Author:
Templeton Arnoud J.,Omlin Aurelius,Berthold Dominik,Beyer Jörg,Burger Irene A.,Eberli Daniel,Engeler Daniel,Fankhauser Christian,Fischer Stefanie,Gillessen Silke,Nicolas Guillaume,Kroeze Stephanie,Lorch Anja,Müntener Michael,Papachristofilou Alexandros,Schaefer Niklaus,Seiler Daniel,Stenner Frank,Tsantoulis Petros,Vlajnic Tatjana,Zilli Thomas,Zwahlen Daniel,Cathomas Richard
Abstract
The management of prostate cancer is undergoing rapid changes in all disease settings. Novel imaging tools for diagnosis have been introduced, and the treatment of high-risk localized, locally advanced and metastatic disease has changed considerably in recent years. From clinical and health-economic perspectives, a rational and optimal use of the available options is of the utmost importance. While international guidelines list relevant pivotal trials and give recommendations for a variety of clinical scenarios, there is much room for interpretation, and several important questions remain highly debated. The goal of developing a national consensus on the use of these novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in order to improve disease management and eventually patient outcomes has prompted a Swiss consensus meeting. Experts from several specialties, including urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology and nuclear medicine, discussed and voted on questions of the current most important areas of uncertainty, including the staging and treatment of high-risk localized disease, treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and use of new options to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Publisher
SMW Supporting Association
Reference24 articles.
1. Gillessen S, Bossi A, Davis ID, de Bono J, Fizazi K, James ND, et al. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022. Eur Urol. 2022.
2. Ingvar J, Hvittfeldt E, Trägårdh E, Simoulis A, Bjartell A. Assessing the accuracy of [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT for primary staging of lymph node metastases in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. EJNMMI Res. 2022 Aug;12(1):48. 10.1186/s13550-022-00918-7
3. Anttinen M, Ettala O, Malaspina S, Jambor I, Sandell M, Kajander S, et al. A Prospective Comparison of 18F-prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-1007 Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Whole-body 1.5 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Diffusion-weighted Imaging, and Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography with Traditional Imaging in Primary Distant Metastasis Staging of Prostate Cancer (PROSTAGE). Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Aug;4(4):635–44. 10.1016/j.euo.2020.06.012
4. Grünig H, Maurer A, Thali Y, Kovacs Z, Strobel K, Burger IA, et al. Focal unspecific bone uptake on [18F]-PSMA-1007 PET: a multicenter retrospective evaluation of the distribution, frequency, and quantitative parameters of a potential pitfall in prostate cancer imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Dec;48(13):4483–94. 10.1007/s00259-021-05424-x
5. Vollnberg B, Alberts I, Genitsch V, Rominger A, Afshar-Oromieh A. Assessment of malignancy and PSMA expression of uncertain bone foci in [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT for prostate cancer-a single-centre experience of PET-guided biopsies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022 Sep;49(11):3910–6. 10.1007/s00259-022-05745-5