Purpose The outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients. Methods Eighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session. Results The recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available. Conclusion This manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.

Background: Renal cell cancer (RCC) is one of the 10 most common cancers in the world, and its incidence is increasing, whereas mortality is declining only in developed countries. Therefore, two collaborative groups, The Latin American Oncology Cooperative Group-Genitourinary Section (LACOG-GU) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG), held a consensus meeting to develop this guideline. Methods: Issues (134) related to the treatment of RCC were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists (urologists and medical oncologists) from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. A consensus was reached if 75% agreement was achieved. If there was less concordance, a new discussion was undertaken, and a consensus was determined by the most votes after a second voting session. Results: The expert meeting provided recommendations that were in line with the global literature; 75.0% of the recommendations made by the panel of experts were evidence-based level A, 22.5% of the recommendations were level B, and 2.5% of the recommendations were level D. Conclusions: This review suggests recommendations for the surgical treatment of RCC according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG experts.

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.

Background: Erdafitinib is the first targeted therapy approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Approval was based on a phase II single-arm trial that demonstrated significant activity of erdafitinib in patients with tumors harboring FGFR2/3 alterations. In Brazil, an Expanded Access Program (EAP) provided patients with early access to erdafitinib prior to market authorization. The current report describes characteristics and outcomes of patients with mUC on erdafitinib therapy. Methods: Patients with mUC that failed first- and second-line systemic therapies were screened for FGFR2/3 alterations in primary or metastatic tumor tissues. Patients with FGFR2/3 alterations were selected to receive erdafitinib at the standard dosing schedule and were followed prospectively to evaluate the efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: From 19 April 2019, through 13 March 2020, 47 patients with mUC from 10 Brazilian centers were tested for FGFR2/3 alterations. Alterations in FGFR2/3 were found in 12 patients (25.5%) and all of them were eligible for the EAP. Four patients (33%) had partial response, while two patients (17%) had stable disease. Progressive disease, the best response, was observed in five patients (42%). At a median follow-up of 16.2 months, the median time to treatment failure (TTF) was 2.8 months. When considering only patients with objective response, the median TTF was 5.3 months. Adverse events (AEs) were reported for any grade and grade 3 or higher in 10 patients (83%) and 5 patients (42%), respectively. The most common AE was hyperphosphatemia. Conclusion: This first real-world evidence report of heavily treated patients with mUC confirms the efficacy and safety of erdafitinib in a disease setting with a lack of treatment options.

Informações sobre auxílios recebidos sob a forma de financiamento, equipamentos ou medicamentos: Este estudo teve suporte financeiro da Janssen-Cilag Farmacêutica Ltda. para a sua realização.

PURPOSE To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for the biochemical recurrence of castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) as acquired through a questionnaire administered at the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS A total of 27 questions were identified as relating to this topic. Responses from the clinician were tallied and are presented in percentage format. Topics included the use of imaging in staging, treatment recommendations across different patient scenarios of life expectancy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time, and follow-up for nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. RESULTS A consensus agreed that in optimal conditions, positron emission tomography-computed tomography with prostate-specific membrane antigen would be used although in limited resource situations the combined use of CT of the abdomen and pelvic (or pelvic MRI), a bone scan, and a CT of the thorax or chest x-ray was recommended. In cases when PSA levels double in < 10 months, more than 90% of clinicians agreed on the use of apalutamide or enzalutamide, regardless of life expectancy. With a doubling time of more than 10 months, > 54% of experts recommended no treatment independent of life expectancy. More than half of the experts, regardless of resources, recommended follow-up with a physical examination and PSA levels every 3-6 months and imaging only in the case of symptoms. CONCLUSION The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support management for biochemical recurrence of castration-resistant PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data.