First brazilian consensus of advanced prostate cancer: recommendations for clinical practice

• Autor(a) principal: Sasse,Andre Deeke
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Outros Autores: Wiermann,Evanius Garcia, Herchenhorn,Daniel, Bastos,Diogo Assed, Schutz,Fabio A., Maluf,Fernando Cotait, Coura Filho,George, Morbeck,Igor Alexandre Protzner, Cerci,Juliano J., Smaletz,Oren, Lima,Volney Soares, Adamy Jr.,Ari, Campos,Franz Santos de, Carvalhal,Gustavo Franco, Cezar,Leandro Casemiro, Dall´Oglio,Marcos Francisco, Sadi,Marcus Vinicius, Reis,Rodolfo Borges dos, Nogueira,Lucas
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382017000300407
• topic: Prostatic Neoplasms; Practice Guideline [Publication Type]; Diagnosis

ABSTRACT Introduction Prostate cancer still represents a major cause of morbidity, and still about 20% of men with the disease are diagnosed or will progress to the advanced stage without the possibility of curative treatment. Despite the recent advances in scientific and technological knowledge and the availability of new therapies, there is still considerable heterogeneity in the therapeutic approaches for metastatic prostate cancer. Objectives This article presents a summary of the I Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer, conducted by the Brazilian Society of Urology and Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology. Materials and Methods Experts were selected by the medical societies involved. Forty issues regarding controversial issues in advanced disease were previously elaborated. The panel met for consensus, with a threshold established for 2/3 of the participants. Results and Conclusions The treatment of advanced prostate cancer is complex, due to the existence of a large number of therapies, with different response profiles and toxicities. The panel addressed recommendations on preferred choice of therapies, indicators that would justify their change, and indicated some strategies for better sequencing of treatment in order to maximize the potential for disease control with the available therapeutic arsenal. The lack of consensus on some topics clearly indicates the absence of strong evidence for some decisions.