Multidisciplinary expert consensus on treatment intensification in metastatic androgen pathway modulation-sensitive prostate cancer: a case-based RAND/UCLA analysis.

IF 2.2 Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Drugs in Context Pub Date : 2026-09-07 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.7573/dic.2026-6-2
Ángel Borque-Fernando, Teresa Alonso-Gordoa, María José Juan-Fita, Fernando Lopez Campos, Daniel Adolfo Pérez-Fentes, Antoni Vilaseca, Cristina Moretones Agut, Paola Usán, Pablo Maroto Rey
{"title":"Multidisciplinary expert consensus on treatment intensification in metastatic androgen pathway modulation-sensitive prostate cancer: a case-based RAND/UCLA analysis.","authors":"Ángel Borque-Fernando, Teresa Alonso-Gordoa, María José Juan-Fita, Fernando Lopez Campos, Daniel Adolfo Pérez-Fentes, Antoni Vilaseca, Cristina Moretones Agut, Paola Usán, Pablo Maroto Rey","doi":"10.7573/dic.2026-6-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Metastatic androgen pathway modulation (mAPM)-sensitive prostate cancer, formerly termed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, is a clinically heterogeneous disease in which treatment intensification decisions are guided by metastatic volume and timing of presentation. However, increasing use of advanced imaging and molecular profiling has revealed prognostic scenarios that are not adequately addressed by current algorithms. This study presents a structured multidisciplinary expert consensus exercise, rather than primary clinical research, applying the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to evaluate systemic treatment intensification strategies in mAPM-sensitive prostate cancer. Four anonymized real-world clinical cases representing key prognostic constellations - metachronous/synchronous disease, low/high metastatic burden - were assessed. Panellists rated the appropriateness of doublet therapy <i>versus</i> triplet therapy, including tailored 'what-if' variations, through two rounds of anonymous voting with structured discussion. The resulting assessments reflect structured expert judgement integrating available evidence with clinical experience. The panel identified metastatic pattern, particularly the presence and type of visceral involvement, disease dynamics, patient fitness and imaging context as dominant drivers of treatment selection. These findings should be interpreted as consensus-based appropriateness assessments rather than evidence-based treatment recommendations. They support a personalized, multidisciplinary approach to mAPM-sensitive prostate cancer management, emphasizing expert integration of prognostic factors beyond volume-based classifications in clinical scenarios where high-level evidence is limited or not directly applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":11362,"journal":{"name":"Drugs in Context","volume":"15 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13574230/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs in Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7573/dic.2026-6-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Metastatic androgen pathway modulation (mAPM)-sensitive prostate cancer, formerly termed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, is a clinically heterogeneous disease in which treatment intensification decisions are guided by metastatic volume and timing of presentation. However, increasing use of advanced imaging and molecular profiling has revealed prognostic scenarios that are not adequately addressed by current algorithms. This study presents a structured multidisciplinary expert consensus exercise, rather than primary clinical research, applying the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to evaluate systemic treatment intensification strategies in mAPM-sensitive prostate cancer. Four anonymized real-world clinical cases representing key prognostic constellations - metachronous/synchronous disease, low/high metastatic burden - were assessed. Panellists rated the appropriateness of doublet therapy versus triplet therapy, including tailored 'what-if' variations, through two rounds of anonymous voting with structured discussion. The resulting assessments reflect structured expert judgement integrating available evidence with clinical experience. The panel identified metastatic pattern, particularly the presence and type of visceral involvement, disease dynamics, patient fitness and imaging context as dominant drivers of treatment selection. These findings should be interpreted as consensus-based appropriateness assessments rather than evidence-based treatment recommendations. They support a personalized, multidisciplinary approach to mAPM-sensitive prostate cancer management, emphasizing expert integration of prognostic factors beyond volume-based classifications in clinical scenarios where high-level evidence is limited or not directly applicable.

多学科专家对转移性雄激素通路调节敏感前列腺癌强化治疗的共识:基于病例的RAND/UCLA分析。
转移性雄激素通路调节(mAPM)敏感前列腺癌,以前称为转移性激素敏感前列腺癌,是一种临床异质性疾病,其治疗强化决定取决于转移量和出现时间。然而,越来越多地使用先进的成像和分子分析已经揭示了目前算法无法充分解决的预后情况。本研究提出了一个结构化的多学科专家共识练习,而不是初步临床研究,应用RAND/UCLA适当性方法来评估mapm敏感前列腺癌的全身治疗强化策略。评估了四个匿名的真实世界临床病例,这些病例代表了关键的预后星座——异时/同步疾病,低/高转移性负担。小组成员通过两轮匿名投票和有组织的讨论,对双重疗法和三重疗法的适当性进行了评估,包括量身定制的“假设”变化。由此产生的评估反映了结构化的专家判断,将现有证据与临床经验相结合。该小组确定了转移模式,特别是内脏受累的存在和类型,疾病动力学,患者适应性和影像学背景作为治疗选择的主要驱动因素。这些发现应被解释为基于共识的适当性评估,而不是基于证据的治疗建议。他们支持个性化、多学科的mapm敏感前列腺癌管理方法,强调在高水平证据有限或不能直接适用的临床情况下,专家整合预后因素,而不是基于体积的分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Drugs in Context
Drugs in Context Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Covers all phases of original research: laboratory, animal and human/clinical studies, health economics and outcomes research, and postmarketing studies. Original research that shows positive or negative results are welcomed. Invited review articles may cover single-drug reviews, drug class reviews, latest advances in drug therapy, therapeutic-area reviews, place-in-therapy reviews, new pathways and classes of drugs. In addition, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are welcomed and may be published as original research if performed per accepted guidelines. Editorials of key topics and issues in drugs and therapeutics are welcomed. The Editor-in-Chief will also consider manuscripts of interest in areas such as technologies that support diagnosis, assessment and treatment. EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines should be followed for each article type. GPP3 Guidelines should be followed for any industry-sponsored manuscripts. Other Editorial sections may include Editorial, Case Report, Conference Report, Letter-to-the-Editor, Educational Section.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书