Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Report from the 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC).

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.

Cut-offs for relapse detection in men with stage I testicular germ cell tumors during active surveillance within a prospective multicentre cohort study using either raw or housekeeper normalized miR-371a-3p serum levels.

PURPOSE: MiR-371a-3p represents a novel liquid biomarker that detects all histologies of germ-cell tumors (GCT) except teratoma. However, it is currently unclear whether miR-371a-3p results obtained directly from RT-PCR (raw Cq) or normalized for housekeeper genes and transformed into the relative quantity (RQ) value should be used and at what cut-off level. The purpose of this research was to evaluate, which values should be used, and a potential cut-off level for relapse-detection to inform subsequent studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied a CE-certified qRT-PCR test to measure miR-371a-3p at each follow-up visit during active surveillance in 34 men with stage I testicular GCT. MiR-371a-3p levels were calculated by the ΔΔ method. RESULTS: About 18 Patients had pure seminoma and 16 had mixed or nonseminomatous testicular GCT. Recurrences were detected in 10 patients and were correctly identified by both raw and housekeeper-normalized miR-371a-3p serum levels. The raw Cq, with a cut-off value of <28, resulted in only 1 false positive (3%), whereas RQ, with a cut-off value of >15, produced 6 false positive results (17%). Most of these false positive results normalized in subsequent measurements. The RQ approach detected recurrence in 1 patient 6 months earlier than the raw Cq approach. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data suggest that this CE-certified assay, using previously suggested cut-off values, is a promising method for detecting disease recurrence, provided a confirmatory second test is conducted to identify false positive results. To avoid unnecessary scans or overtreatment, we are currently validating this assay and cut-offs in a prospective cohort study.

First Indicator of Relapse in Testicular Cancer and Implications for Follow-up: Analysis of the Swiss Austrian German Testicular Cancer Cohort Study (SAG TCCS).

Background and objective: Follow-up for patients with testicular cancer should ensure early detection of relapses. Optimal schedules and minimum requirements for cross-sectional imaging are not clearly defined, and guideline recommendations differ. Our aim was to analyse the clinical impact of different imaging modalities for detection of relapse in a large prospective cohort (Swiss Austrian German Testicular Cancer Cohort Study, SAG TCCS). Methods: Patients with seminoma or nonseminoma were prospectively enrolled between January 2014 and February 2023 after initial treatment (n = 1175). Follow-up according to the study schedule was individualised for histology and disease stage. Only patients who had received primary treatment were considered. We analysed the total number of imaging modalities and scans identifying relapse and the timing of relapse. Key findings and limitations: We analysed data for 1006 patients (64% seminoma, 36% nonseminoma); 76% had stage I disease. Active surveillance was the most frequent management strategy (65%). Recurrence occurred in 82 patients, corresponding to a 5-yr relapse-free survival rate of 90.1% (95% confidence interval 87.7-92.1%). Median follow-up for patients without relapse was 38.4 mo (interquartile range 21.6-61.0). Cross-sectional imaging of the abdomen was the most important indicator of relapse 57%, abdominal CT accounting for 46% and MRI for 11%. Marker elevation indicated relapse in 24% of cases. Chest X-ray was the least useful modality, indicating relapse in just 2% of cases. Conclusions and clinical implications: On the basis of findings from our prospective register, we have adapted a follow-up schedules with an emphasis on abdominal imaging and a reduction in chest X-rays. This schedule might provide additional guidance for clinicians and will be prospectively evaluated as SAG TCCS continues to enrol patients. Patient summary: We analysed the value of different types of imaging scans for detection of relapse of testicular cancer. We used our findings to propose an optimum follow-up schedule for patients with testicular cancer.

Coagulation factor X promotes resistance to androgen-deprivation therapy in prostate cancer.

