Supportive
GUAM International Consensus Guideline
ForProstate cancer RT, intact or post-prostatectomy, acute or late GU AEs
TL;DR48-expert modified Delphi (15 countries) sets first RT-specific GU adverse event management consensus; 76% favor moderate hypofractionation over SBRT at baseline IPSS 15–19.
Reported via UroToday →
The RT-technique domain is the read: 76% favored moderate hypofractionation over SBRT at baseline IPSS 15–19 and 85% a full bladder at simulation and treatment, yet no dose-volume constraint reached consensus. The presenter pointed to margin reduction instead, citing MIRAGE (2-mm MRI-guided vs 4-mm CT-guided, late G≥2 GU 51% → 27%).
In a man with severe LUTS headed for prostate cancer RT, this panel position supports considering a prophylactic bladder outlet procedure (85%) with ≥8 weeks recovery before RT (94%); it does not extend to irritative-predominant symptoms (95% against). The longer read
Fractionation choice now has an IPSS anchor: 76% favored moderate hypofractionation over SBRT at baseline IPSS 15–19, and 85% a full bladder at simulation and treatment. No dose-volume constraint reached consensus, and only 52% considered SBRT safe after a bladder outlet procedure, with 94% waiting ≥8 weeks before RT.
12 details
Systematic review (183 articles) plus 3-round modified Delphi, May 2025 to February 2026. 48 experts from 15 countries: 34 radiation oncologists, 7 medical oncologists, 7 urologic oncologists. Consensus = ≥75% agreement; independently peer reviewed, endorsed by ASTRO and ESTRO.
Men with GU adverse events associated with prostate cancer RT, split by intact prostate vs postoperative and, when intact, obstructive vs irritative predominance. Five domains: acute medical management, RT technique, bladder outlet obstruction, urology referral indications, hyperbaric oxygen. Recommendations assume UTI has been excluded.
76% favored moderate hypofractionation over SBRT at baseline IPSS 15–19; 85% recommended a full bladder at simulation and treatment. After a bladder outlet procedure, 94% would wait ≥8 weeks and 66% ≥12 weeks before RT; only 52% considered SBRT safe afterward. No dose-volume constraint reached consensus.
Agreement figures and IPSS threshold distributions are tabulated in the bullets. The manuscript reports consensus on 31 key questions; the source covers a subset.
| Setting | Preferred first-line | Subsequent options, in order |
|---|---|---|
| Intact prostate, obstructive | Alpha blockers | PDE5-Is, NSAIDs, steroids, anti-spasmodics |
| Intact prostate, irritative | Anti-spasmodics | Alpha blockers, NSAIDs, phenazopyridine, cranberry products |
| Post-prostatectomy | Anti-spasmodics | Not reported in source |
| Statement | Panel agreement |
|---|---|
| Against prophylactic medication before symptom onset | 80% |
| Add a second agent rather than switch when first-line inadequate | 80% |
| Alpha blockers do not or probably do not help postoperatively | 74% |
| Moderate hypofractionation over SBRT at baseline IPSS 15–19 | 76% |
| Full bladder at simulation and treatment | 85% |
| Refer IPSS ≥20 for bladder outlet procedure consideration | 74% |
| Wait ≥8 weeks after outlet procedure before RT | 94% |
| Wait ≥12 weeks after outlet procedure before RT | 66% |
| SBRT safe after outlet procedure once obstruction resolved | 52% |
| Consider prophylactic outlet procedure pre-RT for severe LUTS | 85% |
| No outlet procedure when irritative symptoms predominate | 95% |
| IPSS threshold | Panelists selecting |
|---|---|
| 10–14 | 16% |
| 15–19 | 61% |
| 20–24 | 21% |
| ≥25 | 2% |
| IPSS threshold | Panelists selecting |
|---|---|
| 15–19 | 34% |
| 20–24 | 47% |
| 25–29 | 15% |
| ≥30 | 4% |
The presenter cited MIRAGE for margin reduction (2-mm MRI-guided vs 4-mm CT-guided, late G≥2 GU 51% → 27%) and CHHiP, PROFIT, RTOG 0415 and the HYDRA meta-analysis as showing no consistent late GU increase with moderate hypofractionation. RICH-ART was cited as randomized support for hyperbaric oxygen in late radiation cystitis; no effect size reported in source.
