ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016
[Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2015 in St. Gallen : Critical review of the recommendations on diagnosis and therapy of metastatic prostate cancer by a German expert panel].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Japanese Expert Panel Meeting on the Management of Prostate Cancer with Bone Metastases.Oncology and therapy · 2018Article
- Molecular and cellular mechanisms of castration resistant prostate cancer.Oncology letters · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In March 2015, the first Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCC) took place in St. Gallen. 41 experts from 17 countries reviewed important areas of controversy in advanced hormone-naive and castration-resistant prostate cancer and gave therapy recommendations. These results have been recently published in "Annals of Oncology". While most of the recommendations from St. Gallen are comprehensible, some of them need to be further discussed. Therefore, we as a German expert panel will critically debate the St. Gallen recommendations. For metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer, continuous androgen deprivation remains the standard. There is no evidence for superiority of primary maximal androgen deprivation. Patients suitable for chemotherapy, especially in the presence of high tumour burden, should receive androgen deprivation plus taxanes upfront. In metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, novel hormonal agents like abiraterone or enzalutamid should be the treatment of choice in the majority of patients. Taxanes should be used first-line in patients with unfavourable prognostic markers. Radium-223 is an option in symptomatic patients with bone metastases. There is first evidence that second-line hormonal treatment after first-line failure of a novel endocrine agent has a high failure rate. Cabazitaxel should be part of the treatment sequence in patients with a good performance status. Baseline staging for castration-resistant prostate cancer should include CT-abdomen/-chest and bone scan. Radiographic monitoring should be performed 2 to 3 times a year. Determination of PSA and ALP is to take place every 2 to 4 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26820660What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.