Although hypercoagulability is commonly associated with malignancies, whether coagulation factors directly affect tumor cell proliferation remains unclear. Herein, by performing single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) of the prostate tumor microenvironment (TME) of mouse models of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), we report that immunosuppressive neutrophils (PMN-MDSCs) are a key extra-hepatic source of coagulation factor X (FX). FX activation within the TME enhances androgen-independent tumor growth by activating the protease-activated receptor 2 (PAR2) and the phosphorylation of ERK1/2 in tumor cells. Genetic and pharmacological inhibition of factor Xa (FXa) antagonizes the oncogenic activity of PMN-MDSCs, reduces tumor progression, and synergizes with enzalutamide therapy. Intriguingly, F10high PMN-MDSCs express the surface marker CD84 and CD84 ligation enhances F10 expression. Elevated levels of FX, CD84, and PAR2 in prostate tumors associate with worse survival in CRPC patients. This study provides evidence that FXa directly promotes cancer and highlights additional targets for PMN-MDSCs for cancer therapies.

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Immune-based Approach for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Pros, Cons, and Future Directions.

CONTEXT: Immune-oncology strategies are revolutionising the perioperative treatment in several tumour types. The perioperative setting of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is an evolving field, and the advent of immunotherapy is producing significant advances. OBJECTIVE: To critically review the potential pros and cons of adjuvant and neoadjuvant immune-based therapeutic strategies in RCC, and to provide insights for future research in this field. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a collaborative narrative review of the existing literature. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is a new standard of care for patients at a higher risk of recurrence after nephrectomy, demonstrating a disease-free survival and overall survival benefit in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial. Current data do not support neoadjuvant therapy use outside clinical trials. While both adjuvant and neoadjuvant immune-based approaches are driven by robust biological rationale, neoadjuvant immunotherapy may enable a stronger and more durable antitumour immune response. If neoadjuvant single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrated limited activity on the primary tumour, immune-based combinations may show increased activity. Overtreatment and a risk of relevant toxicity for patients who are cured by surgery alone are common concerns for both neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies. Biomarkers helping patient selection and treatment deintensification are lacking in RCC. No results from randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant or perioperative immune-based therapy with adjuvant immunotherapy are available. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant immunotherapy is a new standard of care in RCC. Both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy strategies have potential advantages and disadvantages. Optimising perioperative treatment strategies is nuanced, with the role of neoadjuvant immune-based therapies yet to be defined. Given strong biological rationale for a pre/perioperative approach, there is a need for prospective clinical trials to determine clinical efficacy. Research investigating biomarkers aiding patient selection and treatment deintensification strategies is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: Immunotherapy is transforming the treatment of kidney cancer. In this review, we looked at the studies investigating immunotherapy strategies before and/or after surgery for patients with kidney cancer to assess potential pros and cons. We concluded that both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy strategies may have potential advantages and disadvantages. While immunotherapy administered after surgery is already a standard of care, immunotherapy before surgery should be better investigated in future studies. Future trials should also focus on the selection of patients in order to spare toxicity for patients who will be cured by surgery alone.

Hormonal Agents in Localized and Advanced Prostate Cancer: Current Use and Future Perspectives.

Prostate cancer (PC) is generally a hormone-dependent tumor. Androgen deprivation therapy ( has been the standard of care in metastatic disease for more than 80 years. Subsequent studies have highlighted the efficacy of ADT even in earlier disease settings such as in localized disease or in the case of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Improved knowledge of PC biology and ADT resistance mechanisms have led to the development of novel generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI). Initially used only in patients who became resistant to ADT, ARPI have subsequently shown to be effective when used in patients with metastatic hormone-naive disease and in recent years their effectiveness has also been evaluated in localized disease and in case of BCR. The objective of this review is to describe the current role of agents interfering with the androgen receptor in different stages of PC and to point out future perspectives.

Is There a Place for De-escalating Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer?

