Prostatic Neoplasms

Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, Joniau S, Matveev VB, Schmid HP, Zattoni F, Anonymous00089. · Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Colonia, Colonia, Alemania. · Actas Urol Esp. · Pubmed #19418833 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To present a summary of the 2007 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A literature review of the new data emerging from 2004 to 2007 was performed by the working panel. The guidelines have been updated, and the level of evidence/grade of recommendation was added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. RESULTS: A full version is available at the EAU Office or at www.uroweb.org. Systemic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance is the preferred diagnostic method. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy, with radical prostatectomy being shown to be superior to watchful waiting in a prospective randomized trial. Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 72 and 78 Gy in low-risk and intermediate- to high-risk PCa, respectively. Monotherapeutic androgen deprivation is the standard of care in metastatic PCa; intermittent androgen deprivation might be an alternative treatment option for selected patients. Follow-up is largely based on prostate-specific antigen and a disease-specific history with imaging only indicated when symptoms occur. Cytotoxic therapy with docetaxel has emerged as the reference treatment for metastatic hormone-refractory PCa. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarize the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.

Hamashima C, Nakayama T, Sagawa M, Saito H, Sobue T. · Cancer Screening Assessment and Management Division, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center, 5-1-1 Tsukiji Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan. · Jpn J Clin Oncol. · Pubmed #19346535 No free full text.

Abstract: In 2005, there were 9264 deaths from prostate cancer, accounting for 4.7% of the total number of cancer deaths in Japan. As the population continues to age, interest in prostate cancer screening has increased, and opportunistic screening for prostate cancer has been conducted worldwide. The guideline for prostate cancer screening was developed based on the established method. The efficacies of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) were evaluated. Based on the balance of the benefits and harms, recommendations for population-based and opportunistic screening were formulated. Two methods of prostate cancer screening were evaluated. Based on the analytic framework involving key questions, 1186 articles published from January 1985 to October 2006 were selected using MEDLINE and other methods. After the systematic literature review, 28 articles were identified as providing evidence of mortality reduction from prostate cancer, including 5 observational studies for DRE screening, 1 meta-analysis, 3 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies for PSA screening. Although several studies showed that PSA screening had a beneficial effect, the results of the selected studies were inconsistent. Overall, the evidence that screening reduced mortality from prostate cancer was insufficient. Furthermore, prostate cancer screening is associated with serious harms, including overdiagnosis, adverse effects of needle biopsy and adverse effects of local prostatectomy. At present, the evidence for the effect of prostate cancer screening is insufficient. Both PSA and DRE were not recommended for population-based screening programs, but they could be conducted as individual-based screening if basic requirements were met.

Kramer BS, Hagerty KL, Justman S, Somerfield MR, Albertsen PC, Blot WJ, Ballentine Carter H, Costantino JP, Epstein JI, Godley PA, Harris RP, Wilt TJ, Wittes J, Zon R, Schellhammer P, Anonymous00093, Anonymous00094. · National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. · J Clin Oncol. · Pubmed #19252137 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE To develop an evidence-based guideline on the use of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) for prostate cancer chemoprevention. METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Committee (HSC), ASCO Cancer Prevention Committee, and the American Urological Association Practice Guidelines Committee jointly convened a Panel of experts, who used the results from a systematic review of the literature to develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of 5-ARIs for prostate cancer chemoprevention. Results The systematic review completed for this guideline identified 15 randomized clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria, nine of which reported prostate cancer period prevalence. CONCLUSION Asymptomatic men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <or= 3.0 ng/mL who are regularly screened with PSA or are anticipating undergoing annual PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer may benefit from a discussion of both the benefits of 5-ARIs for 7 years for the prevention of prostate cancer and the potential risks (including the possibility of high-grade prostate cancer). Men who are taking 5-ARIs for benign conditions such as lower urinary tract [obstructive] symptoms (LUTS) may benefit from a similar discussion, understanding that the improvement of LUTS relief should be weighed with the potential risks of high-grade prostate cancer from 5-ARIs (although the majority of the Panel members judged the latter risk to be unlikely). A reduction of approximately 50% in PSA by 12 months is expected in men taking a 5-ARI; however, because these changes in PSA may vary across men, and within individual men over time, the Panel cannot recommend a specific cut point to trigger a biopsy for men taking a 5-ARI. No specific cut point or change in PSA has been prospectively validated in men taking a 5-ARI.

