Authors
Stefano Fanti, Fabio Turco, Bertrand Tombal, Jochen Walz, Michael S Hofman, Boris Hadaschik, Louise Emmett, Derya Tilki, Giovanna Pecoraro, Giuseppe Salfi, Gerhardt Attard, Himisha Beltran, Anders Bjartell, Alberto Briganti, Irene A Burger, Elena Castro, Juliano J Cerci, Arturo Chiti, Matthew Cooperberg, Karim Fizazi, Nicola Fossati, Andrei Gafita, Andrea Gallina, Karolien Goffin, Lisa G Horvath, Jonas Hugosson, Andrei Iagaru, Nicholas D James, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Dow-Mu Koh, Glen Kristiansen, Rakesh Kumar, Frederic Lecouvet, Stacy Loeb, Rana R McKay, Michael J Morris, Declan G Murphy, Vedang Murthy, Natacha Naoun, Daniela E Oprea-Lager, Piet Ost, Joe O'Sullivan, Anwar R Padhani, Ganesh Palapattu, Gaetano Paone, Giuseppe Petralia, Monique J Roobol, Oliver A Sartor, Mike Sathekge, David M Schuster, Tyler M Seibert, Daniel E Spratt, Clare Tempany, Nina Tunariu, H Alberto Vargas, Ursula M Vogl, Alexander W Wyatt, Thomas Zilli, Hui-Ming Lin, Aurelius Omlin, Silke Gillessen, Ken Herrmann
Published in
European urology. Jul 03, 2026. Epub Jul 03, 2026.
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.
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."
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.
PMID:
42399196
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 04 Jul 2026.
Read full publication at:
Please sign in
to see all details.
Advertisement
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 14
- Comments 0