Prostate cancer
PROSCA cases on the road to the Annual Global Forum on GU Oncology

Case 2023: Lorenzo (expert opinion by J. Van Moorselaar)

Ваши коллеги ответили:

Active surveillance

11%
11 %

RP ± PLND

41%
41 %

EBRT alone

10%
10 %

EBRT + short-term ADT

17%
17 %
your answer

EBRT + brachytherapy ± short-term ADT

12%
12 %

Focal therapy

9%
9 %

Expert opinion by J. Van Moorselaar

Active surveillance

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

RP ± PLND

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

EBRT alone

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

EBRT + short-term ADT

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

EBRT + brachytherapy ± short-term ADT

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Focal therapy

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
(9-бальная шкала ):
1-3 неуместно, 4-6 неуверенно, 7-9 уместно
Клиническая перспектива: одобрение регуляторных органов и местные ограничения не учитываются.

Свидетельство

The first question concerns active treatment: yes or no? In this case it is a clear yes. Both radical prostatectomy and EBRT are good options. The next question is if any treatment should be added to EBRT. Adding short-term ADT to EBRT has the best result [1]. The addition of HDR brachytherapy did not show improved overall survival yet and might be overtreatment in this case [2]. Focal therapy is not yet ready for these unfavourable intermediate-risk cases [3]. Currently, almost half of the patients treated with focal therapy had an ISUP 1 tumour.

Использованная литература

  1. Nabid A, Carrier N, Martin AG, et al. Eur Urol 2018;74:432-41. PubMed
  2. Jackson WC, Hartman HE, Dess RT, et al. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:3024-31. PubMed 
  3. Hopstaken JS, Bomers JGR, Sedelaar MJP, et al. Eur Urol 2022;81:5-33. PubMed 
-