Kramer BS, Hagerty KL, Justman S, Somerfield MR, Albertsen PC, Blot WJ, Carter HB, Costantino JP, Epstein JI, Godley PA, Harris RP, Wilt TJ, Wittes J, Zon R, Schellhammer P, Anonymous00066. · National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. · J Urol. · Pubmed #19249063 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based guideline on the use of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) for prostate cancer chemoprevention. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Committee (HSC), ASCO Cancer Prevention Committee, and the American Urological Association Practice Guidelines Committee jointly convened a Panel of experts, who used the results from a systematic review of the literature to develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of 5-ARIs for prostate cancer chemoprevention. RESULTS: The systematic review completed for this guideline identified 15 randomized clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria, nine of which reported prostate cancer period prevalence. CONCLUSION: Asymptomatic men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) </=3.0 ng/mL who are regularly screened with PSA or are anticipating undergoing annual PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer may benefit from a discussion of both the benefits of 5-ARIs for 7 years for the prevention of prostate cancer and the potential risks (including the possibility of high-grade prostate cancer). Men who are taking 5-ARIs for benign conditions such as lower urinary tract [obstructive] symptoms (LUTS) may benefit from a similar discussion, understanding that the improvement of LUTS relief should be weighed with the potential risks of high-grade prostate cancer from 5-ARIs (although the majority of the Panel members judged the latter risk to be unlikely). A reduction of approximately 50% in PSA by 12 months is expected in men taking a 5-ARI; however, because these changes in PSA may vary across men, and within individual men over time, the Panel cannot recommend a specific cut point to trigger a biopsy for men taking a 5-ARI. No specific cut point or change in PSA has been prospectively validated in men taking a 5-ARI.

Tanaka M, Ono Y, Matsuda T, Terachi T, Suzuki K, Baba S, Hara I, Hirao Y, Anonymous00107. · Department of Urology, Fukuoka University Faculty of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan. ~u.ac.jp · Int J Urol. · Pubmed #19228223 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Montie JE, Clark PE, Eisenberger MA, El-Galley R, Greenberg RE, Herr HW, Hudes GR, Kuban DA, Kuzel TM, Lange PH, Lele SM, Michalski J, Patterson A, Pohar KS, Richie JP, Sexton WJ, Shipley WU, Small EJ, Trump DL, Walther PJ, Wilson TG, Anonymous00046. · University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center. · J Natl Compr Canc Netw. · Pubmed #19176203 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, Lilja H, Brünner N, Chan DW, Babaian R, Bast RC, Dowell B, Esteva FJ, Haglund C, Harbeck N, Hayes DF, Holten-Andersen M, Klee GG, Lamerz R, Looijenga LH, Molina R, Nielsen HJ, Rittenhouse H, Semjonow A, Shih IeM, Sibley P, Sölétormos G, Stephan C, Sokoll L, Hoffman BR, Diamandis EP, Anonymous00039. · Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. · Clin Chem. · Pubmed #19042984 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed. METHODS: Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites--testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian--were critically reviewed. RESULTS: For testicular cancer, alpha-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. alpha-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is <10 microg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node-negative patients. CA15-3/BR27-29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.

Ito K, Kakehi Y, Naito S, Okuyama A, Anonymous00017. · Department of Urology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan. · Int J Urol. · Pubmed #18786203 No free full text.

Abstract: The exposure rate of screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in Japan is still very low compared with that in the USA or Western Europe. The mortality rate of prostate cancer will increase in the future and in 2020 it will be 2.8 times higher than in 2000. Therefore, there is an urgent need to determine the best available countermeasures to decrease the rate of prostate cancer death.

