Sellinger, Scott B.

AbstractCurrent US clinical practice guidelines for advanced prostate cancer management contain recommendations based on high‐level evidence from randomized controlled trials; however, these guidelines do not address the nuanced clinical questions that are unanswered by prospective trials but nonetheless encountered in day‐to‐day practice. To address these practical questions, the 2024 US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC 2024) was created to generate US‐focused expert clinical decision‐making guidance for circumstances in which level 1 evidence is lacking. At the second annual USPCC meeting (USPCC 2024), a multidisciplinary panel of experts convened to discuss ongoing clinical challenges related to 5 topic areas: biochemical recurrence; metastatic, castration‐sensitive prostate cancer; poly [ADP‐ribose] polymerase inhibitors; prostate‐specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy; and metastatic, castration‐resistant prostate cancer. Through a modified Delphi process, 34 consensus recommendations were developed and are intended to provide clinicians who manage prostate cancer with guidance related to the implementation of novel treatments and technologies. In this report, the authors review the areas of consensus identified by the USPCC 2024 experts and evaluate ongoing unmet needs regarding translational application of the current clinical evidence.

Purpose: The advent of new imaging agents offers enhanced sensitivity and specificity in the detection and staging of prostate cancer. A growing array of treatment options and ongoing advancements in imaging technologies allow earlier and more extensive detection of metastatic disease and shifting the boundaries between disease states previously defined by conventional imaging. This review seeks to synthesize existing data and expert opinion to better guide patient management in the new era of targeted precision imaging (TPI). Materials and Methods: The Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence VI Group gathered to develop pathways/recommendations regarding how TPI could best be deployed, given approvals of key radiotracers including 18F-fluciclovine, 68Ga-PSMA, and 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/CT. Results: Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence VI Group members developed consensus pathways/suggestions based on the best available evidence for use of TPI in prostate cancer. Conclusions: Patients with prostate cancer have the potential to benefit from judicious use of TPI. However, additional research is needed to ensure that TPI is used appropriately and provides actionable findings that inform treatment decisions for these patients.