Search

Your search keyword '"Klotz, L."' showing total 1,529 results
Start Over Author "Klotz, L."
1,529 results on '"Klotz, L."'

2. Focal laser ablation as clinical treatment of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project

Author

van Luijtelaar, A, Greenwood, BM, Ahmed, HU, Barqawi, AB, Barret, E, Bomers, JGR, Brausi, MA, Choyke, PL, Cooperberg, MR, Eggener, S, Feller, JF, Frauscher, F, George, AK, Hindley, RG, Jenniskens, SFM, Klotz, L, Kovacs, G, Lindner, U, Loeb, S, Margolis, DJ, Marks, LS, May, S, Mcclure, TD, Montironi, R, Nour, SG, Oto, A, Polascik, TJ, Rastinehad, AR, De Reyke, TM, Reijnen, JS, de la Rosette, JJMCH, Sedelaar, JPM, Sperling, DS, Walser, EM, Ward, JF, Villers, A, Ghai, S, and Fütterer, JJ

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Biomedical Imaging, Prostate Cancer, Urologic Diseases, Clinical Research, Aging, Cancer, Delphi Technique, Humans, Laser Therapy, Male, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Prostatectomy, Prostatic Neoplasms, Laser focal therapy, Focal laser ablation, Prostate cancer, Consensus, Delphi, Urology & Nephrology, Clinical sciences
Abstract

PurposeTo define the role of focal laser ablation (FLA) as clinical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) using the Delphi consensus method.MethodsA panel of international experts in the field of focal therapy (FT) in PCa conducted a collaborative consensus project using the Delphi method. Experts were invited to online questionnaires focusing on patient selection and treatment of PCa with FLA during four subsequent rounds. After each round, outcomes were displayed, and questionnaires were modified based on the comments provided by panelists. Results were finalized and discussed during face-to-face meetings.ResultsThirty-seven experts agreed to participate, and consensus was achieved on 39/43 topics. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as any volume Grade Group 2 [Gleason score (GS) 3+4]. Focal therapy was specified as treatment of all csPCa and can be considered primary treatment as an alternative to radical treatment in carefully selected patients. In patients with intermediate-risk PCa (GS 3+4) as well as patients with MRI-visible and biopsy-confirmed local recurrence, FLA is optimal for targeted ablation of a specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible focus. However, FLA should not be applied to candidates for active surveillance and close follow-up is required. Suitability for FLA is based on tumor volume, location to vital structures, GS, MRI-visibility, and biopsy confirmation.ConclusionFocal laser ablation is a promising technique for treatment of clinically localized PCa and should ideally be performed within approved clinical trials. So far, only few studies have reported on FLA and further validation with longer follow-up is mandatory before widespread clinical implementation is justified.

Published
2019

3. Experiments on transient growth of turbulent spots

Author

Klotz, L. and Wesfreid, J. E.

Subjects
Physics - Fluid Dynamics
Abstract

We present detailed experiments on transient growth of turbulent spots induced by external forcing in plane Couette-Poiseuille flow, which are studied in the framework of linear of transient growth. The experimental investigation is supplemented with full theoretical analysis. We compare quantitatively the experimental and theoretical results, including maximal gain and the time at which it occurs. We also present the limits of validity for the application of the linear theory at high amplitude perturbation and Reynolds number, showing experiments with self-sustained states., Comment: 12 pages, 9 figures

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Experimental investigation of flow behind a cube for moderate Reynolds numbers

Author

Klotz, L., Goujon-Durand, S., Rokicki, J., and Wesfreid, J. E.

Subjects
Physics - Fluid Dynamics
Abstract

The wake behind a cube with a face normal to the flow was investigated experimentally in a water tunnel using laser induced fluorescence visualisation (LIF) and particle image velocimetry (PIV) techniques. Measurements were carried out for moderate Reynolds numbers between 100 and 400 and in this range a sequence of two flow bifurcations was confirmed. Values for both onsets were determined in the framework of Landau`s instability model. The measured longitudinal vorticity was separated into three components corresponding to each of the identified regimes. It was shown that the vorticity associated with a basic flow regime originates from corners of the bluff body, in contrast to the two other contributions which are related to instability effects. The present experimental results are compared with numerical simulation carried out earlier by Saha (Phys. Fluids, vol. 16, 2004, pp. 1630-1646)., Comment: 27 pages, 17 figures

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. A generalized Schur complement for non-negative operators on linear space

Author

Friedrich, J., Günther, M., and Klotz, L.

Subjects
Mathematics - Functional Analysis, 47A05, 47A07
Abstract

Extending the corresponding notion for matrices or bounded linear operators on a Hilbert space we define a generalized Schur complement for a non-negative linear operator mapping a linear space into its dual and derive some of its properties.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Incidental Pulmonary Nodules: Differential diagnosis and clinical management.

Author

Baum, P., Schlamp, K., Klotz, L. V., Eichhorn, M. E., Herth, F., and Winter, H.