Bice WS, Prestidge BR, Kurtzman SM, Beriwal S, Moran BJ, Patel RR, Rivard MJ, Anonymous00014. · Foundation for Medical Physics Research, San Antonio, TX 78216, USA. · Brachytherapy. · Pubmed #18782682 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: Published clinical information on the safety and efficacy of (131)Cs implants is limited. We provide consensus recommendations for (131)Cs prostate brachytherapy based on experience to date. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Cesium Advisory Group (CAG) consists of experienced (131)Cs users. Recommendations are based on three clinical trials, one of which has completed accrual and has been published in the peer reviewed literature, and combined CAG experience of more than 1200 (131)Cs implants. RESULTS: We recommend using 1.059cGyh(-1)U(-1) as the dose rate constant for the IsoRay source. The prescription for monotherapy implants is 115Gy and when combined with 45-50Gy external beam it is 85Gy. Suggested individual source strength ranges from 1.6 to 2.2U. The release criterion for (131)Cs implants is 6mRh(-1) at 1m. (131)Cs brachytherapy should be performed differently from (125)I and (103)Pd brachytherapy: source placement is further from the urethra and rectum; the prostate V(150) should be < or =45%; sufficient margins may be obtained while limiting source placement to the capsule or close to the capsule. The increased dose rate may cause degradation of postimplant quantifiers due to edema. However, large variability in the magnitude and rate of resolution of edema make determination of the most representative postoperative imaging time impossible. The CAG recommends postimplant imaging on the day of the implant. Recommended postimplant evaluation goals include prostate D(90) greater than the prescription dose; maintaining D(u)(,30)<140% of the prescription dose and keeping V(r)(,100)<0.5cm(3). CONCLUSION: It was the consensus of the CAG that optimal (131)Cs implants should be performed differently from those performed with (125)I or (103)Pd. Guidelines have been established to allow for safe and effective delivery of (131)Cs prostate brachytherapy.

Wang C, Nieschlag E, Swerdloff RS, Behre H, Hellstrom WJ, Gooren LJ, Kaufman JM, Legros JJ, Lunenfeld B, Morales A, Morley JE, Schulman C, Thompson IM, Weidner W, Wu FC. · Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and Los Angeles BioMedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA 90509, USA. · Aging Male. · Pubmed #18763169 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Lin K, Lipsitz R, Miller T, Janakiraman S, Anonymous00225. · Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland 20850, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #18678846 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common nonskin cancer in men in the United States, and prostate cancer screening has increased in recent years. In 2002, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that evidence was insufficient to recommend for or against screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. PURPOSE: To examine new evidence on benefits and harms of screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer with PSA. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles identified in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (search dates, January 2002 to July 2007), reference lists of retrieved articles, and expert suggestions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses of PSA screening and cross-sectional and cohort studies of screening harms and of the natural history of screening-detected cancer were selected to answer the following questions: Does screening for prostate cancer with PSA, as a single-threshold test or as a function of multiple tests over time, decrease morbidity or mortality? What are the magnitude and nature of harms associated with prostate cancer screening, other than overtreatment? What is the natural history of PSA-detected, nonpalpable, localized prostate cancer? DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were reviewed, abstracted, and rated for quality by using predefined U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: No good-quality randomized, controlled trials of screening for prostate cancer have been completed. In 1 cross-sectional and 2 prospective cohort studies of fair to good quality, false-positive PSA screening results caused psychological adverse effects for up to 1 year after the test. The natural history of PSA-detected prostate cancer is poorly understood. LIMITATIONS: Few eligible studies were identified. Long-term adverse effects of false-positive PSA screening test results are unknown. CONCLUSION: Prostate-specific antigen screening is associated with psychological harms, and its potential benefits remain uncertain.

