Journal
EUROPEAN UROLOGY
Volume 79, Issue 2, Pages 243-262Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
Keywords
Prostate cancer; Localised; EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG; guidelines; Screening; Diagnosis; Staging; Treatment; Active surveillance; Radical prostatectomy; Radiation therapy; Androgen deprivation; Quality of life
Categories
Funding
- Astellas
- Ipsen
- Sanofi
- Janssen
- Roche
- European Association of Urology
- Bayer
- Pierre Fabre Oncologie
- Amgen
- AstraZeneca
- BristolMyers Squibb
- Celgene
- Dendreon
- Ferring
- GSK
- Incyte
- Janssen Cilag
- Merck
- MSD
- Novartis
- Pfizer
- Sanofi Aventis
- SeaGen
- Shionogi
- Synthon
- Takeda
- Teva/OncoGenex
- Cancer Australia
- Medical Research Council
- National Institute of Health Research (UK)
- Cancer Research UK
- Sir John Fisher Foundation
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and treatment of localized prostate cancer summarize the most recent recommendations for clinical practice, including risk-adapted strategies, medical imaging utilization, biopsy techniques, patient classification, and treatment options. Recommendations include consideration of moderate hypofractionation for intermediate-risk patients and a combination of local treatment with long-term hormonal therapy for cN1 PCa patients.
Objective: To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). Evidence acquisition: The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence. Evidence synthesis: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment. Conclusions: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. Patient summary: Updated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available