Abstract

Background: According to data from the USA, the incidence of incidentally discovered pulmonary nodules is 5.8 per 100 000 personyears for women and 5.2 per 100 000 person-years for men. Their management as recommended in the pertinent guidelines can substantially improve clinical outcomes. More than 95% of all pulmonary nodules revealed by computerized tomography (CT) are benign, but many cases are not managed in conformity with the guidelines. In this article, we summarize the appropriate clinical approach and provide an overview of the pertinent diagnostic studies and when they should be performed. Methods: This review is based on relevant publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed. The authors examined Englishlanguage recommendations issued since 2010 for the management of pulmonary nodules, supplemented by comments from the German lung cancer guideline. Results: In general, the risk that an incidentally discovered pulmonary nodule is malignant is low but rises markedly with increasing size and the presence of risk factors. When such a nodule is detected, the further recommendation, depending on size, is either for follow-up examinations with chest CT or else for an extended evaluation with positron emission tomography-CT and biopsy for histology. The diagnostic evaluation should include consideration of any earlier imaging studies that may be available as an indication of possible growth over time. Single nodules measuring less than 6 mm, in patients with few or no risk factors, do not require any follow-up. Lung cancer is diagnosed in just under 10% of patients with a nodule measuring more than 8 mm. Conclusion: The recommendations of the guidelines for the management of incidentally discovered pulmonary nodules are intended to prevent both over- and undertreatment. If a tumor is suspected, further care should be provided by an interdisciplinary team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Author

DallEra, M and Klotz, L

Subjects
Biomarkers, Tumor, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Germ-Line Mutation, Humans, Male, Multimodal Imaging, Neoplasm Grading, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Population Surveillance, Prostatic Neoplasms, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Utilization of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is increasing. Optimal selection criteria for this approach are undefined and questions remain on how best to expand inclusion beyond typical men with very low- or low-risk disease. We sought to review the current experience with AS for men with intermediate-risk featuresMethods:PubMed was queried for all relevant original publications describing outcomes for men with prostate cancer managed with AS. Outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk features as defined by the primary investigators were studied when available and compared with similar risk men undergoing immediate treatment. RESULTS: Cancer-specific survival for men managed initially with AS is similar to results published with immediate radical intervention. A total of five published AS series describe some outcomes for men with intermediate-risk features. Definitions of intermediate risk vary between studies. Men with Gleason 7 disease experience higher rates of clinical progression and are more likely to undergo treatment over time. Intermediate-risk men with Gleason 6 disease have similar outcomes to low-risk men. Men with Gleason 7 disease appear at higher risk for metastatic disease. Novel technologies including imaging and biomarkers may assist with patient selection and disease surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: The contemporary experiences of AS for men with intermediate-risk features suggest that although these men are at higher risk for eventual prostate-directed treatment, some are not significantly compromising chances for longer-term cure. Men with more than minimal Gleason pattern 4, however, must be carefully selected and surveyed for early signs of progression and may be at increased risk of metastases. Incorporating information from advanced imaging and biomarker technology will likely individualize future treatment decisions while improving overall surveillance strategies.

Published
2017

9. Has Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Become Safer? Lessons Learned from a Global Clinical Registry.

Author

Bangma, C, Doan, P, Zhu, L, Remmers, S, Nieboer, D, Helleman, J, Roobol, MJ, Sugimoto, M, Chung, BH, Lee, LS, Frydenberg, M, Klotz, L, Peacock, M, Perry, A, Bjartell, A, Rannikko, A, Van Hemelrijck, M, Dasgupta, P, Moore, C, Trock, BJ, Pavlovich, C, Steyerberg, E, Carroll, P, Koo, KC, Hayen, A, Thompson, J, Movember Foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Consortium, Bangma, C, Doan, P, Zhu, L, Remmers, S, Nieboer, D, Helleman, J, Roobol, MJ, Sugimoto, M, Chung, BH, Lee, LS, Frydenberg, M, Klotz, L, Peacock, M, Perry, A, Bjartell, A, Rannikko, A, Van Hemelrijck, M, Dasgupta, P, Moore, C, Trock, BJ, Pavlovich, C, Steyerberg, E, Carroll, P, Koo, KC, Hayen, A, Thompson, J, and Movember Foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Consortium

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men around the world with low-risk prostate cancer (or in selected cases intermediate-risk disease). Here, we report on the safety and acceptability of AS, and treatment outcomes for low- and intermediate-risk tumours over time in 14 623 men with follow-up of over 6 yr. METHODS: Clinical data from 26 999 men on AS from 25 cohorts in 15 countries have been collected in an international database from 2000 onwards. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Across our predefined four time periods of 4 yr each (covering the period 2000-2016), there was no significant change in overall survival (OS). However, metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates have improved since the second period and were excellent (>99%). Treatment-free survival rates for earlier periods showed a slightly more rapid shift to radical treatment. Over time, there was a constant proportion of 5% of men for whom anxiety was registered as the reason for treatment alteration. There was, however, also a subset of 10-15% in whom treatment was changed, for which no apparent reason was available. In a subset of men (10-15%), tumour progression was the trigger for treatment. In men who opted for radical treatment, surgery was the most common treatment modality. In those men who underwent radical treatment, 90% were free from biochemical recurrence at 5 yr after treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our study confirms that AS was a safe management option over the full duration in this large multicentre cohort with long-term follow-up, given the 84.1% OS and 99.4% MFS at 10 yr. The probability of treatment at 10 yr was 20% in men with initial low-risk tumours and 31% in men with intermediate-risk tumours. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours. PATIENT SUMMARY: Active surveillance