Anonymous00006. · No affiliation provided · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #18678845 links to  free full text

Abstract: DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement about screening for prostate cancer. METHODS: The USPSTF evaluated randomized, controlled trials of the benefits of prostate cancer screening; cohort and cross-sectional studies of the psychological harms of false-positive prostate-specific antigen test results; and evidence on the natural history of prostate-specific antigen-detected prostate cancer to address previously identified gaps in the evidence from the 2002 USPSTF recommendation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer in men younger than age 75 years (I statement). Do not screen for prostate cancer in men age 75 years or older (Grade D recommendation).

Sidhom MA, Kneebone AB, Lehman M, Wiltshire KL, Millar JL, Mukherjee RK, Shakespeare TP, Tai KH. · Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, NSW, Australia. · Radiother Oncol. · Pubmed #18514340 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Three randomised trials have demonstrated the benefit of adjuvant post-prostatectomy radiotherapy (PPRT) for high risk patients. Data also documents the effectiveness of salvage radiotherapy following a biochemical relapse post-prostatectomy. The Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group recognised the need to develop consensus guidelines on to whom, when and how to deliver PPRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Draft guidelines were developed and refined at a consensus conference in June 2006 attended by 63 delegates where urological, radiotherapy and diagnostic imaging experts spoke on aspects of PPRT. Unresolved issues were further developed by working parties and redistributed until consensus was reached. RESULTS: Central to the recommendations is that patients with positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion and/or extracapsular extension have a high risk of residual local disease and should be informed of the options of either immediate adjuvant radiotherapy or active surveillance with early salvage in the event of biochemical recurrence. Salvage radiotherapy should be instituted at the earliest confirmation of biochemical recurrence. Detailed contouring guidelines have been developed, defining the regions at risk of residual microscopic disease which should be included in the clinical target volume. The recommended doses are 60-64Gy for adjuvant, and 60-66Gy for salvage radiotherapy. The role of hormone therapy in conjunction with PPRT is yet to be defined. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus guidelines have been developed to give clinical and technical guidance to radiation oncologists and urologists in the management of high risk post-prostatectomy patients.

Horwich A, Parker C, Kataja V, Anonymous00130. · Department of Clinical Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK. · Ann Oncol. · Pubmed #18456765 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Arlen PM, Bianco F, Dahut WL, D'Amico A, Figg WD, Freedland SJ, Gulley JL, Kantoff PW, Kattan MW, Lee A, Regan MM, Sartor O, Anonymous00032. · Medical Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA. · J Urol. · Pubmed #18423743 links to  free full text

Abstract: PURPOSE: Prostate specific antigen is a glycoprotein found almost exclusively in normal and neoplastic prostate cells. Prostate specific antigen doubling time, or the change in prostate specific antigen over time, has emerged as a useful predictive marker for assessing disease outcome in patients with prostate cancer. It is important to agree on definitions and values for the calculation of prostate specific antigen doubling time, and to develop a common approach to outcome analysis and reporting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In September 2006 a conference was held at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland to define these parameters and develop guidelines for their use. RESULTS: The Prostate Specific Antigen Working Group defined criteria regarding prostate specific antigen doubling time including the calculation of prostate specific antigen doubling time, evidence to support prostate specific antigen doubling time as a predictive factor in the setting of biochemical recurrence and the use of prostate specific antigen doubling time as a stratification factor in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that investigators calculate prostate specific antigen doubling time before enrolling patients in clinical studies and calculate it as an additional measurement of therapeutic activity. We believe we have developed practical guidelines for the calculation of prostate specific antigen doubling time and its use as a measurement of prognosis and outcome. Furthermore, the use of common standards for prostate specific antigen doubling time in clinical trials is important as we determine which treatments should progress to randomized trials in which "hard" end points such as survival will be used.