Several quoted positions fall below the group's own ≥75% bar (74%, 74%, 66%, 52%). The source gives 60% for IPSS ≥15 and 61% for the 15–19 band without reconciling them. Outlet-procedure questions were voted by a panel with 34 radiation oncologists and 7 urologic oncologists.
A default sequence for symptom management and an IPSS-anchored fractionation preference now exist where practice was improvised. Still unsettled, per the working group: dose-volume constraints, reliability of urethral contouring, and RT-specific evidence for commonly used medications. Four ongoing trials are named (BEFORE, RadTARGET, RELIEF, DESTINATION-2) and the document is intended to be living.
Modified Delphi guideline; every percentage is panel opinion, not an outcome. Changes practice by standardizing GU symptom management and IPSS-based fractionation choice where no RT-specific guideline existed.
- Optimal dose-volume constraints for GU adverse events
- Reliability of urethral contouring
- RT-specific evidence for commonly used GU symptom medications
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
Testosterone Treatment in Prostate Cancer Survivors (Bhasin RCT) NCT03716739
ForHypogonadal men post-RP, pT2 Gleason 3+3/3+4, undetectable PSA ≥2 yr
TL;DRSexual activity +0.91 daily events vs placebo (95% CI 0.56-1.26, P<.001), zero biochemical recurrences, 12wk TRT in hypogonadal men post-RP for Gleason 3+3/3+4.
Men treated with RT or ADT were excluded, so the zero-BCR signal does not transfer to post-RT survivors, the hypogonadal population a radiation oncologist actually follows. Post-RT pts retain prostate tissue, and this trial offers no data on TRT against that background.
In hypogonadal men with undetectable PSA ≥2 years after RP for pT2 Gleason 3+3 or 3+4 disease, this supports short-term TRT as an evidence-backed option for sexual symptoms; it does not extend to post-RT, post-ADT, or higher-grade survivors. The longer read
For the urologist following hypogonadal men after RP for pT2 Gleason 3+3/3+4 disease, this provides the first randomized efficacy data for TRT, with an effect above the stated MCID. It does not settle oncologic safety: 0 vs 0 BCR over 12 wk plus 3 mo in a near-zero-risk cohort cannot rule out harm.
10 details 1 trial watching
Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group phase 2 (SPIRIT), 2 academic centers, 1:1, N=136. Enrollment May 2019 to last visit May 2025; target revised from 142 to 134 with DSMB concurrence.
Men ≥40 post-RP for organ-confined pT2N0M0, Gleason 3+3 or 3+4, preop PSA <10, undetectable PSA ≥2 yr. Hypogonadal (T <275 ng/dL and/or free T ≤70 pg/mL) plus low libido, ED, or fatigue. Mean age 68.6; 38% Gleason 6, 62% Gleason 7.
Testosterone cypionate 100 mg IM weekly × 12 wk vs placebo. Total T rose 349 ng/dL (95% CI 283-415) more than placebo; adherence 95% vs 94%.
Primary efficacy: change in sexual activity (PDQ question 4). Primary safety: biochemical recurrence (≥2 consecutive PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL). Secondary: desire, erectile function, affect, body composition, VO2 peak, stair-climb power.
No biochemical recurrence in either arm. Erythrocytosis in 3 TRT pts; SAEs 1 vs 3; no MACE or VTE. One TRT pt had detectable PSA 0.1 to <0.2 ng/mL during treatment.
Described by the authors as the first randomized placebo-controlled trial of TRT in prostate cancer survivors; prior support for TRT after RP rested on observational series. Many guidelines still list prostate cancer history as a TRT contraindication.
