UNASSIGNED: In 2023 the American Urological Association (AUA) requested an Update Literature Review (ULR) to incorporate new evidence generated since the 2019 publication of this Guideline. The resulting 2024 Guideline Amendment addresses updated recommendations to provide guidance for the care of patients with incontinence after prostate treatment (IPT).
UNASSIGNED: In 2023, the IPT Guideline was updated through the AUA amendment process in which newly published literature is reviewed and integrated into previously published guidelines. There were 82 studies of interest initially identified in preliminary abstract review. Following full-text review, 17 studies met inclusion criteria and ultimately informed the statements of interest.
UNASSIGNED: The Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements based on an updated review to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience IPT. These updates are detailed herein.
UNASSIGNED: As prostate treatments are refined, a decreasing incidence of incontinence is anticipated. This Guideline will require further review as the diagnostic and treatment options for patients with IPT continue to evolve.

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.

UNASSIGNED: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part I of a three-part series focusing on treatment decision-making at the time of suspected biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic BCR after RP and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis.
UNASSIGNED: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles.
UNASSIGNED: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease.
UNASSIGNED: Advancing work in the area of diagnostic tools (particularly imaging), biomarkers, radiation delivery, and biological manipulation with the evolving armamentarium of therapeutic agents will undoubtedly present new opportunities for patients to experience long-term control of their cancer while minimizing toxicity.

UNASSIGNED: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part III of a three-part series focusing on evaluation and management of suspected non-metastatic recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, evaluation and management of regional recurrence, management for molecular imaging metastatic recurrence, and future directions. Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP).
UNASSIGNED: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles.
UNASSIGNED: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease.
UNASSIGNED: Continuous and deliberate efforts for multidisciplinary care in prostate cancer will be required to optimize and improve the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients treated with salvage therapies in the future.

UNASSIGNED: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part II of a three-part series focusing on treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis.
UNASSIGNED: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles.
UNASSIGNED: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease.
UNASSIGNED: Optimizing and personalizing the approach to salvage therapy remains an ongoing area of work in the field of genitourinary oncology and represents an area of research and clinical care that requires well-coordinated, multi-disciplinary efforts.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive review of guidelines from various professional organisations on the work-up and management of post-prostatectomy Incontinence (PPI).
METHODS: The following guidelines were included in this review: European Association of Urology (EAU 2023), American Urological Association/Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction (AUA/SUFU 2019), International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI, 2018), the Canadian Urological Association (CUA, 2012) and the Urological Society of India (USI, 2018).
RESULTS: In general, the guidelines concur regarding the significance of conducting a comprehensive history and physical examination for patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI). However, there are variations among the guidelines concerning the recommended additional investigations. In cases of troublesome PPI, male slings are typically recommended for mild to moderate urinary incontinence (UI), while artificial urinary sphincters are preferred for moderate to severe UI, although the precise definition of this severity remains unclear. The guidelines provided by AUA/SUFU and the ICI have offered suggestions for managing complications or persistent/recurrent UI post-surgery, though some differences can be observed within these recommendations as well.
CONCLUSIONS: This is a first of its kind review encompassing Guidelines on PPI spanning over a decade. Although guidelines share overarching principles, nuanced variations persist, posing challenges for clinicians. This compilation consolidates and highlights both the similarities and differences among guidelines, providing a comprehensive overview of PPI diagnosis and management for practitioners. It is our expectation that as more evidence emerges in this and other areas of PPI management, the guidelines will converge and address crucial patient-centric aspects.

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.

In the age of information, new platforms are consulted by patients to acquire consciousness about medical treatments. The aim of this study was to assess the level of understanding and feasibility of video consensus (VC) administration in patients scheduled for radical prostatectomy (RP), comparing it with standard informed consensus (SIC). According to the European Association of Urology Patient Information, we set up a video content for RP that was translated in Italian and implemented with information about possible perioperative and postoperative complications, days of hospitalization etc. From 2021 to 2022, all patients undergoing RP at our institution were prospectively included in this study. Patients received an SIC and after that, a VC about RP. After two consensuses were administered, patients received a preformed Likert 10 scale and STAI questionnaires. On the RP dataset, 276 patients were selected and 552 questionnaires for both SIC and VC were evaluated. Out of these, the median age was 62 years (IQR 60-65). Patients reported a higher overall satisfaction for VC (8.8/10) compared to the traditional informed consent (6.9/10). Therefore, VC may play a role in the future of surgery, improving the consciousness and satisfaction of patients and reducing preoperative anxiety.

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.