Background/Objectives: Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among American men, following lung cancer. While diet and exercise have been extensively studied in relation to prostate cancer prevention, the evidence remains inconclusive. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify observational studies investigating the association between ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption and prostate cancer risk and mortality, determined by the NOVA classification system. In addition, we conducted subgroup analyses to assess the association based on study design, age, and data collection methods. Results: Six studies were identified, including four cohort studies and two case–control studies. No significant association was found between high UPF consumption and increased risk of prostate cancer [RR = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96–1.08, n = 5]. However, there was a slight increase in mortality (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.99–1.35, n = 2). A subgroup analysis by the dietary assessment method revealed an RR of 1.01 (95% CI = 0.93–1.09) for studies using the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and 1.04 (95% CI = 0.93–1.16) for studies using 24-h recalls. There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0, p = 0.82). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests no significant association between high UPF consumption and prostate cancer risk. Given the known associations with other chronic diseases, the potential public health implications of reducing UPF consumption remain important. Further research with the use of more robust food assignment systems and more precise dietary assessments is needed to clarify the role of UPF in prostate cancer development.

Purpose: IDH-mutant glioma management has been rapidly evolving following the 2024 FDA approval of the mutant IDH inhibitor (IDHi), vorasidenib. However, optimal treatment decisions for many specific scenarios remain unclear. The aim of this study was to provide insight into how clinicians collectively approach different clinical scenarios and evaluate how demographic and professional backgrounds influence decision-making for IDH-mutant glioma. Methods: A survey was developed by a team of neuro-oncologists and radiation oncologists and distributed via email and X (formerly Twitter) to clinicians who treat patients with IDH-mutant glioma (neuro/medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons). The survey included demographic questions and 10–13 case-based clinical scenarios with standardized response options. We compared responses between neuro/medical oncologists and radiation oncologists and performed univariable regression to identify predictors of treatment preference and IDHi familiarity/enthusiasm. Results: A total of 153 clinicians (58% neuro/medical-oncologists, 34% radiation oncologists, 8% neurosurgeons) completed the survey. Five of ten scenarios reached consensus (> 75% agreement on a treatment option), while the remainder demonstrated heterogeneity. Compared to neuro/medical oncologists, radiation oncologists were less likely to recommend IDHi (IRR 0.57, p < 0.001) and more likely to recommend radiotherapy (IRR 1.54, p < 0.001) or chemoradiotherapy (IRR 1.47, p < 0.001). Neuro-oncologists and neurosurgeons reported the most and least familiarity with IDHi, respectively, whereas medical oncologists and radiation oncologists reported the most and least enthusiasm for IDHi, respectively. Conclusions: Substantial variation exists in real-world management of IDH-mutant glioma across specialties and institutions. While several clinical scenarios demonstrated strong consensus, others revealed uncertainty, underscoring the need for ongoing multidisciplinary collaboration and further advances in evidence-based consensus to guide clinical decisions.