Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Telehealth in surgery: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth use has increased worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, hands-on requirements of surgical care may have resulted in slower implementation. This umbrella review (review of systematic reviews) evaluated the perceptions, safety and implementation of telehealth services in surgery, and telehealth usage in Australia between 2020 and 2021. METHODS: PubMed was searched from 2015 to 2021 for systematic reviews evaluating real-time telehealth modalities in surgery. Outcomes of interest were patient and provider satisfaction, safety, and barriers and facilitators associated with its use. Study quality was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 tool. A working group of surgeons provided insights into the clinical relevance to telehealth in surgical practice of the evidence collated. RESULTS: From 2025 identified studies, 17 were included, which were of low to moderate risk of bias. Patient and provider satisfaction with telehealth was high. Time savings, decreased healthcare resource use and lower costs were reported as key advantages of the service. Inability to perform comprehensive examinations was noted as the primary barrier. In Australia, peak telehealth usage coincided with the introduction of temporary telehealth services and increased lockdown measures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers are broadly satisfied with telehealth and its benefits. Barriers may be overcome via multidisciplinary collaboration. Telehealth may benefit surgical care long-term if implemented correctly both during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Patient perceptions of surgical telehealth consultations during the COVID 19 pandemic in Australia: Lessons for future implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies of telehealth report high levels of patient satisfaction, but within carefully selected clinical scenarios. The COVID-19 pandemic led to telehealth replacing face-to-face care for many surgical consultations across a variety of situations. More evidence is needed regarding patient perceptions of telehealth in surgery, in particular, exploring barriers and facilitators associated with its sustained implementation beyond the pandemic. METHODS: Survey invitations were emailed to a convenience sample of surgical patients by their surgeon following a telehealth consultation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Surgeons were recruited from a sample (n = 683) who completed a survey on telehealth (distributed via email to all Australian Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons). Mixed methods analysis was performed of the patient survey data. RESULTS: A total of 1166 consultations were captured: 50% routine reviews, 17% initial appointments and 20% post-operative reviews. Video-link was used in 49% of consultations. The majority of patients (94%), were satisfied with the quality of their surgical telehealth consultation and 75% felt it delivered the same level of care as face-to-face encounters. Telehealth was convenient to use (96%) and led to cost savings for 60% of patients. When asked about future appointment preferences after the pandemic, 41% indicated they would prefer telehealth (24% video-link and 17% telephone) over face-to-face appointments. There was a perception by patients that telehealth consultation fees should be less than face-to-face consultation fees. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with surgical telehealth consultations is high. Barriers to more widespread implementation include financial, clinical appropriateness, technical and confidentiality concerns.

Proposed delay for safe surgery after COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Long-term effects after COVID-19 may affect surgical safety. This study aimed to evaluate the literature and produce evidence-based guidance regarding the period of delay necessary for adequate recovery of patients following COVID-19 infection before undergoing surgery. METHODS: A rapid review was combined with advice from a working group of 10 clinical experts across Australia and New Zealand. MEDLINE, medRxiv and grey literature were searched to 4 October 2020. The level of evidence was stratified according to the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence hierarchy. RESULTS: A total of 1020 records were identified, from which 20 studies (12 peer-reviewed) were included. None were randomized trials. The studies comprised one case-control study (level III-2 evidence), one prospective cohort study (level III-2) and 18 case-series studies (level IV). Follow-up periods containing observable clinical characteristics ranged from 3 to 16 weeks. New or excessive fatigue and breathlessness were the most frequently reported symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 may impact the immune system for multiple months after laboratory confirmation of infection. For patients with past COVID-19 undergoing elective curative surgery for cancer, risks of pulmonary complications and mortality may be lowest at 4 weeks or later after a positive swab. CONCLUSION: After laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, minor surgery should be delayed for at least 4 weeks and major surgery for 8-12 weeks, if patient outcome is not compromised. Comprehensive preoperative and ongoing assessment must be carried out to ensure optimal clinical decision-making.

Utilization of telehealth by surgeons during the COVID 19 pandemic in Australia: lessons learnt.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid and widespread adoption of telehealth. There is a need for more evidence regarding the appropriateness of telehealth, as well as greater understanding of barriers to its sustained use within surgery in Australia. METHODS: A survey weblink was sent via email to 5558 Australian Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in August 2020. A single reminder email followed this 2 weeks later. Mixed methods analysis was performed of the survey data. RESULTS: There were 683 (12.3%) complete responses. Telehealth (telephone or video-link) consultations were undertaken by 638 (85%) respondents as a result of the pandemic, with 583 (85%) of these expressing a desire for continued access to telehealth. Seventy-seven percent of respondents felt that a satisfactory level of care could be delivered via telehealth in half or more consultations. However, only 38% of respondents felt that quality of care was equivalent comparing telehealth and face-to-face consultations, with the inability to perform a clinical examination a frequent concern. The majority agreed that telehealth was appropriate for clinical meetings and arranging investigations (91% each), whereas only 22% and 17%, respectively, felt telehealth was an appropriate means to break bad news and manage conflict. Medicolegal, technical and financial concerns were raised as prominent barriers to the sustained use of telehealth. CONCLUSION: Surgeons show good insight into the clinical appropriateness and limitations of telehealth. Medicolegal, technical and financial barriers need to be addressed in order to fully utilize the benefits of telehealth into the future.

