical answers have been prepared based on the latest evidence. Recommendation grades for the clinical answers were determined by radiologists, pathologists, and other specialists in addition to urologists in order to reflect the recent advances and diversity of prostate cancer treatment. Here, we present a short English version of the original guideline, and overview its key clinical issues.

24 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2017

Anonymous3770905 / Coakley, Fergus V / Oto, Aytekin / Alexander, Lauren F / Allen, Brian C / Davis, Brian J / Froemming, Adam T / Fulgham, Pat F / Hosseinzadeh, Keyanoosh / Porter, Christopher / Sahni, V Anik / Schuster, David M / Showalter, Timothy N / Venkatesan, Aradhana M / Verma, Sadhna / Wang, Carolyn L / Remer, Erick M / Eberhardt, Steven C. ·Principal Author, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: coakleyf@ohsu.edu. · Panel Vice-Chair, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. · Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. · Urology Clinics of North Texas, Dallas, Texas; American Urological Association. · Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina. · Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington; American Urological Association. · Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. · University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. · University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. · Specialty Chair, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. · Panel Chair, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #28473080.

ABSTRACT: Despite the frequent statement that "most men die with prostate cancer, not of it," the reality is that prostate cancer is second only to lung cancer as a cause of death from malignancy in American men. The primary goal during baseline evaluation of prostate cancer is disease characterization, that is, establishing disease presence, extent (local and distant), and aggressiveness. Prostate cancer is usually diagnosed after the finding of a suspicious serum prostate-specific antigen level or digital rectal examination. Tissue diagnosis may be obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or MRI-targeted biopsy. The latter requires a preliminary multiparametric MRI, which has emerged as a powerful and relatively accurate tool for the local evaluation of prostate cancer over the last few decades. Bone scintigraphy and CT are primarily used to detect bone and nodal metastases in patients found to have intermediate- or high-risk disease at biopsy. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

25 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2017

Anonymous3690905 / Hosseinzadeh, Keyanoosh / Oto, Aytekin / Allen, Brian C / Coakley, Fergus V / Friedman, Barak / Fulgham, Pat F / Hartman, Matthew S / Heller, Matthew T / Porter, Christopher / Sahni, V Anik / Sudakoff, Gary S / Verma, Sadhna / Wang, Carolyn L / Yoo, Don C / Remer, Erick M / Eberhardt, Steven C. ·Principal Author, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Electronic address: keyanooshh@gmail.com. · Panel Vice-Chair, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. · Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. · Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York. · Urology Clinics of North Texas, Dallas, Texas; American Urological Association. · Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. · University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. · Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington; American Urological Association. · Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. · University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. · University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. · Rhode Island Medical Imaging Inc, East Providence, Rhode Island. · Specialty Chair, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. · Panel Chair, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #28473071.

ABSTRACT: Most men with hematospermia or hemospermia (HS) are young (<40 years of age), presenting with transient or episodic HS without other signs or symptoms of disease. The condition is self-limiting in most cases and idiopathic in nature. When a cause can be identified, infections of the urogenital tract are the most common. Imaging does not play a role in this patient population. In older men (>40 years of age), clinical screening for prostate cancer is advised. Furthermore, when HS is persistent or has symptoms, causes include obstruction or stricture at the level of the verumontanum, calcifications or calculi in the prostate, ejaculatory ducts or seminal vesicles, and cysts arising within these structures. Noninvasive imaging, predominantly transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and MRI, can be used in men of any age with persistent or refractory HS, or other associated symptoms or signs. TRUS is considered as the first-line imaging with MRI used when TRUS is inconclusive or negative. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Next