Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

BackgroundInnovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.ObjectiveTo present the results from the APCCC 2019.Design, setting, and participantsSimilar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.Results and limitationsPanellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.ConclusionsThese voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.Patient summaryThe Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.     

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

BackgroundInnovations 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.ObjectiveTo present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.Design, setting, and participantsBefore 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 analysisConsensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.Results and limitationsThe 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.ConclusionsThese voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.Patient summaryThe Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.     

National consensus quality indicators to assess quality of care for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer: An evidence-informed,modified Delphi survey of Canadian urologists/radiation oncologists

IntroductionAlthough many low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients worldwide currently receive active surveillance (AS), adherence to clinical guidelines on AS and variations in care at the population level remain poorly understood. We sought to develop system-level quality indicators (QIs) and performance measures for benchmarking the quality of care during AS.MethodsConvenience sampling methods were used to identify an expert panel among practicing urologists and radiation oncologists across Canada. QI development involved two phases: 1) proposed QIs were identified through a literature search and published clinical guidelines on AS; and 2) indicators were selected through a modified Delphi process during which each panelist independently rated each indicator based on clinical importance. QI items were chosen as appropriate measures for quality of AS care if they met prespecified criteria (disagreement index <1 and median importance of ≥7 on a nine-point scale).ResultsAmong 42 invited expert panel members, the response rate was 45% (n=19). Expert panel members were well-represented by type of physician (84% urologists, 16% radiation oncologists) and practice setting (79% academic, 21% non-academic). The expert panel endorsed 20 of 27 potential indicators as appropriate for measuring quality of AS care.ConclusionsWe developed a set of QIs to measure AS care using published guidelines and clinical experts. Use of the indicators will be assessed for feasibility in healthcare databases. Reporting quality of care with these AS indicators may enhance adherence, reduce variation in care, and improve patient outcomes among low-risk PCa patients on AS.     

Evidence for the Efficacy of Over-the-counter Vitamin A Cosmetic Products in the Improvement of Facial Skin Aging: A Systematic Review

BackgroundSkincare retailers sell a plethora of retinol-containing products, ranging from serums and moisturisers to masks and eye creams.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review is to critically appraise the randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials of the use of over-the-counter retinol products in the treatment of facial skin aging in order to assess evidence regarding their efficacy. MethodsA PubMed search was conducted for relevant clinical trial publications, using the terms “retinoid,” “tretinoin,” “retinol,” “retinal,” “retinaldehyde,” and “skin.”ResultsNine randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trials were found. Four of these trials reported no statistically significant differences between the retinol-containing treatment and vehicle. The remaining five trials provide weak evidence for retinol potentially having a mild ameliorating effect on fine facial skin wrinkle lines only. However, these five trials showed major methodological flaws, which were critically analyzed in this review, calling into question the validity of any positive results.ConclusionIt can be suggested that, in the case of retinols, the “positive” trials should not inform clinical decision-making but rather may serve as tools for advertising. Until at least one high-quality clinical trial of retinol-containing products in the treatment of (photo-)aged skin is published, there is very little, if any, trustworthy evidence available to support the use of over-the-counter cosmetic retinol-containing products to improve the appearance of aged skin.     

Recommendations by Canadian urologists and radiation oncologists for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

Objective

Previous work has shown that urologists and radiation oncologists prefer the treatment that they themselves deliver when treating clinically localized prostate cancer. Our objective was to determine whether Canadian radiation oncologists and urologists have similar biases in favour of the treatments that they themselves deliver for localized prostate cancer.

Methods

We developed a survey to poll the beliefs that Canadian radiation oncologists and urologists held toward prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening, survival benefits of treatment, recommendations for treatment of prostate cancer and the likelihood of side effects with each therapy.

