Lack of consensus identifies important areas for future clinical research: Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 findings

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging and molecular characterisation have improved outcomes for people with advanced prostate cancer; however, many aspects of clinical management are devoid of high-level evidence. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019, many of these topics were addressed, and consensus was not always reached. The results from clinical trials will most reliably plus the gaps.

METHODS

An invited panel of 57 experts voted on 123 multiple-choice questions on clinical management at APCCC 2019. No consensus was reached on 88 (71.5%) questions defined as <75% of panellists voting for the same answer option. We reviewed clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant ongoing phase III trials in these areas of non-consensus.

RESULTS

A number of ongoing phase III trials were identified that are relevant to these non-consensus issues. However, many non-consensus issues appear not to be addressed by current clinical trials. Of note, no phase III but only phase II trials were identified, investigating side effects of hormonal treatments and their management.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of consensus almost invariably indicates gaps in existing evidence. The high percentage of questions lacking consensus at APCCC 2019 highlights the complexity of advanced prostate cancer care and the need for robust, clinically relevant trials that can fill current gaps with high-level evidence. Our review of these areas of non-consensus and ongoing trials provides a useful summary, indicating areas in which future consensus may soon be reached. This review may facilitate academic investigators to identify and prioritise topics for future research.

In-depth analysis of the 2019 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) - The importance of representation of medical specialty and geographic regions

The rapid innovation of the treatment and diagnostic procedures in advanced prostate cancer has led to improved outcomes, though uncertainty remains regarding the best management approach in many clinical situations. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed these areas of uncertainty with a multidisciplinary, international expert panel. A total of 57 experts voted on 123 carefully prepared questions. The primary analysis of the APCCC 2019 showed consensus (≥ 75% agreement on one answer) for 33 questions. Here we investigate whether agreement with the consensus answers differed according to medical discipline and region of practice. Overall there was no compelling evidence for group differences of agreement with the consensus answers, i.e. expert sub-groups differed no more than could be expected by chance due to differences between individual experts. All questions that achieved consensus, had at least 50% agreement of each expert sub-group. Furthermore, the set of consensus questions changed only moderately if one of the sub-groups was excluded from the panel. The identification of consensus questions and answers at APCCC 2019 appeared to be robust to the composition of the panel and well supported.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the results from the APCCC 2019.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

Shared Decision-Making for Patients with Advanced Urological Malignancies: Evaluation of a Joint Urological-Oncological Clinic Model

BACKGROUND

To provide rapid evaluation of patients with advanced urological malignancies, a joint urological-oncological clinic was initiated at our institution in January 2015. We present the first 3-year evaluation of this joint urological-oncological clinic in Switzerland.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective analysis of the characteristics and treatment of all patients reviewed at the joint clinic between January 2015 and December 2017. Statistical analysis was performed by survival analysis. A patient satisfaction questionnaire was handed out to new patients (from April to September 2017).

RESULTS

A total of 135 new patients were counseled in the joint clinic and 563 consultations were performed in the period from January 2015 to December 2017. The majority were men with prostate cancer (85%), followed by bladder cancer (9%), and renal cell carcinoma (4%). Men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer (n = 69) received ADT alone (57%), ADT with docetaxel or abiraterone (33%), and metastasis-directed therapy (10%). High rates of patient satisfaction were reported based on the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

The joint clinic model has been successfully implemented at our institution and continues on a weekly basis. The clinic is increasingly used, not only for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer, but also for other complex uro-oncological cases. The clinic allows optimized oncological treatment without delay and with a reduced effort for patients.

A retrospective feasibility study of biweekly docetaxel in patients with high-risk metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer

Background

Results from randomized phase III trials have shown that thrice-weekly docetaxel added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has a significant impact on the survival of patients with metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer (mCNPC) and established early chemotherapy as part of the standard of care for high-risk disease. Controversy remains, however, because some patients experience critical toxicities related to docetaxel. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the feasibility and adverse events of biweekly-administered docetaxel in patients with previously-untreated, high-risk mCNPC.

Methods

The study included 35 consecutive patients with high-risk mCNPC who received ADT plus docetaxel 40 mg/m². Oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily was also given. Treatment was repeated every two weeks for up to 12 cycles or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. High-risk was defined as bone metastases beyond axial skeleton and/or visceral disease.

Results

The included patients’ median age was 68 years (range: 31–86 years) and 17 (49%) had visceral metastases. Biweekly docetaxel was generally well-tolerated; the most commonly observed adverse events, considering those of all grades, included alopecia (74%), nail changes (42%), and constipation (31%). Hematologic adverse events were infrequent, and no patient received hematopoietic growth factors. One patient died after the fourth cycle due to respiratory failure, which occurred as a complication of pneumonia. Among the 35 patients, 28 completed the planned 12 cycles of biweekly docetaxel. Prostate-specific antigen response (> 50% decrease from baseline) was recorded in 33 patients (94%), and the radiologic response rate was 49%. Median progression-free survival was 13.6 months (95% confidence interval: 6.7–20.4).

Conclusion

ADT plus biweekly-administered docetaxel appeared to be tolerated and effective in patients with high-risk mCNPC.

What kind of patients with castration-naïve prostate cancer can benefit from upfront docetaxel and abiraterone: A systematic review and a network meta-analysis

We conducted a systematic network meta-analysis to review the relevant literature evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of upfront docetaxel (Doc) or abiraterone (Abi) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on oncological outcome in patients with castration-naïve prostate cancer (CNPC). An attempt to identify subgroups of patients who would benefit most either from Doc or Abi plus ADT and further compare the efficacy and safety between these two combination therapies was made. A comprehensive search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase databases, International Clinical Trial Registration Platform (ICTRP), Clinical Trial, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to December 2017 was performed. Six studies, involving 6480 patients, were included in this meta-analysis, consisting of over 60% (4462/6480) of patients with metastatic CNPC (mCNPC, M1), and 31.1% (2018/6480) of patients with non-metastatic CNPC (M0). In total, combination therapies (ADT plus Doc or Abi) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) for all CNPC patients. For M1 patients, combination therapies were dramatically associated with improved OS and FFS, but for M0 patients, only with moderate improvement in FFS. M1 patients < 70 years old, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (ECOG PS) 0-1, Gleason score (< 8), or visceral metastases could realize better survival benefit from either combination therapy. In indirect comparisons among M1 patients with younger age (< 70 years), ECOG PS 0-1 or aggressive Gleason score (GS ≥ 8), upfront Abi showed superiority to Doc in prolonging FFS. The incidence of severe adverse events (AEs ≥ 3) was comparable between these two therapeutic regimens. In conclusion, upfront Doc or Abi plus ADT should be considered a standard of care in selected patients with mCNPC. For a subset of populations, Abi may be the first choice for men who start treatment for the first time.