Publication: Diagnosis and staging of patients with prostate cancer: report from the 2025 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) diagnostics
Program
KU-Authors
KU Authors
Co-Authors
Fanti, S.
Turco, F.
Tombal, B.
Walz, J.
Hofman, M. S.
Hadaschik, B.
Emmett, L.
Pecoraro, G.
Salfi, G.
Attard, G.
Editor & Affiliation
Compiler & Affiliation
Translator
Other Contributor
Date
Language
eng
Type
Embargo Status
N/A
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Alternative Title
Abstract
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.
Source
Publisher
Elsevier
Subject
Medicine, Oncology, Urology
Citation
Has Part
Source
European Urology
Book Series Title
Edition
DOI
10.1016/j.eururo.2026.06.009