Results

Urologists were more likely to recommend routine PSA screening for men up to age 70 (p < 0.001), while radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend PSA screening for men over age 80 (p < 0.04). More urologists felt that there was “definitely” a survival advantage with radical prostatectomy (RP) (60% v. 21%, p < 0.001). More radiation oncologists recommend external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) (p < 0.01) or brachytherapy (p < 0.03) to treat low-risk prostate cancer. More urologists than radiation oncologists recommend RP for intermediate-risk patients (98% v. 70%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Most Canadian urologists and radiation oncologists recommend routine PSA screening for men aged 50 to 70. A significant preference was detected among both urologists and radiation oncologists for the treatment that they themselves deliver. While both urologists and radiation oncologists recommend prostatectomy for the treatment of low-risk localized prostate cancer, urologists are significantly less likely to recommend EBRT. Conversely, when patients present with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, radiation oncologists were significantly less likely than urologists to recommend a prostatectomy.     

Theatre ventilation

IntroductionOwing to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been significant disruption to all surgical specialties. In the UK, units have cancelled elective surgery and a decrease in aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) was favoured. Centres around the world advocate the use of negative pressure environments for AGPs in reducing the spread of infectious airborne particles. We present an overview of operating theatre ventilation systems and the respective evidence with relation to surgical site infection (SSI) and airborne pathogen transmission in light of COVID-19.MethodsA literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases. Search terms included “COVID-19”, “theatre ventilation”, “laminar”, “turbulent” and “negative pressure”.FindingsEvidence for laminar flow ventilation in reducing the rate of SSI in orthopaedic surgery is widely documented. There is little evidence to support its use in general surgery. Following previous viral outbreaks, some centres have introduced negative pressure ventilation in an attempt to decrease exposure of airborne pathogens to staff and surrounding areas. This has again been suggested during the COVID-19 pandemic. A limited number of studies show some positive results for the use of negative pressure ventilation systems and reduction in spread of pathogens; however, cost, accessibility and duration of conversion remain an unexplored issue. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to advocate large scale conversion at this time. Nevertheless, it may be useful for each centre to have its own negative pressure room available for AGPs and high risk patients.     

Narrative review of prostate cancer grading systems: will the Gleason scores be replaced by the Grade Groups?

The Gleason grading system, proposed by Dr. Donald F. Gleason in 1966, is one of the most important prognostic factors in men with prostate cancer (PCa). At consensus conferences held in 2005 and 2014, organized by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), the system was modified to reflect the current diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. In particular, in the 2014 Conference, it was recognized that there were weaknesses with the original and the 2005 ISUP modified Gleason systems. Based on the results of a research conducted by Prof. JI Epstein and his group, a new grading system was proposed by the ISUP in order to address some of such deficiencies: i.e., the five distinct Grade Groups (GGs). Since 2014, results of studies have been published by different groups and societies, including the Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS), giving additional support to the prognostic role of the architectural Gleason patterns and, in particular, of the GGs. A revised GG system, taking into account the percentage of Gleason pattern (GP) 4, cribriform and intraductal carcinoma, tertiary GP 5, and reactive stroma grade, has shown to have some advantages, however not ready for adoption in the current practice. The aim of this contribution was to review the major updates and recommendations regarding the GPs and GSs, as well as the GGs, trying to give an answer to the following questions: “How has the grade group system been used in the routine?” and “will the Gleason scoring system be replace by the grade groups?” We also discussed the potential implementation in the future of molecular pathology and artificial intelligence in grading to further define risk groups in patients with PCa.     

PSA density improves the rate of prostate cancer detection in Chinese men with a PSA between 2.5–10.0 ng ml-1 and 10.1–20.0 ng ml-1: a multicenter study

