1
|
Gontero P, Soria F, Babjuk M, Burger M, Comperat E, Mostafid H, Palou Redorta J, Roupret M, Van Rhijn B, Zigeuner R, Shariat S, Cohen D, Masson-Lecomte A, Hernandez V, Xylinas E, Capoun O, Thalmann G, Pradere B, Linares E, Soukup V, Seisen T, Dominguez-Escrig J, Liedberg F, Sylvester R. Do current definitions of BCG failure/ BCG unresponsive NMIBCs correlate with disease progression? Results of an individual patient data validation international multi-center retrospective study. Eur Urol 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(23)01043-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/12/2023]
|
3
|
Tay KJ, Scheltema MJ, Ahmed HU, Barret E, Coleman JA, Dominguez-Escrig J, Ghai S, Huang J, Jones JS, Klotz LH, Robertson CN, Sanchez-Salas R, Scionti S, Sivaraman A, de la Rosette J, Polascik TJ. Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017; 20:294-299. [PMID: 28349978 DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2017.8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2016] [Revised: 01/14/2017] [Accepted: 01/21/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Whole-gland extirpation or irradiation is considered the gold standard for curative oncological treatment for localized prostate cancer, but is often associated with sexual and urinary impairment that adversely affects quality of life. This has led to increased interest in developing therapies with effective cancer control but less morbidity. We aimed to provide details of physician consensus on patient selection for prostate focal therapy (FT) in the era of contemporary prostate cancer management. METHODS We undertook a four-stage Delphi consensus project among a panel of 47 international experts in prostate FT. Data on three main domains (role of biopsy/imaging, disease and patient factors) were collected in three iterative rounds of online questionnaires and feedback. Consensus was defined as agreement in ⩾80% of physicians. Finally, an in-person meeting was attended by a core group of 16 experts to review the data and formulate the consensus statement. RESULTS Consensus was obtained in 16 of 18 subdomains. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is a standard imaging tool for patient selection for FT. In the presence of an mpMRI-suspicious lesion, histological confirmation is necessary prior to FT. In addition, systematic biopsy remains necessary to assess mpMRI-negative areas. However, adequate criteria for systematic biopsy remains indeterminate. FT can be recommended in D'Amico low-/intermediate-risk cancer including Gleason 4+3. Gleason 3+4 cancer, where localized, discrete and of favorable size represents the ideal case for FT. Tumor foci <1.5 ml on mpMRI or <20% of the prostate are suitable for FT, or up to 3 ml or 25% if localized to one hemi-gland. Gleason 3+3 at one core 1mm is acceptable in the untreated area. Preservation of sexual function is an important goal, but lack of erectile function should not exclude a patient from FT. CONCLUSIONS This consensus provides a contemporary insight into expert opinion of patient selection for FT of clinically localized prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K J Tay
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - M J Scheltema
- Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H U Ahmed
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College of London, London, UK
| | - E Barret
- L'Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - J A Coleman
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - J Dominguez-Escrig
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología (IVO), Valencia, Spain
| | - S Ghai
- University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - J Huang
- Department of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - J S Jones
- Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - L H Klotz
- Sunnybrook Medical Center, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - C N Robertson
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - R Sanchez-Salas
- L'Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - S Scionti
- Saratosa Prostate Cancer Center, Sarasota, FL, USA
| | - A Sivaraman
- L'Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - J de la Rosette
- Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T J Polascik
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Postema AW, De Reijke TM, Ukimura O, Van den Bos W, Azzouzi AR, Barret E, Baumunk D, Blana A, Bossi A, Brausi M, Coleman JA, Crouzet S, Dominguez-Escrig J, Eggener S, Ganzer R, Ghai S, Gill IS, Gupta RT, Henkel TO, Hohenfellner M, Jones JS, Kahmann F, Kastner C, Köhrmann KU, Kovacs G, Miano R, van Moorselaar RJ, Mottet N, Osorio L, Pieters BR, Polascik TJ, Rastinehad AR, Salomon G, Sanchez-Salas R, Schostak M, Sentker L, Tay KJ, Varkarakis IM, Villers A, Walz J, De la Rosette JJ. Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 2016; 34:1373-82. [PMID: 26892160 PMCID: PMC5026990 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-016-1782-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2015] [Accepted: 02/02/2016] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To reach standardized terminology in focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS A four-stage modified Delphi consensus project was undertaken among a panel of international experts in the field of FT for PCa. Data on terminology in FT was collected from the panel by three rounds of online questionnaires. During a face-to-face meeting on June 21, 2015, attended by 38 experts, all data from the online rounds were reviewed and recommendations for definitions were formulated. RESULTS Consensus was attained on 23 of 27 topics; Targeted FT was defined as a lesion-based treatment strategy, treating all identified significant cancer foci; FT was generically defined as an anatomy-based (zonal) treatment strategy. Treatment failure due to the ablative energy inadequately destroying treated tissue is defined as ablation failure. In targeting failure the energy is not adequately applied to the tumor spatially and selection failure occurs when a patient was wrongfully selected for FT. No definition of biochemical recurrence can be recommended based on the current data. Important definitions for outcome measures are potency (minimum IIEF-5 score of 21), incontinence (new need for pads or leakage) and deterioration in urinary function (increase in IPSS >5 points). No agreement on the best quality of life tool was established, but UCLA-EPIC and EORTC-QLQ-30 were most commonly supported by the experts. A complete overview of statements is presented in the text. CONCLUSION Focal therapy is an emerging field of PCa therapeutics. Standardization of definitions helps to create comparable research results and facilitate clear communication in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A W Postema
- Departments of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - T M De Reijke
- Departments of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - O Ukimura
- USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,Department of Urology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - W Van den Bos
- Departments of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A R Azzouzi
- Department of Urology, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France
| | - E Barret
- Department of Urology, Institut Montsouris, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - D Baumunk
- Department of Urology, Magdeburg University Medical Center, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - A Blana
- Department of Urology, Fuerth Hospital, Fuerth, Germany
| | - A Bossi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France
| | - M Brausi
- Department of Urology, Ospedale Civile Ramazzini, Carpi, Italy
| | - J A Coleman
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - S Crouzet
- Department of Urology and Transplantation, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France
| | - J Dominguez-Escrig
- Department of Urology, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - S Eggener
- Department of Urology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - R Ganzer
- Department of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - S Ghai
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - I S Gill
- USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - R T Gupta
- Departments of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - T O Henkel
- Urologische Praxis Dr. Henkel & Dr. Kahmann, Berlin, Germany
| | - M Hohenfellner
- Department of Urology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - J S Jones
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - F Kahmann
- Urologische Praxis Dr. Henkel & Dr. Kahmann, Berlin, Germany
| | - C Kastner
- CamPARI Prostate Cancer Clinic, Cancer Directorate, Cambridge University Hospitals Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - K U Köhrmann
- Department of Urology, Theresien Krankenhaus Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - G Kovacs
- Interdisciplinary Brachytherapy Unit, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - R Miano
- Division of Urology, Department of Experimental Medicine and Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - R J van Moorselaar
- Department of Urology, Free University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - N Mottet
- Department of Urology, University Hospital St Etienne, Saint-Étienne, France
| | - L Osorio
- Department of Urology, Porto Hospital Centre, Porto, Portugal
| | - B R Pieters
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T J Polascik
- Departments of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - A R Rastinehad
- Department of Urology, Hofstra North Shore-Lij, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
| | - G Salomon
- Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - R Sanchez-Salas
- Department of Urology, Institut Montsouris, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - M Schostak
- Department of Urology, Magdeburg University Medical Center, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - L Sentker
- Urologische Gemeinschaftspraxis, Sinsheim, Germany
| | - K J Tay
- Departments of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - I M Varkarakis
- 2nd Department of Urology, Athens Medical University, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - A Villers
- Department of Urology, Lille University Medical Center, Lille, France
| | - J Walz
- Department of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France
| | - J J De la Rosette
- Departments of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|