Although intermittent androgen deprivation therapy was often recommended for metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer therapy in the past, we do not know whether its use can be extrapolated to combination therapy. Trials evaluating intermittent therapy are necessary as this strategy could improve patient quality of life and reduce adverse events and costs.

Refining Risk Stratification of High-risk and Locoregional Prostate Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Radiotherapy (RT) and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ltADT; 18-36 mo) is a standard of care in the treatment of high-risk localized/locoregional prostate cancer (HRLPC). We evaluated the outcomes in patients treated with RT + ltADT to identify which patients have poorer prognosis with standard therapy. METHODS: Individual patient data from patients with HRLPC (as defined by any of the following three risk factors [RFs] in the context of cN0 disease-Gleason score ≥8, cT3-4, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml, or cN1 disease) treated with RT and ltADT in randomized controlled trials collated by the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate group. The outcome measures of interest were metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), time to metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Multivariable Cox and Fine-Gray regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the three RFs and cN1 disease. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 3604 patients from ten trials were evaluated, with a median PSA value of 24 ng/ml. Gleason score ≥8 (MFS HR = 1.45; OS HR = 1.42), cN1 disease (MFS HR = 1.86; OS HR = 1.77), cT3-4 disease (MFS HR = 1.28; OS HR = 1.22), and PSA >20 ng/ml (MFS HR = 1.30; OS HR = 1.21) were associated with poorer outcomes. Adjusted 5-yr MFS rates were 83% and 78%, and 10-yr MFS rates were 63% and 53% for patients with one and two to three RFs, respectively; corresponding 10-yr adjusted OS rates were 67% and 60%, respectively. In cN1 patients, adjusted 5- and 10-yr MFS rates were 67% and 36%, respectively, and 10-yr OS was 47%. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: HRLPC patients with two to three RFs (and cN0) or cN1 disease had the poorest outcomes on RT and ltADT. This will help in counseling patients treated in routine practice and in guiding adjuvant trials in HRLPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Radiotherapy and long-term hormone therapy are standard treatments for high-risk and locoregional prostate cancer. In this report, we defined prognostic groups within high-risk/locoregional prostate cancer and showed that outcomes to standard therapy are poorest in those with two or more "high-risk" factors or evidence of lymph node involvement. Such patients may therefore be the best candidates for intensification of treatment.

Prognostic and Predictive Role of SPOP Mutations in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Mutations in the speckle-type POZ (SPOP) gene are frequently identified in prostate cancer (PC); yet, prognostic implications for affected patients remain unclear. Limited consensus exists regarding tailored treatments for SPOP-mutant (SPOPmut) PC. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the prognostic and predictive significance of SPOP mutations across distinct PC stages and treatments. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted up to January 29, 2024. The meta-analysis included studies comparing survival outcomes between SPOPmut and SPOP wild-type (SPOPwt) PC. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: From 669 records, 26 studies (including five abstracts) were analyzed. A meta-analysis of metastasis-free survival in localized (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.88; p < 0.01) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic PC (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.53-0.76; p < 0.01) showed a favorable prognosis for patients with SPOPmut PC. In metastatic settings, SPOP mutations correlated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy ± androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.76, p < 0.01, and HR: 0.60, 95% CI:0.46-0.79, p < 0.01, respectively). In metastatic castration-resistant PC, only abiraterone provided improved PFS and OS to patients with SPOP mutations compared with patients with SPOPwt, but data were limited. SPOP mutations did not correlate with improved PFS (p = 0.80) or OS (p = 0.27) for docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SPOPmut PC seem to exhibit superior oncological outcomes compared with patients with SPOPwt. Tailored risk stratification and treatment approaches should be explored in such patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: Speckle-type POZ (SPOP) mutations could be a favorable prognostic factor in patients with prostate cancer (PC) and may also predict better progression-free and overall survival than treatment with hormonal agents. Therefore, less intensified treatments omitting chemotherapy for patients with SPOP-mutant PC should be explored in clinical trials.