Baseline recurrence risk in this cohort is so low that 0 vs 0 BCR carries little information about harm. Erectile function did not move despite EPIC-26 gains, and no P value adjustment was made across secondaries.
The efficacy case for TRT in this population is now randomized and exceeds the MCID. The safety case remains a short-horizon absence of events, which justifies a larger long-term trial rather than settling the contraindication.
| Endpoint | Treatment effect (95% CI) | P |
|---|---|---|
| Sexual activity (PDQ-4), 1° EP | 0.91 (0.56 to 1.26) | <.001 |
| Sexual desire (DISF-SD) | 2.96 (1.46 to 4.45) | <.001 |
| EPIC-26 sexual domain | 5.35 (1.63 to 9.07) | .005 |
| Erectile function (IIEF) | 0.93 (−0.43 to 2.29) | .18 |
| Energy | 1.43 (−0.53 to 3.40) | .15 |
| PANAS positive affect | 0.60 (−0.85 to 2.04) | .42 |
| PANAS negative affect | −1.39 (−2.53 to −0.25) | .02 |
| Event | Placebo | Testosterone |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemical recurrence | 0 | 0 |
| ≥1 AE, pts (events) | 47 (138) | 49 (160) |
| SAEs, pts (events) | 1 (1) | 3 (3) |
| Erythrocytosis (Hb >18 g/dL) | 0 | 3 (3) |
| MACE | 0 | 0 |
| VTE | 0 | 0 |
| Bone fractures | 3 (3) | 0 |
CONSORT flow
Efficacy primary met in a clean double-blind RCT, but the question that gates practice (oncologic safety) is untestable at N=136 and 12 wk; authors frame it as proof-of-concept.
- Long-term oncologic safety of TRT after RP recruiting Impact of Peri-operative tEstosterone Levels on oNcological and Functional Outcomes in RadiCal prostatEctomy Phase 3n=140 · primary completion 2027-12 · phase 3 TRT gel vs placebo post-RP, oncologic outcomes
- TRT safety in post-RT or higher-grade survivors
- Durability of benefit beyond 12 weeks
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
EANO Consensus Statement on Radiation Necrosis
ForPost-cranial-RT pts with a new enhancing lesion, glioma or brain metastases
TL;DRDelphi consensus: 53/57 statements reached ≥80% agreement across 20 experts; perfusion MRI + amino acid PET preferred, bevacizumab for steroid-refractory RN.
The dose-volume numbers are the transferable part: V12Gy ~10 cm³ carrying 5-10% symptomatic necrosis in single-fraction SRS, and hypofractionated brain+target V20Gy (3fx) or V24Gy (5fx) <20 cm³ holding RN needing resection under 4%. That is a planning constraint, and it gates the single-session vs hypofractionated choice for larger or eloquent-region metastases.
For a patient 6-24 months out from SRS or cranial RT with a new enhancing lesion, this supports going to perfusion MRI plus amino acid PET before calling progression; it does not settle mixed lesions, where the panel still points to tissue. The longer read
The planning-relevant numbers: V12Gy ~10 cm³ carries 5-10% symptomatic necrosis after single-fraction SRS, while hypofractionated brain+target V20Gy (3fx) or V24Gy (5fx) <20 cm³ keeps RN requiring resection under 4%. Re-irradiation risk climbs to 25% above cumulative EQD2 130 Gy, which constrains repeat SRS for lesions over 2.0-3.0 cm.
Bevacizumab moves from rescue to a triggered step at steroid dependence >4 weeks or dexamethasone 8 mg/day, with four accepted dosing schemes and no evidence favouring one. The panel also flags added RN risk when SRS is combined with dual checkpoint blockade or antibody-drug conjugates, which bears on sequencing brain RT against systemic therapy.
Resection carries the lowest accepted agreement in the management table (80.0%) yet is positioned as giving diagnosis and definitive treatment in one step for accessible lesions. LITT reached 100% agreement as the option for treatment-resistant RN unsuitable for resection, which gives a documented pathway for the steroid-dependent or bevacizumab-cycling patient.
