Importance:The ideal duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for treating localized prostate cancer is unknown due to variable adherence and treatment durations tested in clinical trials. Objective:To determine the ideal duration of ADT for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. Data Sources:This individual patient data meta-analysis of 13 randomized phase 3 clinical trials evaluated the use of radiotherapy alone or with ADT. It included patients with a median follow-up of 11.3 (IQR, 9.5-14.5) years and ADT duration of 0 to 36 months. Most patients (7392 [72%]) included had National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk or very high-risk disease. Study Selection:For this meta-analysis, a systematic literature search from 1980 to 2020 was performed in trial registries (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov), MEDLINE (1966-2020), Embase (1982-2020), Web of Science, and Scopus to identify trials. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses were performed. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 distant metastasis at 10 years was calculated based on prognostic risk group. The analyses were conducted from January 5 to August 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point for this study was overall survival, defined as time to death or last follow-up from randomization. Secondary end points included biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer-specific mortality, and other-cause mortality. Results:The median (IQR) age among the 10 266 male patients was 70 (65-74) years. Longer durations of ADT were associated with nonlinear improvement in relative benefits of DM, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and overall survival, with reduced estimated benefits beyond 9 to 12 months of ADT based on the end point. There was a near-linear increase in other-cause mortality associated with long-term ADT use (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09-1.50; P = .002 for 28 vs 0 months of ADT). The optimal ADT duration based on 10-year DM was 0, 6, 12 months, and undefined for patients with 1 intermediate-risk factor, 2 or more intermediate-risk factors, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk and very high-risk disease, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance:The results of this meta-analysis suggest that, for men with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy and ADT, there are relative and absolute benefits from increasing durations of ADT that help provide individualized risk estimates.
To evaluate whether reduced doses (RD) of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) or sacituzumab govitecan (SG) provide similar outcomes to the approved standard doses (SD) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). This retrospective cohort included mBC patients receiving at least one cycle of SG (April 2021–May 2024) or T-DXd (February 2020–December 2024). Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Kaplan–Meier curves and Log-Rank tests estimated and compared PFS and OS from treatment initiation. Subgroup analyses were performed by HER2 and hormone receptor status. 48 patients received SG (24 RD vs. 24 SD) and 66 received T-DXd (29 RD vs. 37 SD). Median PFS for SG was 3 months in both SD (95
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate are intended to serve as a resource for health care providers to identify individuals who may benefit from cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling and testing; help guide decisions related to genetic testing; and facilitate a multidisciplinary approach in the comprehensive care of individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. The current guidelines focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants associated with increased risk of these cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s most recent recommendations regarding screening for prostate cancer and pancreas cancer, as well as testing criteria for nonepithelial ovarian cancer.
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Small Cell Lung Cancer provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight recent updates, with a particular focus on changes to systemic therapies and radiation treatment in the NCCN Guidelines for Small Cell Lung Cancer.
BACKGROUND:For over a decade the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) covers a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. In 2025, a dedicated event was organised to discuss key questions in clinical management of patients with prostate cancer (PC) related to diagnostic tools (APCCC Diagnostics). Here we present the voting results of the APCCC Diagnostics questions. OBJECTIVE; DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTECIPANTS: APCCC Diagnostics 2025 is a pilot project. The scientific committee for APCCC Diagnostics 2025 developed 88 multiple-choice consensus questions on six different topics. Prior to the conference, the panel members (''panellists'') voted on these questions via a web-based survey. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Consensus was only reached on 17 of 88 questions (19%), of which six (7%) received a strong consensus. Specifically, consensus was reached for two of 17 questions (14%) in "how to diagnose PC"; seven of 16 (44%) in "how to stage PC"; three of 14 (21%) in "Biochemical Recurrence Scenario"; two of 11 (18%) in "metastatic disease: what to do?"; zero of 18 (0%) in "monitoring metastatic PC"; and three of 12 (25%) in "radioligand therapy and imaging." CONCLUSIONS:The voting results and their discussion may assist physicians in navigating controversial areas of clinical management related to diagnosis, staging, and restaging in the different clinical settings for PC, particularly where high-level evidence is scarce or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research.
