EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel Consensus Statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study)

Abstract

Background: There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised. Objective: To develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT. Design, setting, and participants: A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains; (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients; and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed. Results and limitations: A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%); the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion. Conclusions: Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials. Patient summary: We undertook a project aimed at standardising the elements of practice in active surveillance programmes for early localised prostate cancer because currently there is great variation and uncertainty regarding how best to conduct them. The project involved large numbers of healthcare practitioners and patients using a survey and face-to-face meeting, in order to achieve agreement (ie, consensus) regarding best practice, which will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers.

Predicting Prostate Cancer Death with Different Pretreatment Risk Stratification Tools: A Head-to-head Comparison in a Nationwide Cohort Study

“…PSA is organ-specific, not cancer-specific, and the PSA level can be increased as a consequence of non-cancerous conditions, such as benign prostatic hyperplasia or prostatitis. Baseline PSA is a part of risk stratification tools and is commonly used as a marker for monitoring disease progression after curative treatment (35,37,49,53,60,80,82,83). The role of PSA as a reliable prognostic marker is not without controversies.…”

The Movember Prostate Cancer Landscape Analysis: an assessment of unmet research needs

“…In an effort to reduce the variation between AS protocols, a collective of prostate cancer-related European medical associations representing urology, nuclear medicine, radiotherapy, oncology and geriatric oncology formed a Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel and initiated a protocol-driven, three-phase study, in which consensus was achieved on 93 of 129 statements 85 . Consensus statements were formulated covering criteria as broad as patient selection, inclusion and exclusion criteria (including patient and disease characteristics, imaging and type of biopsy), the nature and timing of investigations and assessments during the period of monitoring and follow-up assessment (including PSA measurements, clinical examination, repeat imaging and repeat biopsies), criteria and thresholds for reclassification and change in management, and type of outcome measures to be prioritized 85 . Until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies, the findings from the Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel will be useful to inform routine clinical practice.…”

Three-dimensional Camera Systems Assistant the Sheath of Prostate Preservation Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Technique and Initial Experience

“…Radical prostatectomy (RP) is considered to be a standard and curative surgical treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer in men with a life expectancy of 10 years [1][2]. Post-operative incontinence and erectile dysfunction (ED) are the most common complications of RP no matter by open, laparoscopic or robotic-assisted surgery, which reduce the quality of life conspicuously.…”