scholarly journals Consensus on Prostate Cancer Treatment of Localized Disease With Very Low, Low, and Intermediate Risk: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC)

2021 ◽  
pp. 523-529
Author(s):  
Murilo de Almeida Luz ◽  
Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães ◽  
Aguinaldo César Nardi ◽  
Alexandre Saad Feres Lima Pompeo ◽  
Álvaro Sadek Sarkis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Areas Of Interest

PURPOSE A group of international urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on prostate cancer (PCa) in developing countries. The results are reviewed and summarized, and recommendations on consensus statements for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa focused on developing countries were developed. METHODS A panel of experts developed more than 300 survey questions of which 66 questions concern the principal areas of interest of this paper: very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries. A larger panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create the recommendations for treatment and follow-up for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this manuscript. RESULTS The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion not a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations consider cost-effectiveness and the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. The results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support management for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for treatment for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries have not been developed, this document will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

scholarly journals Consensus on Screening, Diagnosis, and Staging Tools for Prostate Cancer in Developing Countries: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC)

2021 ◽  
pp. 516-522
Author(s):  
Arie Carneiro ◽  
Douglas Racy ◽  
Carlos Eduardo Bacchi ◽  
Katia Ramos Moreira Leite ◽  
Renee Zon Filippi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Risk Levels ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Areas Of Interest

PURPOSE To generate and present the survey results on critical issues relevant to screening, diagnosis, and staging tools for prostate cancer (PCa) focused on developing countries. METHODS A total of 36 of 300 questions concern the main areas of interest of this paper: (1) screening, (2) diagnosis, and (3) staging for various risk levels of PCa in developing countries. A panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create recommendations for screening, diagnosing, and staging tools for PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this manuscript. RESULTS The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion not a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations consider cost-effectiveness and the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. The results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support the screening, diagnosis, and staging of PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and staging of PCa in developing countries have not been developed, this document will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

scholarly journals Treatment of Localized and Locally Advanced, High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries

2021 ◽  
pp. 530-537
Author(s):  
Raja Khauli ◽  
Robson Ferrigno ◽  
Gustavo Guimarães ◽  
Muhammad Bulbulan ◽  
Pedro Luiz Serrano Uson Junior ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
High Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE To generate and present survey results on important issues relevant to treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) focusing on developing countries. METHODS A panel of 99 PCa experts developed more than 300 survey questions of which 67 questions concern the main areas of interest of this article: treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in developing countries. A larger panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create the recommendations for treatment and follow-up of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this article. RESULTS The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion and not on a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations considered cost-effectiveness as well as the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. Results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION The voting results and recommendations presented in this article can guide physicians managing localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for treatment of localized and locally advanced, high-risk PCa in developing countries have not been defined, this article will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

scholarly journals Consensus for Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC)

2021 ◽  
pp. 550-558
Author(s):  
Fernando Cotait Maluf ◽  
Felipe Moraes Toledo Pereira ◽  
Pedro Luiz Serrano Uson ◽  
Diogo Assed Bastos ◽  
Diogo Augusto Rodrigues da Rosa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Limited Resource ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Resource Limited

PURPOSE International guideline recommendations may not always be extrapolated to developing countries where access to resources is limited. In metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), there have been successful drug and imaging advancements that were addressed in the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries for best-practice and limited-resource scenarios. METHODS A total of 24 out of 300 questions addressed staging, treatment, and follow-up for patients with mCSPC both in best-practice settings and resource-limited settings. Responses were compiled and presented in percentage of clinicians supporting each response. Questions had 4-8 options for response. RESULTS Recommendations for staging in mCSPC were split but there was consensus that chest x-ray, abdominal and pelvic computed tomography, and bone scan should be used where resources are limited. In both de novo and relapsed low-volume mCSPC, orchiectomy alone in limited resources was favored and in relapsed high-volume disease, androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel in limited resources and androgen deprivation therapy plus abiraterone in high-resource settings were consensus. A 3-weekly regimen of docetaxel was consensus among voters. When using abiraterone, a regimen of 1,000 mg plus prednisone 5 mg/d is optimal, but in limited-resource settings, half the panel agreed that abiraterone 250 mg with fatty foods plus prednisone 5 mg/d is acceptable. The panel recommended against the use of osteoclast-targeted therapy to prevent osseous complications. There was consensus that monitoring of patients undergoing systemic treatment should only be conducted in case of prostate-specific antigen elevation or progression-suggestive symptoms. CONCLUSION The treatment recommendations for most topics addressed differed between the best-practice setting and resource-limited setting, accentuating the need for high-quality evidence that contemplates the effect of limited resources on the management of mCSPC.

