Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are... Show moreBackground: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined.Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa.Design, setting, and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if >75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hered-itary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveil-lance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germ -line pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as fol-lows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline.Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa.Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Groen, V.H.; Schie, M. van; Zuithoff, N.P.A.; Monninkhof, E.M.; Kunze-Busch, M.; Boer, J.C.J. de; ... ; Kerkmeijer, L.G.W. 2022
Purpose or objectives: The FLAME trial (NCT01168479) showed that by adding a focal boost to conventional fractionated EBRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer, the five-year biochemical... Show morePurpose or objectives: The FLAME trial (NCT01168479) showed that by adding a focal boost to conventional fractionated EBRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer, the five-year biochemical disease-free survival increased, without significantly increasing toxicity. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between radiation dose to the bladder and urethra and genitourinary (GU) toxicity grade >= 2 in the entire cohort.Material and methods: The dose-effect relations of the urethra and bladder dose, separately, and GU toxicity grade >= 2 (CTCAE 3.0) up to five years after treatment were assessed. A mixed model analysis for repeated measurements was used, adjusting for age, diabetes mellitus, T-stage, baseline GU toxicity grade >= 1 and institute. Additionally, the association between the dose and separate GU toxicity subdomains were investigated.Results: Dose-effect relations were observed for the dose (Gy) to the bladder D2 cm(3) and urethra D0.1 cm(3), with adjusted odds ratios of 1.14 (95% CI 1.12-1.16, p < 0.0001) and 1.12 (95% CI 1.11-1.14, p < 0.0001), respectively. Additionally, associations between the dose to the urethra and bladder and the subdomains urinary frequency, urinary retention and urinary incontinence were observed.Conclusion: Further increasing the dose to the bladder and urethra will result in a significant increase in GU toxicity following EBRT. Focal boost treatment plans should incorporate a urethral dose-constraint. Further treatment optimization to increase the focal boost dose without increasing the dose to the urethra and other organs at risk should be a focus for future research, as we have shown that a focal boost is beneficial in the treatment of prostate cancer. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. Show less