Published
2024

10. Proportion of Gleason 8-10 prostate cancer found on biopsy and tumor aggressiveness in matched cohorts of men in Asia and Western countries

Author

Dong, L., primary, Lajkosz, K., additional, Sanchez-Salas, R., additional, Tiwari, R.V., additional, Zhu, Y., additional, Dias dos Santos, C.P., additional, Dong, B., additional, Pan, J., additional, Chan, A., additional, Woon, D., additional, Kulkarni, G., additional, Perlis, N., additional, Hamilton, R., additional, Klotz, L., additional, Wallis, C.J.D., additional, Macek, P., additional, Tay, K.J., additional, Toi, A., additional, Finelli, A., additional, Fleshner, N.E., additional, Cathelineau, X., additional, Van Der Kwast, T.H., additional, Xue, W., additional, and Zlotta, A.R., additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. High socioeconomic impact on prescription behavior despite unrestricted access to disease-modifying therapies in people with multiple sclerosis.

Author

Samadzadeh, S., Havla, J., Lepka, K., Brinks, R., Meuth, S. G., Klotz, L., and Albrecht, P.

Subjects
DRUG bioavailability, DRUG accessibility, MEDICAL care, DRUG prescribing, GROSS domestic product
Abstract

Background: Economic and health care restraints strongly impact on drug prescription for chronic diseases. We aimed to identify potential factors for prescription behavior in chronic disease. Multiple sclerosis was chosen as a model disease due to its chronic character, incidence, and high socioeconomic impact. Methods: Germany was used as a model country as the health-care system is devoid of economic and drug availability restraints. German statutory health insurance data were analyzed retrospectively. The impact of number of university hospitals and neurologists as well as the gross domestic product (GDP) as potential factors on prescriptions of platform and high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) was analyzed. Results: Prescription of platform DMTs increased over time in almost all federal states with varying degree of increase. Univariate regression analysis showed that the prescription volume of platform DMTs positively correlated with the number of university hospitals and neurologists, as well as the GDP per federal state. Stepwise forward regression analysis including all potential factors indicated a statistically significant model for platform DMT (R² = 0.55; 95%-CI [0.28, 0.82]; p=0.001) revealing GDP as the main contributor. This was confirmed in the independent analysis. Conclusion: This study illustrates that even without overt drug prescription inequity, access to medication is not evenly distributed and depends on economic strength and regional medical care density. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

12. Characterization of the cardiac lymphatic vasculature

Author

Klotz, L. and Riley, P. R.

Subjects
618.92
Abstract

The lymphatic vasculature is a blind-ended network covering most tissues and organs of the body, crucial for tissue fluid homeostasis, immune surveillance and lipid adsorption from the gut. Recent evidence has proposed an entirely venous-derived mammalian lymphatic system. The major focus in the field has been on the systemic lymphatic vasculature, whilst organ-based lymphatics have been largely overlooked. In particular, the cardiac lymphatic vasculature has not been studied in great detail and the cellular origin of these vessels is yet to be determined. In contrast to the current dogma, the work presented in this thesis revealed that cardiac lymphatic vessels have a heterogeneous cellular origin. By utilizing multiple Cre transgenic mouse lines for lineage tracing studies and conditional Prox1 and Vegfr3 knockout mice, the data showed that the cardiac lymphatic vasculature is derived from both the blood and hemogenic endothelium during development. We hypothesized that the mechanisms underlying the development of the cardiac lymphatics might be reactivated following adult heart injury, therefore the innate cellular and molecular response of the cardiac lymphatic system to myocardial infarction (‘heart attack’) was investigated. A significant upregulation of lymphatic genes as well as a physical expansion of the lymphatic network via lymphangiogenesis was observed. These results prompt the re-evaluation of a century-long debate on the origin of lymphatic vessels and emphasize the significance of focusing on organ-based lymphatics during development and under pathological conditions. Specifically in the heart, this will enable better understanding of how to modulate the innate inflammatory response to promote cardiac wound healing and repair following myocardial infarction.