scholarly journals Consensus on Treatment and Follow-Up for Biochemical Recurrence in Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries

2021 ◽  
pp. 538-544
Author(s):  
Fernando S. M. Monteiro ◽  
Fabio A. Schutz ◽  
Igor A. P. Morbeck ◽  
Diogo A. Bastos ◽  
Fernando V. de Padua ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Biochemical Recurrence ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Recommended Treatment ◽  
Clinical Scenarios

PURPOSE To present a summary of the treatment and follow-up recommendations for the biochemical recurrence in castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa) acquired through a questionnaire administered to 99 PCa experts from developing countries during the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS A total of 27 questions were identified as related to this topic from more than 300 questions. The clinician's responses were tallied and presented in a percentage format. Topics included the use of imaging for staging biochemical recurrence, treatment recommendations for three different clinical scenarios, the field of radiation recommended, and follow-up. Each question had 5-7 relevant response options, including “abstain” and/or “unqualified to answer,” and investigated not only recommendations but also if a limitation in resources would change the recommendation. RESULTS For most questions, a clear majority (> 50%) of clinicians agreed on a recommended treatment for imaging, treatment scenarios, and follow-up, although only a few topics reached a consensus > 75%. Limited resources did affect several areas of treatment, although in many cases, they reinforced more stringent criteria for treatment such as prostate-specific antigen values > 0.2 ng/mL and STAMPEDE inclusion criteria as a basis for recommending treatment. CONCLUSION A majority of clinicians working in developing countries with limited resources use similar cutoff points and selection criteria to manage patients treated for biochemically recurrent castration-sensitive PCa.

scholarly journals Long-term and pathological outcomes of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: implications for active surveillance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin H. Meissner ◽  
Mira Woll ◽  
Donna P. Ankerst ◽  
Stefan Schiele ◽  
Jürgen E. Gschwend ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival

Abstract Purpose The safety of active surveillance (AS) in favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain. To provide guidance on clinical decision-making, we examined long-term and pathological outcomes of low-risk and intermediate-risk PCa patients after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods The study involved 5693 patients diagnosed between 1994 and 2019 with low-risk, FIR, and unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) PCa (stratification according to the AUA guidelines) who underwent RP. Pathological outcomes were compared, and Kaplan–Meier analysis determined biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. Multiple Cox regression was used to simultaneously control for relevant confounders. Results Those at FIR had higher rates of upgrading and upstaging (12.8% vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001; 19.8% vs. 12.0%, p < 0.001) as well as pathological tumor and node stage (≥ pT3a: 18.8% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001; pN1: 2.7% vs. 0.8%, p > 0.001) compared to patients at low risk. The 20-year BRFS was 69%, 65%, and 44% and the 20-year CSS was 98%, 95%, and 89% in low-risk, FIR, and UIR patients. On multiple Cox regression, FIR was not associated with a worse BRFS (HR 1.07, CI 0.87–1.32), UIR was associated with a worse BRFS (HR 1.49, CI 1.20–1.85). Conclusion Patients at FIR had only slightly worse pathological and long-term outcomes compared to patients at low risk, whereas the difference compared to patients at UIR was large. This emphasizes AS in these patients as a possible treatment strategy in well-counseled patients.

scholarly journals Consensus on the Treatment and Follow-Up for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC)

2021 ◽  
pp. 559-571
Author(s):  
Fernando Cotait Maluf ◽  
Felipe Moraes Toledo Pereira ◽  
Adriano Gonçalves Silva ◽  
Aldo Lourenço Abbade Dettino ◽  
Ana Paula Garcia Cardoso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Drug Treatments

PURPOSE To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as acquired through a questionnaire administered to 99 physicians working in the field of prostate cancer in developing countries who attended the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS A total of 106 questions out of more than 300 questions addressed the use of imaging in staging mCRPC, treatment recommendations across availability and response to prior drug treatments, appropriate drug treatments, and follow-up, and those same scenarios when limited resources needed to be considered. Responses were compiled and the percentages were presented by clinicians to support each response. Most questions had five to seven relevant options for response including abstain and/or unqualified to answer, or in the case of yes or no questions, the option to abstain was offered. RESULTS Most of the recommendations from this panel were in line with prior consensus, including the preference of a new antiandrogen for first-line therapy of mCRPC. Important aspects highlighted in the scenario of limited resources included the option of docetaxel as treatment preference as first-line treatment in several scenarios, docetaxel retreatment, consideration for reduced doses of abiraterone, and alternative schedules of an osteoclast-targeted therapy. CONCLUSION There was wide-ranging consensus in the treatment for men with mCRPC in both optimal and limited resource settings.

