ABSTRACT Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths. In Brazil, it is likewise the second most common cancer among men, second only to non-melanoma skin cancers. The aim of this consensus is to align different opinions and interpretations of the medical literature in a practical and patient-oriented approach. The first Brazilian Consensus on the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer was published in 2017, with the goal of reducing the heterogeneity of therapeutic conduct in Brazilian patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We acknowledge that in Brazil the incorporation of different technologies is a big challenge, especially in the Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), which allows for the disparity in the options available to patients treated in different institutions. In order to update the recommendations and to make them objective and easily accessible, once more a panel of specialists was formed in order to discuss and elaborate a new Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer. This Consensus was written through a joint initiative of the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC) and the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU) to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of patients with prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT Introduction Prostate cancer still represents a major cause of morbidity, and still about 20% of men with the disease are diagnosed or will progress to the advanced stage without the possibility of curative treatment. Despite the recent advances in scientific and technological knowledge and the availability of new therapies, there is still considerable heterogeneity in the therapeutic approaches for metastatic prostate cancer. Objectives This article presents a summary of the I Brazilian Consensus on Advanced Prostate Cancer, conducted by the Brazilian Society of Urology and Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology. Materials and Methods Experts were selected by the medical societies involved. Forty issues regarding controversial issues in advanced disease were previously elaborated. The panel met for consensus, with a threshold established for 2/3 of the participants. Results and Conclusions The treatment of advanced prostate cancer is complex, due to the existence of a large number of therapies, with different response profiles and toxicities. The panel addressed recommendations on preferred choice of therapies, indicators that would justify their change, and indicated some strategies for better sequencing of treatment in order to maximize the potential for disease control with the available therapeutic arsenal. The lack of consensus on some topics clearly indicates the absence of strong evidence for some decisions.

<title>ABSTRACT</title><sec><title>Objectives:</title><p>To investigate current evidence on the optimal duration of adjuvant hormone deprivation for prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy with curative intent.</p></sec><sec><title>Materials and Methods:</title><p>A systematic search was performed in electronic databases. Data from randomized trials comparing different durations of hormone blockade was collected for pooled analysis. Overall survival, disease-free survival, disease-specific survival and toxicity were the outcomes of interest. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects model.</p></sec><sec><title>Results:</title><p>Six studies met the eligibility criteria. For overall survival, the pooled data from the studies demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for longer hormone deprivation (Hazard Ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.74 – 0.96). A statistically significant benefit was also found for disease-free survival (Hazard Ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 – 0.89), and disease-specific survival (Hazard Ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.62 – 0.85). Studies with longer blockade duration arm demonstrated greater benefit. Toxicity was low, with no increase in cardiovascular events.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions:</title><p>Longer duration of androgen deprivation combined to radiotherapy prolongs OS, DFS and DSS in patients with intermediate and high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer. However, this evidence is based on trials using older radiation techniques, and further research of combination of androgen deprivation and new RT technologies may be warranted.</p></sec>

Objective Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis to evaluate the results of magnetic resonance image 1.5T with endorectal coil in the diagnosis and evaluation of extra-prostatic extension and involvement of seminal vesicles of prostate cancer, compared to the histopathological results of the radical prostatectomy specimen. Materials and Methods It was conducted a systematic review of literature and meta-analyses of all studies data published after 2008. In those studies, the patients with prostate cancer with indication to radical prostatectomy were submitted to magnetic resonance image (MRI) at pre-operatory period and the results were compared to those of histopathological studies after the surgery. The selected terms for research included prostate cancer, magnetic resonance, radical prostatectomy, and prostate cancer diagnosis, in the databases EMBASE, LILACS, PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library. The data were collected using a specific qualitative instrument and the meta-analysis data were presented in the forest plot graphics, homogeneity test and sROC curves and funnel plot. Results A total of seven studies were included, with a total of 603 patients. Among these studies, six evaluated the value of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer, and the median sensitivity of meta-analysis was 0.6 and specificity 0.58, but with heterogeneity among the studies. Three studies evaluated extra-prostatic extension with a median sensitivity of 0.49, specificity 0.82 and heterogeneity only for sensitivity. Three studies evaluated invasion of seminal vesicles, with median sensitivity of 0.45 and specificity 0.96, with heterogeneity in both analysis. Conclusion Magnetic resonance of 1.5T with endocoil showed low values of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. The reviewed studies showed a significant heterogeneity among them. The best observed result was MRI specificity for invasion of seminal vesicles. More studies are necessary to evaluate new techniques and parameters before recommending the routine use of MRI in clinical practice.

OBJETIVOS: Análise econômica com dados nacionais sobre a possível incorporação do anastrozol como terapia adjuvante hormonal no câncer de mama em pacientes pós-menopausa. MÉTODOS: Foi feita estimativa de custo-efetividade no tratamento adjuvante do câncer de mama, em mulheres pós-menopausa, do anastrozol versus tamoxifeno em três perspectivas: do paciente, de planos de saúde e do governo. Modelo de Markov foi desenvolvido utilizando dados extraídos de publicação do estudo ATAC após seguimento de 100 meses, com projeção de desfechos em 25 anos para uma coorte hipotética de 1000 pacientes com câncer de mama pós-menopausa no Brasil. Dados de utilização de recursos e custos associados foram obtidos de fontes preestabelecidas e de opinião de especialistas. O custo associado aos tratamentos foi extraído separadamente, dependendo do ponto de vista estudado. O benefício foi inserido no modelo para obtenção do custo por ano de vida ganho ajustado pela qualidade (QALY). RESULTADOS: Extrapolando benefícios encontrados para 25 anos de seguimento, o anastrozol, em relação ao tamoxifeno, resultou numa estimativa de ganho de 0,29 QALY. A razão de custo-efetividade por QALY ganho dependeu da perspectiva utilizada. Houve incremento de R$ 32.403,00/QALY no ponto de vista do SUS; de R$ 32.230,00/QALY no dos planos de saúde; e de R$ 55.270,00/QALY no das pacientes. CONCLUSÃO: O benefício encontrado no uso do anastrozol adjuvante em pacientes com câncer de mama operado na pós-menopausa está associado a grandes diferenças na razão de custo-efetividade, dependendo da perspectiva utilizada para o cálculo. Comparando com parâmetros usualmente aceitos pela OMS, o incremento é aceitável sob a perspectiva do SUS e dos planos de saúde, mas não sob a ótica do paciente.

OBJECTIVES: Carry out an economic analysis of the incorporation of anastrozole as adjuvant hormone therapy in postmenopausal women with breast cancer in a Brazilian setting. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness estimate comparing anastrozole to tamoxifen was made from the perspectives of the patient, private health insurance, and government. A Markov model was designed based on data from ATAC trial after 100 months follow-up in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 postmenopausal women in Brazil, using outcomes projections for a 25-year period. Resource utilization and associated costs were obtained from preselected sources and specialists' opinions. Treatment costs varied according to the perspective used. The incremental benefit was inserted in the model to obtain the cost of quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY). RESULTS: Benefit extrapolations for a 25-year time line showed an estimate of 0.29 QALY gained with anastrozole compared to tamoxifen. The cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained depended on which perspective was used. There was an increment of R$ 32.403,00/QALY in the public health system/government, R$ 32.230,00/QALY for private health system, and R$ 55.270,00/QALY for patients. CONCLUSION: The benefit from adjuvant anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer is associated to major differences in cost-effectiveness ratio and varies with the different perspectives. According to current WHO parameters, the increment is considered acceptable under public and private health system perspectives, but not from that of the patient.