Published
2014

15. A randomized Phase 3 trial of Metformin in patients initiating androgen deprivation therapy as PRevention and Intervention of MEtabolic syndrome: The PRIME Study

Author

Elangovan, A., primary, Eigl, B.J., additional, Ghosh, S., additional, Kim, J., additional, Thoms, J., additional, Bouchard, M., additional, Peacock, M., additional, Fleshner, N., additional, Campbell, H., additional, Vigneault, E., additional, Vincent, F., additional, So, A., additional, Cury, F., additional, Quon, H., additional, Carlson, R., additional, Lambert, C., additional, Klotz, L., additional, Chi, K., additional, Brundage, M., additional, Pollak, M., additional, and Usmani, N., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Update on the diagnosis and treatment of neuromyelits optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) - revised recommendations of the Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group (NEMOS). Part I: Diagnosis and differential diagnosis

Author

Jarius, S., Aktas, O., Ayzenberg, I., Bellmann-Strobl, J., Berthele, A., Giglhuber, K., Häußler, V., Havla, J., Hellwig, K., Hümmert, M.W., Kleiter, I., Klotz, L., Krumbholz, M., Kümpfel, T., Paul, F., Ringelstein, M., Ruprecht, K., Senel, M., Stellmann, J.P., Bergh, F.T., Tumani, H., Wildemann, B., and Trebst, C.

Subjects
Function and Dysfunction of the Nervous System
Abstract

The term 'neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders' (NMOSD) is used as an umbrella term that refers to aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G (AQP4-IgG)-positive neuromyelitis optica (NMO) and its formes frustes and to a number of closely related clinical syndromes without AQP4-IgG. NMOSD were originally considered subvariants of multiple sclerosis (MS) but are now widely recognized as disorders in their own right that are distinct from MS with regard to immunopathogenesis, clinical presentation, optimum treatment, and prognosis. In part 1 of this two-part article series, which ties in with our 2014 recommendations, the neuromyelitis optica study group (NEMOS) gives updated recommendations on the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of NMOSD. A key focus is on differentiating NMOSD from MS and from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated encephalomyelitis (MOG-EM; also termed MOG antibody-associated disease, MOGAD), which shares significant similarity with NMOSD with regard to clinical and, partly, radiological presentation, but is a pathogenetically distinct disease. In part 2, we provide updated recommendations on the treatment of NMOSD, covering all newly approved drugs as well as established treatment options.

Published
2023

17. Apheresis therapies for NMOSD attacks: A retrospective study of 207 therapeutic interventions

Author

Kleiter, Ingo, Gahlen, Anna, Borisow, Nadja, Fischer, Katrin, Wernecke, Klaus-Dieter, Hellwig, Kerstin, Pache, Florence, Ruprecht, Klemens, Havla, Joachim, Kümpfel, Tania, Aktas, Orhan, Hartung, Hans-Peter, Ringelstein, Marius, Geis, Christian, Kleinschnitz, Christoph, Berthele, Achim, Hemmer, Bernhard, Angstwurm, Klemens, Stellmann, Jan-Patrick, Schuster, Simon, Stangel, Martin, Lauda, Florian, Tumani, Hayrettin, Mayer, Christoph, Krumbholz, Markus, Zeltner, Lena, Ziemann, Ulf, Linker, Ralf, Schwab, Matthias, Marziniak, Martin, Then Bergh, Florian, Hofstadt-van Oy, Ulrich, Neuhaus, Oliver, Zettl, Uwe K., Faiss, Jürgen, Wildemann, Brigitte, Paul, Friedemann, Jarius, Sven, Trebst, Corinna, Albrecht, P., Ayzenberg, I., Bayas, A., Bellmann-Strobl, J., Bischof, F., Bittner, S., Böttcher, T., Brettschneider, J., Buttmann, M., DSouza, M., Ettrich, B., Frank, B., Gass, A., Grothe, M., Guthke, K., Haarmann, A., Habedank, E., Hoffmann, F., Hoffmann, O., Hümmert, M.W., Junghans, J., Kaste, M., Kaulen, B., Kermer, P., Kern, P., Klotz, L., Köhler, W., Kolesilova, E., Korsen, M., Kowarik, M., Langel, S., Lee, D.H., Liebetrau, M., Luessi, F., Marouf, W., Meister, S., Melms, A., Metz, I., Münch, C., Niehaus, S., Pawlitzki, M., Pellkofer, H., Puhlmann, H.U., Pul, R., Retzlaf, N., Riedlinger, A., Rommer, P., Röpke, L., Rostásy, K., Rückriem, L., Ruschil, C., Schippling, S., Senel, M., Sieb, J.P., Sommer, C., Spreer, A., Steinbrecher, A., Stephanik, H., Stoppe, M., Süße, M., Tackenberg, B., Tünnerhoff, J., Veauthier, C., Walter, A., Wandinger, K.P., Warnke, C., Weber, M.S., Weissert, R., Wiendl, H., Wilke, C., Winkelmann, A., Yalachkov, Y., Young, K., Zentner, C., and Zipp, F.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

