No abstract

Neoadjuvant HT is a safe and feasible option, but it cannot be considered equivalent to CT. If neoadjuvant HT is performed, AIs are preferable over tamoxifen due to higher response rates.

Patients with gastric cancer presenting with signet-ring histology, vascular invasion, or visceral metastasis appear to be at higher risk for the development of peritoneal carcinomatosis.

PURPOSE To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as acquired through a questionnaire administered to 99 physicians working in the field of prostate cancer in developing countries who attended the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS A total of 106 questions out of more than 300 questions addressed the use of imaging in staging mCRPC, treatment recommendations across availability and response to prior drug treatments, appropriate drug treatments, and follow-up, and those same scenarios when limited resources needed to be considered. Responses were compiled and the percentages were presented by clinicians to support each response. Most questions had five to seven relevant options for response including abstain and/or unqualified to answer, or in the case of yes or no questions, the option to abstain was offered. RESULTS Most of the recommendations from this panel were in line with prior consensus, including the preference of a new antiandrogen for first-line therapy of mCRPC. Important aspects highlighted in the scenario of limited resources included the option of docetaxel as treatment preference as first-line treatment in several scenarios, docetaxel retreatment, consideration for reduced doses of abiraterone, and alternative schedules of an osteoclast-targeted therapy. CONCLUSION There was wide-ranging consensus in the treatment for men with mCRPC in both optimal and limited resource settings.

Purpose The outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients. Methods Eighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session. Results The recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available. Conclusion This manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.