EORTC 2238 "De-Escalate": a pragmatic trial to revisit intermittent androgen deprivation therapy in the era of new androgen receptor pathway inhibitors.

The landscape of treating metastatic prostate cancer has evolved with the addition of Androgen Receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) to Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT), significantly improving survival rates. However, prolonged use of these therapies introduces notable side effects, prompting a need to revisit intermittent treatment duration. The EORTC 2238 De-Escalate trial is a pragmatic trial seeking to reassess the role of intermittent therapy in patients undergoing maximal androgen blockade (MAB) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer (mHNPC), i.e., the combination of ADT with an ARPI, with the aims of reducing side effects, enhancing Quality of Life (QoL) and optimizing resource usage, while maintaining oncological benefits.

Delphi consensus on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma-a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology study endorsed by the European Association of Urology.

The purpose of this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) project, endorsed by the European Association of Urology, is to explore expert opinion on the management of patients with oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma by means of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on extracranial metastases, with the aim of developing consensus recommendations for patient selection, treatment doses, and concurrent systemic therapy. A questionnaire on SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma was prepared by a core group and reviewed by a panel of ten prominent experts in the field. The Delphi consensus methodology was applied, sending three rounds of questionnaires to clinicians identified as key opinion leaders in the field. At the end of the third round, participants were able to find consensus on eight of the 37 questions. Specifically, panellists agreed to apply no restrictions regarding age (25 [100%) of 25) and primary renal cell carcinoma histology (23 [92%] of 25) for SABR candidates, on the upper threshold of three lesions to offer ablative treatment in patients with oligoprogression, and on the concomitant administration of immune checkpoint inhibitor. SABR was indicated as the treatment modality of choice for renal cell carcinoma bone oligometatasis (20 [80%] of 25) and for adrenal oligometastases 22 (88%). No consensus or major agreement was reached regarding the appropriate schedule, but the majority of the poll (54%-58%) retained the every-other-day schedule as the optimal choice for all the investigated sites. The current ESTRO Delphi consensus might provide useful direction for the application of SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma and highlight the key areas of ongoing debate, perhaps directing future research efforts to close knowledge gaps.

Activity of Lutetium-177 Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen and Determinants of Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Cabazitaxel: The PACAP Study.

BACKGROUND: Both cabazitaxel and lutetium-177 prostate-specific membrane antigen (Lu-PSMA) improve survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and docetaxel, but there are limited data regarding Lu-PSMA activity after cabazitaxel. OBJECTIVE: To assess the activity of Lu-PSMA and determinants of outcomes after cabazitaxel in mCRPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of consecutive mCRPC patients from eight European centers treated with Lu-PSMA after cabazitaxel. INTERVENTION: Lu-PSMA every 6-8 wk at a dose of 6-7.6 GBq. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). The secondary endpoints included time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (TTPSA), overall survival (OS), PSA decline, objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit, and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 126 patients, 68% had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 4-5 disease, 21% had visceral metastases, and 7% had lymph node disease only. DNA damage repair (DDR) alterations were detected in 11/50 (22%) patients with available testing. Patients received a median number of 3 Lu-PSMA cycles (interquartile range 2-4). With a median follow-up of 12.0 mo, the median rPFS was 4.4 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2-5.4), TTPSA 3.5 mo (95% CI 3.0-4.6), and OS 8.9 mo (95% CI 6.5-12.7). The ORR was 35%, and 55 patients (44%) experienced a PSA decline of ≥50%. The time to castration resistance of <12 mo was associated with shorter rPFS (p = 0.01). A similar trend was observed for ISUP grade 4-5 (p = 0.08), and baseline positron-emission tomography parameters including PSMA mean standardized uptake value (SUV) and maximum SUV (respectively, p = 0.06 and 0.05). The duration of previous cabazitaxel or DDR status did not impact outcomes. Patients experiencing a PSA decline of ≥ 50% on therapy demonstrated longer rPFS, TTPSA, and OS (all p < 0.0001). Limitations include retrospective data collection and investigator-based rPFS assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Lu-PSMA demonstrated a substantial PSA decline but limited rPFS after cabazitaxel in a real-life setting. Adverse baseline characteristics, baseline positron-emission tomography parameters, and quality of PSA response may help identify patients less likely to benefit from Lu-PSMA. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lutetium-177 prostate-specific membrane antigen (Lu-PSMA) improved outcomes in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer, but there are limited data about its activity after cabazitaxel, a chemotherapy that is also the standard of care in this setting. We conducted a study across eight European centers and showed substantial responses on Lu-PSMA after cabazitaxel, although activity was short lived in a heavily pretreated population. Our findings prompt for real-life evaluation of Lu-PSMA in earlier settings to define the best therapeutic sequence.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2024 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) have been updated. Here we provide a summary of the 2024 guidelines. METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Risk stratification for relapsing PCa after primary therapy may guide salvage therapy decisions. New treatment options, such as androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs), ARTA + chemotherapy combinations, PARP inhibitors and their combinations, and prostate-specific membrane antigen-based therapy have become available for men with metastatic PCa. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence for relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant PCa is evolving rapidly. These guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. The full version is available online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/ prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY: This article summarises the 2024 guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are based on evidence and guide doctors in discussing treatment decisions with their patients. The guidelines are updated every year.