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

Author

Gillessen, S. Bossi, A. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J. Fizazi, K. James, N.D. Mottet, N. Shore, N. Small, E. Smith, M. Sweeney, C.J. Tombal, B. Antonarakis, E.S. Aparicio, A.M. Armstrong, A.J. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Blanchard, P. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Castellano, D. Castro, E. Cheng, H.H. Chi, K.N. Chowdhury, S. Clarke, C.S. Clarke, N. Daugaard, G. De Santis, M. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Ekeke, O.N. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fonteyne, V. Fossati, N. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Gravis, G. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Herrmann, K. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Horvath, L.G. Hussain, M. Jereczek-Fossa, B.A. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.-L. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Kramer, G. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Mahal, B. Maluf, F. Mateo, J. Matheson, D. Mehra, N. Merseburger, A. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mrabti, H. Mukherji, D. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Nguyen, P.L. Oh, W.K. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Pezaro, C.J. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M.A. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Sharifi, N. Skoneczna, I. Soule, H. Spratt, D.E. Srinivas, S. Sternberg, C.N. Steuber, T. Suzuki, H. Sydes, M.R. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Türkeri, L. Turco, F. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. Ürün, Y. Vale, C.L. van Oort, I. Vapiwala, N. Walz, J. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Yu, E.Y. Zapatero, A. Zilli, T. Omlin, A. and Gillessen, S. Bossi, A. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J. Fizazi, K. James, N.D. Mottet, N. Shore, N. Small, E. Smith, M. Sweeney, C.J. Tombal, B. Antonarakis, E.S. Aparicio, A.M. Armstrong, A.J. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Blanchard, P. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Castellano, D. Castro, E. Cheng, H.H. Chi, K.N. Chowdhury, S. Clarke, C.S. Clarke, N. Daugaard, G. De Santis, M. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Ekeke, O.N. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fonteyne, V. Fossati, N. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Gravis, G. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Herrmann, K. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Horvath, L.G. Hussain, M. Jereczek-Fossa, B.A. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.-L. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Kramer, G. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Mahal, B. Maluf, F. Mateo, J. Matheson, D. Mehra, N. Merseburger, A. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mrabti, H. Mukherji, D. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Nguyen, P.L. Oh, W.K. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Pezaro, C.J. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M.A. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Sharifi, N. Skoneczna, I. Soule, H. Spratt, D.E. Srinivas, S. Sternberg, C.N. Steuber, T. Suzuki, H. Sydes, M.R. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Türkeri, L. Turco, F. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. Ürün, Y. Vale, C.L. van Oort, I. Vapiwala, N. Walz, J. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Yu, E.Y. Zapatero, A. Zilli, T. Omlin, A.

Abstract

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 an

Published
2023

19. 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

Author

Gillessen, S. Bossi, A. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J. Fizazi, K. James, N.D. Mottet, N. Shore, N. Small, E. Smith, M. Sweeney, C. Tombal, B. Antonarakis, E.S. Aparicio, A.M. Armstrong, A.J. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Blanchard, P. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Castellano, D. Castro, E. Cheng, H.H. Chi, K.N. Chowdhury, S. Clarke, C.S. Clarke, N. Daugaard, G. De Santis, M. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Ngozi Ekeke, O. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fonteyne, V. Fossati, N. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Gravis, G. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Herrmann, K. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Horvath, L.G. Hussain, M. Jereczek-Fossa, B.A. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.-L. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Kramer, G. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C.J. Mahal, B.A. Maluf, F. Mateo, J. Matheson, D. Mehra, N. Merseburger, A. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mrabti, H. Mukherji, D. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Nguyen, P.L. Oh, W.K. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Pezaro, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M.A. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Pablo Sade, J. Sartor, O.A. Scher, H.I. Sharifi, N. Skoneczna, I. Soule, H. Spratt, D.E. Srinivas, S. Sternberg, C.N. Steuber, T. Suzuki, H. Sydes, M.R. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Türkeri, L. Turco, F. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. Ürün, Y. Vale, C.L. van Oort, I. Vapiwala, N. Walz, J. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Yu, E.Y. Zapatero, A. Zilli, T. Omlin, A. and Gillessen, S. Bossi, A. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J. Fizazi, K. James, N.D. Mottet, N. Shore, N. Small, E. Smith, M. Sweeney, C. Tombal, B. Antonarakis, E.S. Aparicio, A.M. Armstrong, A.J. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Blanchard, P. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Castellano, D. Castro, E. Cheng, H.H. Chi, K.N. Chowdhury, S. Clarke, C.S. Clarke, N. Daugaard, G. De Santis, M. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Ngozi Ekeke, O. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fonteyne, V. Fossati, N. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Gravis, G. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Herrmann, K. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Horvath, L.G. Hussain, M. Jereczek-Fossa, B.A. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.-L. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Kramer, G. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C.J. Mahal, B.A. Maluf, F. Mateo, J. Matheson, D. Mehra, N. Merseburger, A. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mrabti, H. Mukherji, D. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Nguyen, P.L. Oh, W.K. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Pezaro, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M.A. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Pablo Sade, J. Sartor, O.A. Scher, H.I. Sharifi, N. Skoneczna, I. Soule, H. Spratt, D.E. Srinivas, S. Sternberg, C.N. Steuber, T. Suzuki, H. Sydes, M.R. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Türkeri, L. Turco, F. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. Ürün, Y. Vale, C.L. van Oort, I. Vapiwala, N. Walz, J. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Yu, E.Y. Zapatero, A. Zilli, T. Omlin, A.

