BACKGROUND: Recent developments in esophageal cancer treatment, including studies exploring active surveillance following chemoradiotherapy, have led to a need for clear terminology and definitions regarding different multimodal treatment options.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to reach worldwide consensus on the definitions and semantics of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment.
METHODS: In total, 72 experts working in the field of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment were invited to participate in this Delphi study. The study comprised three Delphi surveys sent out by email and one online meeting. Input for the Delphi survey consisted of terminology obtained from a systematic literature search. Participants were asked to respond to open questions and to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with different statements. Consensus was reached when there was ≥75% agreement among respondents.
RESULTS: Forty-nine of 72 invited experts (68.1%) participated in the first online Delphi survey, 45 (62.5%) in the second survey, 21 (46.7%) of 45 in the online meeting, and 39 (86.7%) of 45 in the final survey. Consensus on neoadjuvant and definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery was reached for 27 of 31 items (87%). No consensus was reached on follow-up after treatment with definitive chemoradiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on most statements regarding terminology and definitions of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. Implementing uniform criteria facilitates comparison of studies and promotes international research collaborations.

OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa.
METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.
UNASSIGNED: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.
RESULTS: This article is the summary of the guidelines for \"curable\" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is \"found\" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with \"active surveillance\", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize national and international guidelines that made recommendations for monitoring patients diagnosed with low-risk cancer. It appraised the quality of guidelines and determined whether the guidelines adequately identified patients for monitoring, specified which tests to use, defined monitoring intervals, and stated triggers for further intervention. It then assessed the evidence to support each recommendation.
METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, we searched PubMed and Turning Research into Practice databases for national and international guidelines\' that were written in English and developed or updated between 2012 and 2023. Quality of individual guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II tool.
RESULTS: Across the 41 published guidelines, 48 different recommendations were identified: 15 (31%) for prostate cancer, 11 (23%) for renal cancer, 6 (12.5%) for thyroid cancer, and 10 (21%) for blood cancer. The remaining 6 (12.5%) were for brain, gastrointestinal, oral cavity, bone and pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma cancer. When combining all guidelines, 48 (100%) stated which patients qualify for monitoring, 31 (65%) specified which tests to use, 25 (52%) provided recommendations for surveillance intervals, and 23 (48%) outlined triggers to initiate intervention. Across all cancer sites, there was a strong positive trend with higher levels of evidence being associated with an increased likelihood of a recommendation being specific (P = 0.001) and the evidence for intervals was based on expert opinion or other guidance.
CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of prostate cancer, the evidence base for monitoring low-risk cancer is weak and consequently recommendations in clinical guidelines are inconsistent. There is a lack of direct evidence to support monitoring recommendations in the literature making guideline developers reliant on expert opinion, alternative guidelines, or indirect or nonspecific evidence.

The indolent nature and favorable outcomes associated with papillary thyroid microcarcinoma have prompted numerous prospective studies on active surveillance (AS) and its adoption as an alternative to immediate surgery in managing low-risk thyroid cancer. This article reviews the current status of AS, as outlined in various international practice guidelines. AS is typically recommended for tumors that measure 1 cm or less in diameter and do not exhibit aggressive subtypes on cytology, extrathyroidal extension, lymph node metastasis, or distant metastasis. To determine the most appropriate candidates for AS, factors such as tumor size, location, multiplicity, and ultrasound findings are considered, along with patient characteristics like medical condition, age, and family history. Moreover, shared decision-making, which includes patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and cost-effectiveness, is essential. During AS, patients undergo regular ultrasound examinations to monitor for signs of disease progression, including tumor growth, extrathyroidal extension, or lymph node metastasis. In conclusion, while AS is a feasible and reliable approach for managing lowrisk thyroid cancer, it requires careful patient selection, effective communication for shared decision-making, standardized follow-up protocols, and a clear definition of disease progression.

To evaluate racial data in studies used in current NCCN prostate cancer guidelines. These guidelines represent the latest information that informs clinical practice. Prostate cancer disproportionately affects mortality in Black patients compared to White patients at a 2.1-fold higher death rate. However, this racial disparity is not accounted for when including patients in research.
The studies referenced in the latest NCCN guidelines were evaluated for inclusion of racial demographics, and whether they properly account for the higher mortality rate of prostate cancer seen in Black patients. We then analyzed topics within prostate cancer.
After application of exclusion criteria, 547 of 878 studies were included for analysis; of those, only 32.4% included demographic data. Overall, Black patients accounted for 472,476 (12.8%) of total patients, while 3,023,007 (81.7%) patients were White. These findings were consistent with specific areas including risk stratification (12% vs 75%), imaging and staging (11% vs 80%), treatment (16% vs 81%), recurrence (15% vs 73%), castration-sensitive prostate cancer (9% vs 84%), castration-resistant prostate cancer (8% vs 73%), and metastatic bone disease (7% vs 84%).
Our analysis showed consistently that although the guidelines utilize the best research, such studies often do not report racial demographics or have patient populations that do not reflect racial differences in mortality of prostate cancer. Our study questions the generalization of these studies to Black patients. Future research should emphasize inclusion of racial demographics and recruit appropriately representative study cohorts.

Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support.
To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer.
A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed.
Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members.
There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons.
The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer.
A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach.

UNASSIGNED: Our objective was to prioritise the psychosocial support needs of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer and to develop a consensus statement to provide guidance on best practice psychosocial support for men choosing active surveillance and their families.
UNASSIGNED: We undertook a patient and public involvement Delphi process over two rounds, informed by qualitative data and a comprehensive literature review, to prioritise the information and support needs of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Two panels were surveyed, a patient/carer panel (n = 55) and a health care provider panel (n = 114). Based on the findings of the Delphi surveys, an expert active surveillance discussion group developed a consensus statement to guide best practice.
UNASSIGNED: Patients and health care professionals differed slightly in their ideas concerning priorities for active surveillance psychosocial support. Broadly, agreed priority areas included -patients being involved in decision-making, continuity of care, more streamlined access to health care teams, improved understanding of the risk of prostate cancer progression and information and support provided through both health care professionals and peers. Based on the identified priorities, the expert discussion group agreed on 22 consensus statements for best practice in psychosocial care for active surveillance in respect of (1) principles of an active surveillance programme; (2) structure of consultations; (3) content of information and support; and (4) delivery of information.
UNASSIGNED: This consensus statement provides a framework for patient-focused psychosocial support, which, if adopted, should increase uptake and adherence to active surveillance among men with prostate cancer.

The summary presented herein represents Part II of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of active surveillance and surgery as well as follow-up for patients after primary treatment. Please refer to Parts I and III for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III).
The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles.
The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding active surveillance, surgical management, and patient follow-up are detailed.
This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III).
The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles.
The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein.
This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

The summary presented herein represents Part III of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of radiation and offering several future directions of further relevant study in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts I and II for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of active surveillance and surgery and follow-up (Part II).
The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles.
The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding management of patients using radiation therapy as well as important future directions of research are detailed herein.
This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.