Multi-institutional Analysis of Metastasis-directed Therapy with or Without Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Oligometastatic Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) is increasingly being used in oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (omCSPC). However, it is currently unclear how to optimally integrate MDT with the standard of care of systemic hormonal therapy. OBJECTIVE: To report long-term outcomes of MDT alone versus MDT and a defined course of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in omCSPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Here, a multicenter, international retrospective cohort of omCSPC as defined by conventional imaging was reported. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), distant progression-free survival (dPFS), and combined biochemical or distant progression-free survival (cPFS) were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 263 patients were included, 105 with MDT + ADT and 158 with MDT alone. The majority of patients had metachronous disease (90.5%). Five-year bPFS, dPFS, and cPFS were, respectively, 24%, 41%, and 19% in patients treated with MDT + ADT and 11% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.64), 29% (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.78), and 9% (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.67) in patients treated with MDT alone. On a multivariable analysis adjusting for pretreatment variables, the use of ADT was associated with improved bPFS (HR 0.43, p < 0.001), dPFS (HR 0.45, p = 0.002), and cPFS (HR 0.44, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multi-institutional report, the addition of concurrent ADT to MDT appears to improve time to prostate-specific antigen progression and distant recurrence, noting that about 10% patients had durable control with MDT alone. Ongoing phase 3 studies will help further define treatment options for omCSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Here, we report a large retrospective review evaluating the outcomes of metastasis-directed therapy with or without a limited course of androgen deprivation for patients with oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. This international multi-institutional review demonstrates that the addition of androgen deprivation therapy to metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) improves progression-free survival. While a proportion of patients appear to have long-term disease control with MDT alone, further work in biomarker discovery is required to better identify which patients would be appropriate for de-escalated therapy.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa. METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. PATIENT SUMMARY: This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.

Impact of teratoma on survival probabilities of patients with metastatic non-seminomatous germ cell cancer: Results from the IGCCCG Update Consortium.