Anonymous00247. · No affiliation provided · J Clin Pathol. · Pubmed #18326012 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Kamidono S, Ohshima S, Hirao Y, Suzuki K, Arai Y, Fujimoto H, Egawa S, Akaza H, Hara I, Hinotsu S, Kakehi Y, Hasegawa T, Anonymous00384. · No affiliation provided · Int J Urol. · Pubmed #18184166 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Kawachi MH, Bahnson RR, Barry M, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Catalona WJ, Epstein JI, Etzioni RB, Hemstreet GP, Howe RJ, Kopin JD, Lange PH, Lilja H, Mohler J, Moul J, Nadler RB, Patterson S, Pollack A, Presti JC, Stroup AM, Urban DA, Wake R, Wei JT, Anonymous00333. · No affiliation provided · J Natl Compr Canc Netw. · Pubmed #17692177 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Mohler J, Babaian RJ, Bahnson RR, Boston B, D'Amico A, Eastham JA, Hauke RJ, Huben RP, Kantoff P, Kawachi M, Kuettel M, Lange PH, Logothetis C, MacVicar G, Pollack A, Pow-Sang JM, Roach M, Sandler H, Shrieve D, Srinivas S, Twardowski P, Urban DA, Walsh PC, Anonymous00332. · No affiliation provided · J Natl Compr Canc Netw. · Pubmed #17692170 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Epstein JI, Srigley J, Grignon D, Humphrey P, Otis C. · The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 401 N Broadway St, Rom 2242, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA. · Virchows Arch. · Pubmed #17674043 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Soulie M, Beuzeboc P, Richaud P, Villers A, Kassab-Chahmi D, Bataillard A, Anonymous00082, Anonymous00083. · Comité rédacteur SOR, INCA, FNCLCC, La Ligue, FHF FNCHRU, FFC et AFU. · Prog Urol. · Pubmed #17633990 No free full text.

Abstract: This paper is based on the bulletin of synthesis 2005. Management of non metastatic prostate cancer. Recommendations for clinical practice of the French Urologial Association and the National Federation of Anticancer Centers.

Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, D'Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, Eton DT, Forman JD, Goldenberg SL, Hernandez J, Higano CS, Kraus SR, Moul JW, Tangen CM, Anonymous00324. · American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. · J Urol. · Pubmed #17509297 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Anonymous00083, Horwich A, Parker C. · No affiliation provided · Ann Oncol. · Pubmed #17491038 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Bourguet P, Planchamp F, Montravers F, Vincendeau S, Anonymous00058, Anonymous00059. · Comité rédacteur SOR, INCA, FNCLCC, La Ligue, FHF FNCHRU, FFC et AFU, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France. · Prog Urol. · Pubmed #17489312 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Loblaw DA, Virgo KS, Nam R, Somerfield MR, Ben-Josef E, Mendelson DS, Middleton R, Sharp SA, Smith TJ, Talcott J, Taplin M, Vogelzang NJ, Wade JL, Bennett CL, Scher HI, Anonymous00323. · American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA. · J Clin Oncol. · Pubmed #17404365 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To update the 2004 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on initial hormonal management of androgen-sensitive, metastatic, recurrent, or progressive prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: The writing committee based its recommendations on an updated systematic literature review. Recommendations were approved by the Expert Panel, the ASCO Health Services Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials (four new), one systematic review, one meta-analysis (new), one Markov model, and one delta-method 95% CI procedure for active controlled trials (new) informed the guideline update. RECOMMENDATIONS: Bilateral orchiectomy or luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists are recommended initial androgen-deprivation treatments (ADTs). Nonsteroidal antiandrogen monotherapy merits discussion as an alternative; steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy should not be offered. Combined androgen blockade should be considered. In metastatic or progressive PCa, immediate versus symptom-onset institution of ADT results in a moderate decrease (17%) in relative risk (RR) for PCa-specific mortality, a moderate increase (15%) in RR for non-PCa-specific mortality, and no overall survival advantage. Therefore, the Panel cannot make a strong recommendation for early ADT initiation. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics and other metrics allow identification of populations at high risk for PCa-specific and overall mortality. Further studies must be completed to assess whether patients with adverse prognostic factors gain a survival advantage from immediate ADT. For patients electing to wait until symptoms for ADT, regular monitoring visits are indicated. For patients with recurrence, clinical trials should be considered if available. Currently, data are insufficient to support use of intermittent androgen blockade outside clinical trials