Chinese men should have a higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) “gray zone” than the traditional value of 2.5–10.0 ng ml⁻¹ since the incidence of prostate cancer (PCa) in Chinese men is relative low. We hypothesized that PSA density (PSAD) could improve the rate of PCa detection in Chinese men with a PSA higher than the traditional PSA “gray zone.” A total of 461 men with a PSA between 2.5 and 20.0 ng ml⁻¹, who had undergone prostatic biopsy at two Chinese centers were included in the analysis. The men were then further divided into groups with a PSA between 2.5–10.0 ng ml⁻¹ and 10.1–20.0 ng ml⁻¹. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the efficacy of PSA and PSAD for the diagnosis of PCa. In men with a PSA of 2.5–10.0 ng ml⁻¹ or 10.1–20.0 ng ml⁻¹, the areas under the ROC curve were higher for PSAD than for PSA. This was consistent across both centers and the cohort overall. When the entire cohort was considered, the optimal PSAD cut-off for predicting PCa in men with a PSA of 2.5–10.0 ng ml⁻¹ was 0.15 ng ml⁻¹ ml⁻¹, with a sensitivity of 64.4% and specificity of 64.6%. The optimal cut-off for PSAD in men with a PSA of 10.1–20.0 ng ml⁻¹ was 0.33 ng ml⁻¹ ml⁻¹, with a sensitivity of 60.3% and specificity of 82.7%. PSAD can improve the effectiveness for PCa detection in Chinese men with a PSA of 2.5–10.0 ng ml⁻¹ (traditional Western PSA “gray zone”) and 10.1–20.0 ng ml⁻¹ (Chinese PSA “gray zone”).     

Is the Proportion of Patients with “Successful” Outcomes After Two-stage Revision for Prosthetic Joint Infection Different When Applying the Musculoskeletal Infection Society Outcome Reporting Tool Compared with the Delphi-based Consensus Criteria?

BackgroundThere are a variety of criteria for defining successful treatment after two-stage exchange arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infection (PJI). To accurately assess current practices and improve techniques, it is important to first establish reliable, clinically relevant, reproducible criteria for defining persistent infection and “successful” outcomes.Question/purposeIs the proportion of patients considered to have successful management of PJI after two-stage resection arthroplasty smaller using 2019 Musculoskeletal Infection Society Outcome Reporting Tool (MSIS ORT) criteria than when using a Delphi-based criterion?MethodsPatients were retrospectively identified by Current Procedural Technology codes for resection arthroplasty with placement of an antibiotic spacer for infected THA or TKA between April 1, 2011 and January 1, 2018 at a tertiary academic institution. The initial review identified 180 procedures during this time period. Nine patients had documented transition of care outside the system, 16 did not meet the MSIS criteria for chronic PJI, and 34 patients were excluded for lack of documented 2-year follow-up. The mean follow-up duration of the final cohort of 121 procedures in 120 patients was approximately 3.7 ± 1.7 years. Forty percent (49 of 121) of the procedures were performed on the hip and 60% (72 of 121) were performed on the knee. The mean time from primary THA or TKA to explantation was 4.6 years. The mean age of the patients at the time of explantation was 66 years. The mean time from spacer placement to replantation was 119 days. The final 121 patient records were reviewed by a single reviewer and outcomes were subsequently assigned to “successful” and “unsuccessful” outcomes based on the MSIS ORT and Delphi-based consensus criterion, two previously published and validated multidimensional definition schemes. Chi-squared and t-test analyses were performed to identify differences between “successful” and “unsuccessful” outcomes with respect to patient baseline characteristics using each outcome-reporting criterion.ResultsOverall, the MSIS ORT classified a smaller proportion of patients as having a “successful” treatment outcome after two-stage exchange arthroplasty for PJI than the Delphi-based consensus method did (MSIS: 55% [63 of 114], Delphi: 70% [71 of 102]; relative risk 0.79 [0.65-0.98]; p = 0.03). However, there were no differences when stratified by hips (MSIS: 55% [26 of 47], Delphi: 74% [29 of 39]; relative risk 0.74 [0.54-1.02]; p = 0.07) and knees (MSIS: 55% [37 of 67], Delphi: 67% [42 of 63]; relative risk 0.83 [0.63-1.09]; p = 0.19). Notably, the disease of 16% of the patients (19 of 121) was not classifiable per the Delphi method because these patients never underwent reimplantation.ConclusionThe present study demonstrated that the MSIS criteria detect fewer instances of “successful” infection management after two-stage resection arthroplasty for PJI than the Delphi method in this cohort. Based on these findings, researchers and surgeons should aim for standardized reporting after intervention for PJI to allow for a better comparison of outcomes across different studies and ultimately allow for improved techniques and approaches to the treatment of PJI.Level of EvidenceLevel III, diagnostic study.     

