Background Ongoing research in the field of both localized, locally advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma has resulted in the availability of multiple treatment options. Hence, many... Show moreBackground Ongoing research in the field of both localized, locally advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma has resulted in the availability of multiple treatment options. Hence, many questions are still unanswered and await further research. A nationwide collaborative registry allows to collect corresponding data. For this purpose, the Dutch PROspective Renal Cell Carcinoma cohort (PRO-RCC) has been founded, for the prospective collection of long-term clinical data, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs).Methods PRO-RCC is designed as a multicenter cohort for all Dutch patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Recruitment will start in the Netherlands in 2023. Importantly, participants may also consent to participation in a 'Trial within cohorts' studies (TwiCs). The TwiCs design provides a method to perform (randomized) interventional studies within the registry. The clinical data collection is embedded in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Next to the standardly available data on RCC, additional clinical data will be collected. PROMS entail Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), symptom monitoring with optional ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of pain and fatigue, and optional return to work- and/or nutrition questionnaires. PREMS entail satisfaction with care. Both PROMS and PREMS are collected through the PROFILES registry and are accessible for the patient and the treating physician.Discussion PRO-RCC is a nationwide long-term cohort for the collection of real-world clinical data, PROMS and PREMS. By facilitating an infrastructure for the collection of prospective data on RCC, PRO-RCC will contribute to observational research in a real-world study population and prove effectiveness in daily clinical practice. The infrastructure of this cohort also enables that interventional studies can be conducted with the TwiCs design, without the disadvantages of classic RCTs such as slow patient accrual and risk of dropping out after randomization. Show less
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have the potential to improve risk stratification. Joint estimation of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) effects in models could... Show morePolygenic risk scores (PRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have the potential to improve risk stratification. Joint estimation of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) effects in models could improve predictive performance over standard approaches of PRS construction. Here, we implemented computationally efficient, penalized, logistic regression models (lasso, elastic net, stepwise) to individual level genotype data and a Bayesian framework with continuous shrinkage, "select and shrink for summary statistics" (S4), to summary level data for epithelial non-mucinous ovarian cancer risk prediction. We developed the models in a dataset consisting of 23,564 non-mucinous EOC cases and 40,138 controls participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) and validated the best models in three populations of different ancestries: prospective data from 198,101 women of European ancestries; 7,669 women of East Asian ancestries; 1,072 women of African ancestries, and in 18,915 BRCA1 and 12,337 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestries. In the external validation data, the model with the strongest association for non-mucinous EOC risk derived from the OCAC model development data was the S4 model (27,240 SNPs) with odds ratios (OR) of 1.38 (95% CI: 1.28-1.48, AUC: 0.588) per unit standard deviation, in women of European ancestries; 1.14 (95% CI: 1.08-1.19, AUC: 0.538) in women of East Asian ancestries; 1.38 (95% CI: 1.21-1.58, AUC: 0.593) in women of African ancestries; hazard ratios of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.29-1.43, AUC: 0.592) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers and 1.49 (95% CI: 1.35-1.64, AUC: 0.624) in BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Incorporation of the S4 PRS in risk prediction models for ovarian cancer may have clinical utility in ovarian cancer prevention programs. Show less
Hoogstraten, L.M.C. van; Gennep, E.J. van; Kiemeney, L.A.L.M.; Witjes, J.A.; Voskuilen, C.S.; Deelen, M.; ... ; BlaZIB Study Grp 2021
Purpose Little is known about the prevalence of occult lymph node metastases (LNM) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients with pathological downstaging of the primary tumor. We aimed to... Show morePurpose Little is known about the prevalence of occult lymph node metastases (LNM) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients with pathological downstaging of the primary tumor. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of occult LNM in patients without residual MIBC at radical cystectomy (RC) with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NAR), and to assess overall survival (OS). Methods Patients with cT2-T4aN0M0 urothelial MIBC who underwent RC plus pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) with curative intent between January 1995-December 2013 (retrospective Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) cohort) and November 2017-October 2019 (prospective NCR-BlaZIB cohort (acronym in Dutch: BlaaskankerZorg In Beeld; in English: Insight into bladder cancer care)) were identified from the nationwide NCR. The prevalence of occult LNM was calculated and OS of patients with y)pT2N0 vs. y)pT2N+ disease was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results In total, 4657 patients from the NCR cohort and 760 patients from the NCR-BlaZIB cohort were included. Of 1374 patients downstaged to y)pT2, 4.3% (N = 59) had occult LNM 4.1% (N = 49) of patients with cT2-disease and 5.6% (N = 10) with cT3-4a-disease. This was 4.0% (N = 44) in patients without NAC or NAR, 4.5% (N = 10) in patients with NAC, and 13.5% (N = 5) in patients with NAR but number of patients treated with NAR and downstaged disease was small. The prevalence of y)pT2N+ disease was 4.2% (N = 48) in the NCR cohort and 4.6% (N = 11) in the NCR-BlaZIB cohort. For patients with y)pT2N+ and y)pT2N0, median OS was 3.5 years (95% CI 2.5-8.9) versus 12.9 years (95% CI 11.7-14.0), respectively. Conclusion Occult LNM were found in 4.3% of patients with cT2-4aN0M0 MIBC with (near-) complete downstaging of the primary tumor following RC plus PLND. This was regardless of NAC or clinical T-stage. Patients with occult LNM showed considerable worse survival. These results can help in counseling patients for bladder-sparing treatments. Show less
Walraven, J.E.W.; Desar, I.M.E.; Hoeven, J.J.M. van der; Aben, K.K.H.; Hillegersberg, R. van; Rasch, C.R.N.; ... ; Verhoeven, R.H.A. 2019
Introduction: For optimal oncological care, it is recommended to discuss every patient with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM). This is a time consuming and expensive practice,... Show moreIntroduction: For optimal oncological care, it is recommended to discuss every patient with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM). This is a time consuming and expensive practice, leading to a growing demand to change the current workflow. We aimed to investigate the number of patients discussed in MDTMs and to identify characteristics associated with not being discussed.Methods: Data of patients with a newly diagnosed solid malignant tumour in 2015 and 2016 were analysed through the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). We clustered tumour types in groups that were frequently discussed within a tumour-specific MDTM. Tumour types without information about MDTMs in the NCR were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyse factors associated with not being discussed.Results: Out of 105.305 patients with cancer, 91% were discussed in a MDTM, varying from 74% to 99% between the different tumour groups. Significantly less frequently discussed were patients aged >= 75 years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6-0.7), patients diagnosed with disease stage I (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.5-0.6), IV (OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.4-0.4) or unknown (OR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.2-0.2) and patients who received no treatment (OR=0.3, 95% CI=0.3-0.3). Patients who received a multidisciplinary treatment were more likely to be discussed in contrary to a monodisciplinary treatment (OR = 4.6, 95% CI = 4.2-5.1).Conclusion: In general, most patients with cancer were actually discussed in a MDTM, although differences were observed between tumour groups. Factors associated with not being discussed may, at least partially, reflect the absence of a multidisciplinary question. These results form a starting point for debate on a more durable and efficient new MDTM strategy. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