scholarly journals Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Blood-based Liquid Biopsies to Inform Clinical Decision-making in Prostate Cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Casanova-Salas ◽  
Alejandro Athie ◽  
Paul C. Boutros ◽  
Marzia Del Re ◽  
David T. Miyamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Liquid Biopsies

Abstract P111: Comparative Efficacy Of Bisoprolol Compared To Other Selective Beta-1 Blockers In Patients With Hypertension - A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies

Hypertension ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 78 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Uday M Jadhav ◽  
Tiny Nair ◽  
SANDEEP BANSAL ◽  
Saumitra Ray
Keyword(s):  
Lipid Profile ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hdl Cholesterol ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Favourable Effect ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Cholesterol Levels

Introduction: Selective beta-1 blockers (s-BBs) are used in the management of hypertension (HT) in specific subsets. Studies comparing the potency of blood pressure (BP) lowering with different s-BBs are sparse. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of bisoprolol compared to other s-BBs (Atenolol, Betaxolol, Esmolol, Acebutolol, Metoprolol, Nebivolol) in HT patients by examining their effect on BP, heart rate (HR) and metabolic derangements, by examining the evidences reported in observational studies. Methods: Electronic databases like PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program and 12 PV databases were systematically searched from inception to October 2019. Observational studies that compared bisoprolol with other s-BBs in patients with HT were evaluated in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Pooled data were calculated using random-effects model for meta-analysis in terms of mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for each outcome. Outcomes of interest were BP, HR and lipid profile. Results: Four observational studies which compared bisoprolol with other s-BBs (nebivolol and atenolol) were included in this meta-analysis. Significant reduction was observed in office diastolic BP [MD: -1.70; 95% CI: -2.68,-0.72; P <0.01] among arterial HT patients treated with bisoprolol for 26 weeks (w) compared to those treated with other s-BBs. HT patients treated with bisoprolol for 26 w showed significant reduction in HR [MD: -2.20; 95% CI: -3.57,-0.65; P <0.01] and office HR [MD: -2.55; 95% CI: -3.57,-1.53; P <0.01] than other s-BBs. HDL cholesterol levels increased significantly in essential HT patients treated with bisoprolol at 26 w [MD: 7.17; 95% CI: 1.90,12.45; P <0.01], 78 w [MD: 11.70; 95% CI: 4.49,18.91; P <0.01] and 104 w [MD: 10.20, 95% CI: 4.49,18.91; P <0.01] compared to other s-BBs. Conclusion: Our results suggests that bisoprolol is superior to other s-BBs in reducing BP and HR. Bisoprolol also had a favourable effect on lipid profile shown by increase in HDL cholesterol. This meta-analysis emphasizes the efficacy of bisoprolol over other s-BBs, which aids clinical decision making in treatment of patients with HT.

A meta-analysis of confidence and judgment accuracy in clinical decision making.

2015 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah J. Miller ◽  
Elliot S. Spengler ◽  
Paul M. Spengler
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Judgment Accuracy

Beyond the Development of Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQOL) Measures: A Checklist for Evaluating HRQOL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials—Does HRQOL Evaluation in Prostate Cancer Research Inform Clinical Decision Making?

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (18) ◽  
pp. 3502-3511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Efficace ◽  
Andrew Bottomley ◽  
David Osoba ◽  
Carolyn Gotay ◽  
Henning Flechtner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the inclusion of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as a part of the trial design in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) setting, has supported clinical decision making for the planning of future medical treatments in prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A minimum standard checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials was devised to assess the quality of the HRQOL reporting and to classify the studies on the grounds of their robustness. It comprises 11 key HRQOL issues grouped into four broader sections: conceptual, measurement, methodology, and interpretation. Relevant studies were identified in a number of databases, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Both their HRQOL and traditional clinical reported outcomes were systematically analyzed to evaluate their consistency and their relevance for supporting clinical decision making. Results: Although 54% of the identified studies did not show any differences in traditional clinical end points between treatment arms and 17% showed a difference in overall survival, 74% of the studies showed some difference in terms of HRQOL outcomes. One third of the RCTs provided a comprehensive picture of the whole treatment including HRQOL outcomes to support their conclusions. Conclusion: A minimum set of criteria for assessing the reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials is necessary to make informed decisions in clinical practice. Using a checklist developed for this study, it was found that HRQOL is a valuable source of information in RCTs of treatment in metastatic prostate cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document