Scoring system for prediction of metastatic spine tumor prognosis

Assessing the prognosis before treatment for metastatic spine tumor is extremely important in therapy selection. Therefore, we review some prognostic scoring systems and their outcomes. Articles with combinations of two keywords among “metastatic spine tumor” and “prognosis”, “score”, “scoring system”, “predicting”, or “life expectancy” were searched for in PubMed. As a result, 236 articles were extracted. Those referring to representative scoring systems about predicting the survival of patients with metastatic spine tumors were used. The significance and limits of these scoring systems, and the future perspectives were described. Tokuhashi score, Tomita score, Baur score, Linden score, Rades score, and Katagiri score were introduced. They are all scoring systems prepared by combining factors that affect prognosis. The primary site of cancer and visceral metastasis were common factors in all of these scoring systems. Other factors selected to influence the prognosis varied. They were useful to roughly predict the survival period, such as, “more than one year or not” or “more than six months or not”. In particular, they were utilized for decision-making about operative indications and avoidance of excessive medical treatment. Because the function depended on the survival period in the patients with metastatic spine tumor, it was also utilized in assessing functional prognosis. However, no scoring system had more than 90% consistency between the predicted and actual survival periods. Future perspectives should adopt more oncological viewpoints with adjustment of the process of treatment for metastatic spine tumor.     

Ending overly broad HIV criminalization: Canadian scientists and clinicians stand for justice

In Canada, people living with HIV who do not disclose their HIV status prior to sexual acts risk prosecution for aggravated sexual assault even if they have sex with a condom or while having a low (or undetectable) viral load, they had no intent to transmit HIV, and no transmission occurred. In 2013, six distinguished Canadian HIV scientists and clinicians took ground-breaking action to advance justice by co-authoring the “Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of the criminal law.” This effort was born out of the belief that the application of criminal law to HIV non-disclosure was being driven by a poor appreciation of the science of HIV. More than 75 HIV scientists and clinicians Canada-wide have now endorsed the statement, agreeing that “[they] have a professional and ethical responsibility to assist those in the criminal justice system to understand and interpret current medical and scientific evidence regarding HIV.” As some 61 countries have adopted laws that specifically allow for HIV criminalization, and prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission have been reported in at least 49 countries, the authors hope that others around the world will take similar action.     

Being a witness: before you appear in court

Maria was surprised to see her colleague Anna in the witness waiting room outside of the courtroom. “I’m here to testify about a patient I treated” Anna explained “and I’m nervous.” Maria said “I’m here as an expert witness, probably on the same case. I think I saw a copy of your chart. I always get nervous before testifying as well, but I always find the rehearsal helps me a lot.” “Rehearsal, what’s that?” Maria explained how, before the hearing, she had met with the lawyer, gone over the questions she would be asked, the answers she would give and the likely areas of cross-examination. “Isn’t that cheating? I thought it was improper to discuss what you are going to say in court before you got on the witness stand?” Anna asked. “Oh no, its quite usual. You just need to have your patient’s consent if you are talking about a patient you treated.” “I wish I had known that” Anna responded “I had a lot of questions I would have liked answered.”     