Can Exercise Adaptations Be Maintained in Men with Prostate Cancer Following Supervised Programmes? Implications to the COVID-19 Landscape of Urology and Clinical Exercise.

In this brief correspondence, we evaluate the potential impact of pivoting from face-to-face supervised to unsupervised home-based exercise programmes to contextualise the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in prostate cancer patients. A meta-analysis was undertaken in fatigue, quality of life, and lean and fat mass outcomes in the four studies included. Our analysis indicates that unsupervised home-based exercise maintains patient-reported outcomes, except for fat mass. In summary, changing to unsupervised exercise is unlikely to provide further benefits on patient-reported and body composition outcomes, but may help maintain initial gains during physical distancing restrictions. PATIENT SUMMARY: We discuss the potential impacts of transitioning from face-to-face supervised to unsupervised home-based exercise programmes in prostate cancer patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Our analysis suggests that patients are likely to maintain patient-reported and body composition benefits from current nonsupervised programmes; however, evolution of exercise delivery to prostate cancer patients is required to continue health and fitness improvement in this group.

Trends in urologic oncology clinical practice and medical education under COVID-19 pandemic: An international survey of senior clinical and academic urologists.

OBJECTIVE: Ad-hoc guidelines for managing the COVID-19 pandemic are published worldwide. We investigated international applications of such policies in the urologic-oncology community. METHODS: A 20-item survey was e-mailed via SurveyMonkey to 100 international senior urologic-oncology surgeons. Leaders' policies regarding clinical/surgical management and medical education were surveyed probing demographics, affiliations, urologic-oncologic areas of interest, and current transportation restrictions. Data on COVID-19 burden were retrieved from the ECDC. Statistical analyses employed non-parametric tests (SPSS v.25.0, IBM). RESULTS: Of 100 leaders from 17 countries, 63 responded to our survey, with 58 (92%) reporting university and/or cancer-center affiliations. Policies on new-patient visits remained mostly unchanged, while follow-up visits for low-risk diseases were mostly postponed, for example, 83.3% for small renal mass (SRM). Radical prostatectomy was delayed in 76.2% of cases, while maintaining scheduled timing for radical cystectomy (71.7%). Delays were longer in Europe than in the Americas for kidney cancer (SRM follow-up, P = 0.014), prostate cancer (new visits, P = 0.003), and intravesical therapy for intermediate-risk bladder cancer (P = 0.043). In Europe, COVID-19 burden correlated with policy adaptation, for example, nephrectomy delays for T2 disease (r = 0.5, P =0.005). Regarding education policies, trainees' medical education was mainly unchanged, whereas senior urologists' planned attendance at professional meetings dropped from 6 (IQR 1-11) to 2 (IQR 0-5) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Under COVID-19, senior urologic-oncology surgeons worldwide apply risk-stratified approaches to timing of clinical and surgical schedules. Policies regarding trainee education were not significantly affected. We suggest establishment of an international consortium to create a directive for coping with such future challenges to global healthcare.

Screening and testing for COVID-19 before surgery.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative screening for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) aims to preserve surgical safety for both patients and surgical teams. This rapid review provides an evaluation of current evidence with input from clinical experts to produce guidance for screening for active COVID-19 in a low prevalence setting. METHODS: An initial search of PubMed (until 6 May 2020) was combined with targeted searches of both PubMed and Google Scholar until 1 July 2020. Findings were streamlined for clinical relevance through the advice of an expert working group that included seven senior surgeons and a senior medical virologist. RESULTS: Patient history should be examined for potential exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Hyposmia and hypogeusia may present as early symptoms of COVID-19, and can potentially discriminate from other influenza-like illnesses. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction is the gold standard diagnostic test to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection, and although sensitivity can be improved with repeated testing, the decision to retest should incorporate clinical history and the local supply of diagnostic resources. At present, routine serological testing has little utility for diagnosing acute infection. To appropriately conduct preoperative testing, the temporal dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 must be considered. Relative to other thoracic imaging modalities, computed tomography has the greatest utility for characterizing pulmonary involvement in COVID-19 patients who have been diagnosed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. CONCLUSION: Through a rapid review of the literature and advice from a clinical expert working group, evidence-based recommendations have been produced for the preoperative screening of surgical patients with suspected COVID-19.