S1240
Clinical - Urology
ESTRO 2026
ContrI values up to 0.6, indicating significant polarization. Most respondents endorsed SBRT for renal lesions ≤ 4–5 cm, and selectively up to 7 cm after multidisciplinary evaluation, particularly in non- surgical candidates.However, disagreement persisted regarding the definition of oligoprogression ( ≤ 3 vs ≤ 5 lesions) and the threshold of treatability.The prevalence of medical oncologists among respondents likely influenced the cautious tone of recommendations, with several experts labeling SBRT evidence as “promising but not practice-changing.”AI- driven analysis identified this section as a “low consensus,” suggesting the need for further data integration and cross-specialty harmonization. Conclusion: The AI-assisted Delphi Consensus 2025 reveals a persistent gap between systemic and local mindsets in managing oligoprogressive RCC.SBRT is recognized as a valid, minimally invasive option, yet its adoption remains limited by perception and disciplinary boundaries.A shared framework for defining oligoprogression and selecting candidates for radiotherapy is urgently needed to move from opinion-based care to true multidisciplinary evidence.This evolution extends the methodological foundation established by the 2024 Delphi Consensus published in Lancet Oncology, toward an AI- supported, cross-specialty consensus model for precision oncology in RCC References: Marvaso G, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Zaffaroni M, Delphi consensus on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma-a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology study endorsed by the European Association of Urology. Lancet Oncol. 2024 May;25(5):e193-e204. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00023-8. PMID: 38697165. Keywords: RCC, Delphi consensus, SBRT External validation of models predicting sexual function 2 years after curative prostate cancer radiotherapy Claudia Cruz Oliveira 1 , Christian Jongen 2 , Wilma Heemsbergen 2 , David van Klaveren 1 1 Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 2 Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands Digital Poster Highlight 2765
Proffered Paper 2790
Elective pelvic irradiation or focal boosting in high- risk prostate cancer? Joint analysis of the POP-RT and FLAME randomized trials Karolína Menne Guricová 1 , Priyamvada Maitre 2 , Floris Pos 1 , Cédric Draulans 3 , Karin Haustermans 4,3 , Robert Jan Smeenk 5 , Jochem RN van der Voort van Zyp 6 , Uulke A van der Heide 1 , Vedang Murthy 2 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI-AVL), Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India. 3 Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5 Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 6 Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands Purpose/Objective: For high risk localized prostate cancer both, elective pelvic RT as well as focal tumour boost have shown to improve oncological outcomes [1][2][3]. A joint analysis of the POP-RT and FLAME trials was undertaken to identify clinical characteristics favouring either approach. Material/Methods: Our analysis included POP-RT patients and FLAME patients fulfilling POP-RT criteria (FLAMEhigh-risk). We selected POP-RT patients with recurrent disease despite receiving pelvic RT (POP-RTrecc). Patient characteristics of POP-RTrecc were compared to the full trial cohort using Chi-squared test to identify potentially intervention-resistant characteristics. We then investigated if focal boosting could have improved the outcome. Recognizing the limitations of cross-trial comparisons in cohorts with inherently varying risk factors, cardinality matching was employed [4]. Patients in POP-RTrecc were matched with each trial arm of POP-RT and FLAMEhigh-risk
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online