Sexual function after anterior urethroplasty: a systematic review

BackgroundUrethral surgery outcomes are often evaluated by assessing urinary flow and urethral patency. However, sexual consequences may appear after urethroplasty, impairing quality of life and patient’s perception of success.The aim of this study is to assess the relationship between anterior urethral reconstruction and postoperative sexual dysfunction, including the proposed factors predicting sexual outcomes.MethodsWe searched in PubMed database using the terms: “anterior urethroplasty”, bulbar urethroplasty” or “penile urethroplasty”, and “sexual dysfunction”, “erectile function” or “ejaculation”. Articles were independently evaluated for inclusion based on predetermined criteria. Systematic data extraction was followed by a comprehensive summary of evidence.ResultsThirty-eight studies were included for final analysis. No randomised trial on the topic was found. Urethral surgery might affect different aspects of sexual function: erectile function, ejaculatory function, penile shape and length, and genital sensitivity, leading to severe sexual dysfunction. Patient perception of sexual impairment was related to post-operative satisfaction.ConclusionsSexual dysfunction after anterior urethral reconstruction is an important issue that must be appropriately discussed during preoperative patient counselling. Reported outcomes after anterior urethroplasty should include sexual consequences and relevance, evaluated using validated tools.     

Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) of a Specific Group of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) Patients Who Came Across Both Bracing and Surgery

Background/Purpose of the StudyChanges in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of AIS patients coming across both bracing and surgery have not yet reported. These patients received two major clinical interventions and their HRQOL might be different from previous articles. The aim of this study is to evaluate the changes of HRQOL of a specific group of AIS patients who experienced both bracing and surgery.MethodsOne hundred and twenty-eight patients requiring surgery with prior bracing treatment were identified from the electronic record. SRS-22 questionnaire was completed at 7 time points crossing both interventions (namely “Before”, “Bracing ≤ 1 year”, “Bracing > 1 year”, “Pre-op”, “Post-op”, “Post-op ≤ 1 year, and “Post-op 1-2 years”).ResultsSRS-22 “Function”, “Pain” and “Self-image” scores were decreased from “Before” to “Bracing ≤ 1 year” when started bracing and raised at “Bracing > 1 year”. The 3 scores were dropped from “Bracing > 1 year” to “Pre-op”, particularly on “Self-image”. “Function” and “Pain” were significantly dropped from “Pre-op” to “Post-op” and kept raising until “Post-op 1–2 years”. “Self-image” was improving after “Pre-op”. “Mental” was relatively stable along the timeline.ConclusionThis study described the changes in HRQOL of a specific group of AIS patients. Scores were dropped after the two major clinical interventions and recovered afterwards. Medical professionals were able to plan and provide appropriate supports on the expected changes in HRQOL, especially on function, pain and mental.     

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II—2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer

ObjectiveTo present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).Evidence acquisitionThe working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2016–2019). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature.Evidence synthesisProstate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography scanning has developed an increasingly important role in men with biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy appears as effective as adjuvant radiotherapy and, in a subset of patients, should be combined with androgen deprivation. New treatments have become available for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa), nonmetastatic CRPC, and metastatic CRPC, along with a role for local radiotherapy in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. Also included is information on quality of life outcomes in men with PCa.ConclusionsThe knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/).Patient summaryThis article summarises the guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are evidence based and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken. These guidelines are updated every year; this summary spans the 2017–2020 period of new evidence.     

Current updates in management of extremity injuries in polytrauma

Injury-related morbidity and mortality have been one of the most common causes of loss in productivity across all geographic distributions. It remains to be a global concern despite a continual improvement in regional and national safety policies. The establishment of trauma care systems and advancements in diagnostics and management have improved the overall survival of severely injured. A better understanding of the physiopathological and immunological responses to injury led to a significant shift in trauma care from “Early Total Care” to “Damage Control Orthopedics.” While most of these algorithms were tailored to the philosophy of “life before limb,” the impact of improper fracture management on disability and societal loss is increasingly being recognized. Recently, “Early Appropriate Care” of extremities has gained importance; however, its implementation is influenced by regional health care policies, available resources, and expertise and varies between low and high-income countries. A review of the literature was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases on articles published from 1990 to 2020 using the Mesh terms “Polytrauma,” “Multiple Trauma,” and “Fractures.” This review aims to consolidate on guidelines and available evidence in the management of extremity injuries in a polytraumatized patient to achieve better clinical outcomes of these severely injured.