AIMS: To resolve the ongoing controversy surrounding the impact of teratoma (TER) in the primary among patients with metastatic testicular non-seminomatous germ-cell tumours (NSGCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) Update Consortium database, we compared the survival probabilities of patients with metastatic testicular GCT with TER (TER) or without TER (NTER) in their primaries corrected for known prognostic factors. Progression-free survival (5y-PFS) and overall survival at 5 years (5y-OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Among 6792 patients with metastatic testicular NSGCT, 3224 (47%) had TER in their primary, and 3568 (53%) did not. In the IGCCCG good prognosis group, the 5y-PFS was 87.8% in TER versus 92.0% in NTER patients (p = 0.0001), the respective 5y-OS were 94.5% versus 96.5% (p = 0.0032). The corresponding figures in the intermediate prognosis group were 5y-PFS 76.9% versus 81.6% (p = 0.0432) in TER and NTER and 5y-OS 90.4% versus 90.9% (p = 0.8514), respectively. In the poor prognosis group, there was no difference, neither in 5y-PFS [54.3% in TER patients versus 55.4% (p = 0.7472) in NTER], nor in 5y-OS [69.4% versus 67.7% (p = 0.3841)]. NSGCT patients with TER had more residual masses (65.3% versus 51.7%, p < 0.0001), and therefore received post-chemotherapy surgery more frequently than NTER patients (46.8% versus 32.0%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Teratoma in the primary tumour of patients with metastatic NSGCT negatively impacts on survival in the good and intermediate, but not in the poor IGCCCG prognostic groups.

Prognostic Impact of Prostate-Specific Antigen at 6 Months After Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient Data Analysis of Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 6 months after completion of radiotherapy (RT) in patients treated with RT alone, RT plus short-term (st; 3-6 months), and RT plus long-term (lt; 24-36 months) androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were obtained from 16 randomized trials evaluating RT ± ADT for localized prostate cancer (PCa) between 1987 and 2011. The lowest PSA recorded within 6 months after RT completion was identified and categorized as < or ≥0.1 ng/mL. The primary outcomes were metastasis-free survival (MFS), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS), from 12 months after random assignment. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent (n = 2,339/2,376) of patients allocated to RT alone, 84% (n = 4,756/5,658) allocated to RT + stADT, and 77% (n = 1,258/1,626) allocated to RT + ltADT had PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL within 6 months after completing RT. PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL was associated with lower MFS and OS and higher PCSM among patients allocated to RT ± ADT (RT - MFS: hazard ratio [HR], 2.24 [95% CI, 1.21 to 4.16]; PCSM: subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.82 [0.51 to 6.49]; OS: HR, 1.72 [0.97 to 3.05]; RT + stADT - MFS: HR, 1.27 [1.12 to 1.44]; PCSM: sHR, 2.10 [1.52 to 2.92]; OS: HR, 1.26 [1.11 to 1.44]; RT + ltADT - MFS: HR, 1.58 [1.27 to 1.96]; PCSM: sHR, 1.97 [1.11 to 3.49]; OS: HR, 1.59 [1.27 to 1.99]). Five-year MFS rates among patients allocated to RT, RT + stADT, and RT + ltADT were 91% versus 79%, 83% versus 76%, and 87% versus 74%, respectively, based on PSA < or ≥0.1 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL within 6 months after RT completion was prognostic for lt outcomes in patients treated with RT ± ADT for localized PCa. This can be used to counsel patients treated with RT ± ADT and in guiding clinical trial design evaluating novel systemic therapies with RT + ADT as well as (de)intensification strategies.

Antiandrogens as Therapies for COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the breakthrough of the coronavirus 2 disease (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), represented one of the major issues of our recent history. Different drugs have been tested to rapidly find effective anti-viral treatments and, among these, antiandrogens have been suggested to play a role in mediating SARS-CoV-2 infection. Considering the high heterogeneity of studies on this topic, we decided to review the current literature. METHODS: We performed a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy was conducted on PUBMED and Medline. Only original articles published from March 2020 to 31 August 2023 investigating the possible protective role of antiandrogens were included. In vitro or preclinical studies and reports not in the English language were excluded. The main objective was to investigate how antiandrogens may interfere with COVID-19 outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1755 records, we selected 31 studies, the majority of which consisted of retrospective clinical data collections and of randomized clinical trials during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we can state that antiandrogens do not seem to protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity and, thus, their use should not be encouraged in this field.