Abstract

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical manage

Published
2023

20. 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

Author

Gillessen, S., Bossi, A., Davis, I.D., Bono, J. de, Fizazi, K., James, N.D., Mottet, N., Shore, N., Small, E., Smith, M., Sweeney, C., Tombal, B., Antonarakis, E.S., Aparicio, A.M., Armstrong, A.J., Attard, G., Beer, T.M., Beltran, H., Bjartell, A., Blanchard, P., Briganti, A., Bristow, R.G., Bulbul, M., Caffo, O., Castellano, D., Castro, E., Cheng, H.H., Chi, K.N., Chowdhury, S., Clarke, C.S., Clarke, N., Daugaard, G., Santis, M. de, Duran, I., Eeles, R., Efstathiou, E., Efstathiou, J., Ekeke, O. Ngozi, Evans, C.P., Fanti, S., Feng, F.Y., Fonteyne, V., Fossati, N., Frydenberg, M., George, D., Gleave, M., Gravis, G., Halabi, S., Heinrich, D., Herrmann, K., Higano, C., Hofman, M.S., Horvath, L.G., Hussain, M., Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara A., Jones, R., Kanesvaran, R., Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.L., Khauli, R.B., Klotz, L., Kramer, G., Leibowitz, R., Logothetis, C.J., Mahal, B.A., Maluf, F. Cotait, Mateo, J., Matheson, D., Mehra, N., Merseburger, A., Morgans, A.K., Morris, M.J., Mrabti, H., Mukherji, D., Murphy, D.G.M., Murthy, V., Nguyen, P.L., Oh, W.K., Ost, P., O'Sullivan, J.M., Padhani, A.R., Pezaro, C., Poon, D.M.C., Pritchard, C.C., Rabah, D.M., Rathkopf, D., Reiter, R.E., Rubin, M.A., Ryan, C.J., Saad, F., Sade, J. Pablo, Sartor, O.A., Scher, H.I., Sharifi, N., Skoneczna, I., Soule, H., Spratt, D.E., Srinivas, S., Sternberg, C.N., Steuber, T., Oort, I.M. van, Zilli, T., Omlin, A., Gillessen, S., Bossi, A., Davis, I.D., Bono, J. de, Fizazi, K., James, N.D., Mottet, N., Shore, N., Small, E., Smith, M., Sweeney, C., Tombal, B., Antonarakis, E.S., Aparicio, A.M., Armstrong, A.J., Attard, G., Beer, T.M., Beltran, H., Bjartell, A., Blanchard, P., Briganti, A., Bristow, R.G., Bulbul, M., Caffo, O., Castellano, D., Castro, E., Cheng, H.H., Chi, K.N., Chowdhury, S., Clarke, C.S., Clarke, N., Daugaard, G., Santis, M. de, Duran, I., Eeles, R., Efstathiou, E., Efstathiou, J., Ekeke, O. Ngozi, Evans, C.P., Fanti, S., Feng, F.Y., Fonteyne, V., Fossati, N., Frydenberg, M., George, D., Gleave, M., Gravis, G., Halabi, S., Heinrich, D., Herrmann, K., Higano, C., Hofman, M.S., Horvath, L.G., Hussain, M., Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara A., Jones, R., Kanesvaran, R., Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.L., Khauli, R.B., Klotz, L., Kramer, G., Leibowitz, R., Logothetis, C.J., Mahal, B.A., Maluf, F. Cotait, Mateo, J., Matheson, D., Mehra, N., Merseburger, A., Morgans, A.K., Morris, M.J., Mrabti, H., Mukherji, D., Murphy, D.G.M., Murthy, V., Nguyen, P.L., Oh, W.K., Ost, P., O'Sullivan, J.M., Padhani, A.R., Pezaro, C., Poon, D.M.C., Pritchard, C.C., Rabah, D.M., Rathkopf, D., Reiter, R.E., Rubin, M.A., Ryan, C.J., Saad, F., Sade, J. Pablo, Sartor, O.A., Scher, H.I., Sharifi, N., Skoneczna, I., Soule, H., Spratt, D.E., Srinivas, S., Sternberg, C.N., Steuber, T., Oort, I.M. van, Zilli, T., and Omlin, A.

