A 13% reduction in mortality was observed in the screening group, with an improved harm-benefit ratio. For every 456 men screened, one prostate cancer death was prevented. It is an easy and inexpensive test, though concerns remain regarding unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment.
Pasritamig was administered to patients who had received a median of four prior lines of systemic therapy. It was well tolerated, with manageable adverse events, making it suitable for outpatient administration. The treatment showed a median radiographic progression-free survival of 7.85 months, and 14 out of 33 participants achieved a ≥50% reduction in baseline PSA levels. So, stay tuned.
In patients with localized prostate cancer, predominantly low-risk and intermediate-risk disease, the long-term update reveals 13-year outcomes. Treatment failure occurred less frequently in men undergoing HIMRT (n = 13) compared with those undergoing CIMRT.
Another study showing the benefits of adding AR blocker to ADT. Improved PFs and suggestive improvement in OS, also less fatigue.
Less radiation is non-inferior, this is for low and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients. Would like input from our radiation oncologists as to whether or not this adoptable?
Protons vs IMRT for localized prostate cancer showed no difference in outcome or quality of life. There will be longer f/u and other endpoints studied but the take-home message is that protons are not significantly better than photons.
Will we be replaced by AI? It seems that for radiologists, an AI system was better than the human counterpart in this study looking at prostate cancer diagnostic imaging. I doubt many of us would accept a solely computer-generated report, but this study highlights how AI may help as a supportive tool in the primary diagnostic setting. Of course, prospective validation will be needed.
10-year metastasis-free survival was 71.9% in the short-course ADT group (6 months) and 78% in the long-course ADT group (24 months). So, it seems the longer the duration, the better the outcome. 93% had a Gleason score of 7 or higher.
We know that combination PARP and antiandrogen is better than antiandrogen alone. I have wondered if we need antiancrogen on those patients. This shows that, YES, we do. The combination also was better than PARP inhibitor monotherapy in those patients carrying HRRm.
It might be costly to get the PET scans but helps with prognosis and directing patients to palliative care since positive lesions in all predicts shorter overall survival.