11 details 5 trials watching
Three-round Delphi. 57 statements drafted after literature review across epidemiology-pathophysiology (n=8), causes (n=10), imaging (n=10), histopathology (n=9), management (n=20), plus an exploratory research set of 8. Consensus prespecified at ≥80% agreement on a 5-point Likert scale.
The voting panel, not patients: 15 volunteers (2 radiation/clinical oncologists, 4 neuro-oncologists, 4 medical oncologists, 2 neurosurgeons, 1 neuropathologist, 1 neuroradiologist, 1 nuclear medicine physician), expanded by 5 more in round 1 (4 neuro-oncologists, 1 radiation/clinical oncologist) to 20 total. Clinically the scope is RN after RT for primary glial or metastatic brain tumors.
RN is called uncommon below EQD2 ~40 Gy (α/β 2 Gy), rising with dose per fraction, total dose and irradiated volume. V12Gy ~10 cm³ carries a 5-10% symptomatic necrosis risk after single-session SRS; for hypofractionated SRT, brain-plus-target V20Gy (3fx) or V24Gy (5fx) <20 cm³ associates with <10% any necrosis and <4% RN requiring resection. Re-irradiation risk stays under 10% at cumulative EQD2 100-110 Gy and reaches up to 25% above 130 Gy.
Consensus reached on 53 of 57 statements after three rounds. Diagnostic and management statements are tabulated separately in the details; the four that failed to reach 80% are not identified in the available text.
| Modality | Setting | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 contrast-enhanced MRI alone | WHO grade 3-4 glioma | 68% | 77% |
| T1 contrast-enhanced MRI alone | Brain metastases | 79% | 76% |
| DSC rCBV | Grade 3-4 glioma | 87-90% | 86-88% |
| DSC rCBV | Brain metastases (418 lesions) | 83% | 78% |
| MR spectroscopy Cho/NAA | Glioma (455 pts) | 88% | 86% |
| Amino acid PET | Brain metastases (~400 pts) | 82% | 84% |
The document's practical contribution is a decision sequence rather than a new treatment: advanced MRI first, amino acid PET to add confidence, tissue when doubt persists, and treatment triggered only by symptoms of >7 days with increasing severity. Its most consequential position is moving bevacizumab from rescue to an expected next step at a defined steroid threshold (dependence >4 weeks or dexamethasone 8 mg/day), which is a lower bar than many centres apply.
Agreement percentages measure how a self-selected 20-person European panel voted, and the panel skews neuro-oncology (8 of 20) over radiation oncology (3 of 20) for a complication defined by dose and volume. FET and F-DOPA availability is largely European, so the imaging algorithm's top tier is not reproducible in most centres worldwide. The 4 non-consensus statements are not enumerated in the accessible text, so the reader cannot see where the panel actually split.
Delphi expert-opinion document, no efficacy endpoint. Agreement measured against opinion, not outcomes; authors state absence of Level 1 evidence and call for randomised trials.
- Optimal bevacizumab dose, interval and duration for symptomatic RN n=408 · primary completion 2028-07 · phase 3 bevacizumab vs dexamethasone, 1L sCRNrecruiting Corticodependent or Corticoresistant Brain Radionecrosis After Radiotherapy for Brain Metastases Phase 3n=84 · primary completion 2028-08 · randomised bev vs placebo in steroid-refractory RN
- Single-session SRS vs hypofractionated SRT for RN risk active Comparing Single vs Multiple Dose Radiation for Cancer Patients With Brain Metastasis and Receiving Immunotherapy Phase NAn=58 · primary completion 2028-03 · single vs fractionated SRS toxicity on ICIn=54 · primary completion 2029-02 · staged SRS vs FSRT, 2-5 cm mets, safety endpointn=504 · primary completion 2030-01 · phase 3 3x10 Gy SRT vs 1x20-25 Gy SRS
- Predictors of bevacizumab response and recurrence rate after treatment