Abstract

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical manage

Published
2023

24. Abstract No. 9 ▪ FEATURED ABSTRACT Pivotal Study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation (TULSA) of the Prostate: 4-year Follow-up

Author

Raman, S., primary, Arora, S., additional, Macura, K., additional, Oto, A., additional, Futterer, J., additional, Staruch, R., additional, Tirkes, T., additional, Bonekamp, D., additional, Haider, M., additional, Cool, D., additional, Nandalur, K., additional, Nicolau, C., additional, Costa, D., additional, Persigehl, T., additional, Clarke, G., additional, Chin, J., additional, Klotz, L., additional, and Eggener, S., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. Monitoring von Blutparametern unter verlaufsmodifizierender MS-Therapie: Substanzspezifische Relevanz und aktuelle Handlungsempfehlungen

Author

Klotz, L., Berthele, A., Brück, W., Chan, A., Flachenecker, P., Gold, R., Haghikia, A., Hellwig, K., Hemmer, B., Hohlfeld, R., Korn, T., Kümpfel, T., Lang, M., Limmroth, V., Linker, R. A., Meier, U., Meuth, S. G., Paul, F., Salmen, A., Stangel, M., Tackenberg, B., Tumani, H., Warnke, C., Weber, M. S., Ziemssen, T., Zipp, F., and Wiendl, H.

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. Glycolytic interference blocks influenza A virus propagation by impairing viral polymerase-driven synthesis of genomic vRNA

Author

Kleinehr, J., primary, Daniel, K., additional, Günl, F., additional, Janowski, J., additional, Brunotte, L., additional, Liebmann, M., additional, Behrens, M., additional, Gerdemann, A., additional, Klotz, L., additional, Esselen, M., additional, Humpf, H.-U., additional, Ludwig, S., additional, and Hrincius, E. R., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

32. Aktuelles zur Therapieumstellung bei Multipler Sklerose

Author

Kolber, P., Luessi, F., Meuth, S.G., Klotz, L., Korn, T., Trebst, C., Tackenberg, B., Kieseier, B., Kümpfel, T., Fleischer, V., Tumani, H., Wildemann, B., Lang, M., Flachenecker, P., Meier, U., Brück, W., Limmroth, V., Haghikia, A., Hartung, H.-P., Stangel, M., Hohlfeld, R., Hemmer, B., Gold, R., Wiendl, H., and Zipp, F.

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

34. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic chemoperfusion for malignant pleural mesothelioma within a multimodal treatment approach – a multicenter study in Germany

Author

Klotz, L, additional, Zimmermann, J, additional, Müller, K, additional, Hassan, M, additional, Kovacs, J, additional, Koller, M, additional, Schmid, S, additional, Huppertz, G, additional, Markowiak, T, additional, Passlick, B, additional, Winter, H, additional, Hofmann, H-S, additional, Hatz, R, additional, Eichhorn, M, additional, and Ried, M, additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Gillessen, S. Armstrong, A. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Chi, K.N. Clarke, C.S. Clarke, N. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J.S. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Ekeke, O.N. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fizazi, K. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Hussain, M. James, N. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Maluf, F. Millman, R. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mottet, N. Mrabti, H. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Oh, W.K. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Parker, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Shore, N. Skoneczna, I. Small, E. Smith, M. Soule, H. Spratt, D.E. Sternberg, C.N. Suzuki, H. Sweeney, C. Sydes, M.R. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Tombal, B. Türkeri, L. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. van Oort, I. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Zapatero, A. Omlin, A. and Gillessen, S. Armstrong, A. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Chi, K.N. Clarke, C.S. Clarke, N. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J.S. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Ekeke, O.N. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fizazi, K. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Hussain, M. James, N. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Maluf, F. Millman, R. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mottet, N. Mrabti, H. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Oh, W.K. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Parker, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Shore, N. Skoneczna, I. Small, E. Smith, M. Soule, H. Spratt, D.E. Sternberg, C.N. Suzuki, H. Sweeney, C. Sydes, M.R. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Tombal, B. Türkeri, L. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. van Oort, I. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Zapatero, A. Omlin, A.

Abstract

Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. Design, setting, and participants: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: The voting reflected the opinions of 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 reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical eviden

Published
2022

39. Corrigendum to “What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021” [Eur Urol 82(1):6–11] (European Urology (2022) 82(1) (6–11), (S0302283822016505), (10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.010))

Author

Turco, F. Armstrong, A. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Chi, K.N. Clarke, C. Clarke, N. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fizazi, K. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Hussain, M. James, N. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Maluf, F. Millman, R. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mottet, N. Mrabti, H. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Oh, W.K. Ekeke, O.N. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Parker, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Shore, N. Skoneczna, I. Small, E. Smith, M. Soule, H. Spratt, D. Sternberg, C.N. Suzuki, H. Sweeney, C. Sydes, M. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Tombal, B. Türkeri, L. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. van Oort, I. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Zapatero, A. Gillessen, S. Omlin, A. and Turco, F. Armstrong, A. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Chi, K.N. Clarke, C. Clarke, N. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fizazi, K. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Hussain, M. James, N. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Maluf, F. Millman, R. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mottet, N. Mrabti, H. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Oh, W.K. Ekeke, O.N. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Parker, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Shore, N. Skoneczna, I. Small, E. Smith, M. Soule, H. Spratt, D. Sternberg, C.N. Suzuki, H. Sweeney, C. Sydes, M. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Tombal, B. Türkeri, L. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. van Oort, I. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Zapatero, A. Gillessen, S. Omlin, A.

