Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024. Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists"). Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis. The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

Metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is an inevitably fatal disease. However, in recent years, several treatments have been shown to improve the outcome of CRPC patients both in the non-metastatic (nmCRPC) as well as the metastatic setting (mCRPC). In nmCRPC patients with a PSA doubling time < 10 months, the addition of enzalutamide, apalutamide and darolutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to ADT alone resulted in improved metastases free (MFS) and overall survival (OS). For mCRPC patients, several treatment options have been shown to be effective: two taxane based chemotherapies (docetaxel and cabazitaxel), two androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) (abiraterone and enzalutamide), two radiopharmaceutical agents (radium 223 and 177Lutetium-PSMA-617), one immunotherapy treatment (sipuleucel-T) and two poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib). Pembrolizumab is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in all MSI high solid tumors, although a very small proportion of prostate cancer patients harboring this characteristic will benefit. Despite having a broad variety of treatments available, there are still several unmet clinical needs for CRPC. The objective of this review was to describe the therapeutic landscape in CRPC patients, to identify criteria for selecting patients for specific treatments currently available, and to address the current challenges in this setting.

Significant progress has been achieved over the last decades in understanding the biology and mechanisms of tumor progression in urothelial carcinoma (UC). Although the therapeutic landscape has dramatically changed in recent years with the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors, advanced UC is still associated with rapidly progressing disease and poor survival. The increasing knowledge of the pathogenesis and molecular pathways underlying cancer development and progression is leading the introduction of target therapies, such as the recently approved FGFR inhibitor Erdafitinib, or the anti-nectin 4 antibody drug-conjugate Enfortumab vedotin. Antibody drug conjugates represent an innovative therapeutic approach that allows the combination of a tar get-specific monoclonal antibody covalently conjugated via a linker to a cytotoxic agent (payload). UC is a perfect candidate for this therapeutic approach since it is particularly enriched in antigen expression on its surface and each specific antigen can represent a potential therapeutic target. In this review we summarize the mechanism of action of ADCs, their applications in localized and metastatic UC, the main mechanisms of resistance, and future perspectives for their use in clinical practice.

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is characterized by a high rate of cure, but also by a non-negligible probability of recurrence and risk progression to muscle-invasive disease. NMIBC management requires a proper local resection and staging, followed by a risk-based treatment with intravesical agents. For many years, the current gold standard treatment for patients with intermediate or high-risk disease is transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) followed by intravesical bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) instillations. Unfortunately, in about half of high-risk patients, intravesical BCG treatment fails and NMIBC persists or recurs early. While radical cystectomy remains the gold standard for these patients, new therapeutic targets are being individuated and studied. Radical cystectomy in fact can provide an excellent long-term disease control, but can deeply interfere with quality of life. In particular, the enhanced immune checkpoints expression shown in BCG-unresponsive patients and the activity of immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced bladder cancer provided the rationale for testing ICIs in NMIBC. Recently, pembrolizumab has shown promising activity in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients, obtaining FDA approval. Meanwhile multiple novel drugs with alternative mechanisms of action have proven to be safe and effective in NMIBC treatment and others are under investigation. The aim of this review is to analyse and describe the clinical activity of new emerging drugs in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC focusing on immunotherapy results.

Mutations in the speckle-type POZ (SPOP) gene are frequently identified in prostate cancer (PC); yet, prognostic implications for affected patients remain unclear. Limited consensus exists regarding tailored treatments for SPOP-mutant (SPOPmut) PC. To elucidate the prognostic and predictive significance of SPOP mutations across distinct PC stages and treatments. A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted up to January 29, 2024. The meta-analysis included studies comparing survival outcomes between SPOPmut and SPOP wild-type (SPOPwt) PC. From 669 records, 26 studies (including five abstracts) were analyzed. A meta-analysis of metastasis-free survival in localized (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.88; p < 0.01) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic PC (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.53-0.76; p < 0.01) showed a favorable prognosis for patients with SPOPmut PC. In metastatic settings, SPOP mutations correlated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy ± androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.76, p < 0.01, and HR: 0.60, 95% CI:0.46-0.79, p < 0.01, respectively). In metastatic castration-resistant PC, only abiraterone provided improved PFS and OS to patients with SPOP mutations compared with patients with SPOPwt, but data were limited. SPOP mutations did not correlate with improved PFS (p = 0.80) or OS (p = 0.27) for docetaxel. Patients with SPOPmut PC seem to exhibit superior oncological outcomes compared with patients with SPOPwt. Tailored risk stratification and treatment approaches should be explored in such patients. Speckle-type POZ (SPOP) mutations could be a favorable prognostic factor in patients with prostate cancer (PC) and may also predict better progression-free and overall survival than treatment with hormonal agents. Therefore, less intensified treatments omitting chemotherapy for patients with SPOP-mutant PC should be explored in clinical trials.