Abstract

The authors regret that Axel Heidenreich was added to the author list in error. The author list is now corrected as above, however the affiliations of remaining authors have been retained. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. © 2022 The Author(s)

Published
2022

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

Author

Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Onyeanunam, NE, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Pablo Sade, J, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, Omlin, A, Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Onyeanunam, NE, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Pablo Sade, J, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, and Omlin, A

Abstract

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.

Published
2022

41. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Gillessen, S, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, CS, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, JS, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Ekeke, ON, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, DE, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, MR, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Omlin, A, Gillessen, S, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, CS, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, JS, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Ekeke, ON, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, DE, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, MR, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, and Omlin, A

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflected the opinions of 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 reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical eviden

Published
2022

42. What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021 (vol 82, pg 6, 2022)

Author

Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ekeke, ON, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, HI, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, Omlin, A, Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ekeke, ON, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, HI, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, and Omlin, A

Published
2022

43. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Tilki, Derya, Gillessen, S.; Armstron, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.S.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Ekeke, O.N.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I., Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, School of Medicine, Tilki, Derya, Gillessen, S.; Armstron, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.S.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Ekeke, O.N.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I., Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, and School of Medicine

Abstract

Background: innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: to present the voting results from APCCC 2021. Design, setting, and participants: the experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: the voting reflected the opinions of 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 reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: these voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical eviden, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship; Prostate Cancer Foundation; Peter MacCallum Foundation; NHMRC Investigator Grant

Published
2022

44. What experts think about prostate cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic: report from The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Tilki, Derya, Turco, F.; Armstrong, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ekeke, O.N.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.-E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I.; Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Gillessen, S.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, School of Medicine, Tilki, Derya, Turco, F.; Armstrong, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ekeke, O.N.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.-E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I.; Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Gillessen, S.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, and School of Medicine

Abstract

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., NA

Published
2022

47. Abstract No. 111 ▪ FEATURED ABSTRACT Pivotal trial of MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation in men with localized prostate cancer: three-year follow-up

Author

Raman, S., primary, Arora, S., additional, Macura, K., additional, Oto, A., additional, Fütterer, J., additional, Staruch, R., additional, Tirkes, T., additional, Bonekamp, D., additional, Haider, M., additional, Cool, D., additional, Nandalur, K., additional, Nicolau, C., additional, Costa, D., additional, Persigehl, T., additional, Beserra, A., additional, Chin, J., additional, Klotz, L., additional, and Eggener, S., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

49. Costs and health-related quality of life in patients with NMO spectrum disorders and MOG-antibody-associated disease: CHANCE(NMO) study

Author

Hümmert, M.W., Schöppe, L.M., Bellmann-Strobl, J., Siebert, N., Paul, F., Duchow, A., Pellkofer, H., Kümpfel, T., Havla, J., Jarius, S., Wildemann, B., Berthele, A., Bergh, F.T., Pawlitzki, M., Klotz, L., Kleiter, I., Stangel, M., Gingele, S., Weber, M.S., Faiss, J.H., Pul, R., Walter, A., Zettl, U., Senel, M., Stellmann, J.P., Häußler, V., Hellwig, K., Ayzenberg, I., Aktas, O., Ringelstein, M., Schreiber-Katz, O., and Trebst, C.

Subjects
Function and Dysfunction of the Nervous System, health care economics and organizations
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-antibody associated disease (MOGAD).MethodsIn this multicenter cross-sectional study, data on consumption of medical and non-medical resources and work ability were assessed via patient questionnaires. Costs were analyzed in EUR for 2018 from the societal perspective. HRQoL was captured by the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Clinical data were retrieved from the Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group (NEMOS) database. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve patients (80% women; median age 50 [19-83] years; median disease duration 7 [0-43] years; median Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 3.5 [0-8.5]; 66% Aquaporin-4 IgG, 22% MOG IgG positive, 12% double seronegative) were analyzed. The mean total annual per capita cost of illness accounted for EUR (Euro) 59 574 (95% CI 51 225 to 68 293; USD [United States dollars] 70 297, 95% CI 60 445 to 80 586), and the mean index value of the EQ-5D-5L was 0.693 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.73). The most important cost drivers were informal care costs (28% of total costs), indirect costs (23%) and drugs (16%), especially immunotherapeutics. Costs showed a positive correlation with disease severity (ρ=0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.65); in the EDSS 6.5-8.5 subgroup the mean annual costs were EUR 129 687 (95% CI 101 946 to 160 336; USD 153 031, 95% CI 120 296 to 189 196). The HRQoL revealed a negative correlation to disease severity (ρ=-0.69, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.61); in the EDSS 6.5-8.5 subgroup the EQ-5D-5L mean index value was 0.195 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.28). Neither antibody status nor disease duration influenced the total annual costs or HRQoL. CONCLUSION: These German data from the era without approved preventive immunotherapies show enormous effects of the diseases on costs and quality of life. An early and cost-effective therapy should be provided to prevent long-term disability and preserve quality of life.

Published
2022

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results