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
Bavelaar, L.; Nicula, M.; Morris, S.; Kaasalainen, S.; Achterberg, W.P.; Loucka, M.; ... ; Steen, J.T. van der 2022
Purpose: After radiation therapy for painful bone metastases, up to 44% of patients report a pain flare (PF). Our study compared 2 dose schedules of dexamethasone versus placebo to prevent PF... Show morePurpose: After radiation therapy for painful bone metastases, up to 44% of patients report a pain flare (PF). Our study compared 2 dose schedules of dexamethasone versus placebo to prevent PF.Methods and Materials: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial allocated patients with painful bone metastases from solid tumors randomly to receive 8 mg dexamethasone before radiation therapy followed by 3 daily doses (group A), 8 mg dexamethasone followed by 3 doses of placebo (group B), or 4 doses of placebo (group C). Patients reported worst pain scores, study medication side effects, and opioid intake before treatment and thereafter daily for 14 days and on day 28. PF was defined as at least a 2-point increase on a 0 to 10 pain scale with no decrease in opioid intake or a 25% or greater increase in opioid intake with no decrease in pain score, followed by a return to baseline or lower. The primary analysis was by intention to treat with patients who had missing data classified as having a PF.Results: From January 2012 to April 2016, 295 patients were randomized. PF incidence was 38% for group A, 27% for group B, and 39% for group C (P = .07). Although patients in group B had the lowest PF incidence, a relatively high percentage did not return to baseline pain levels, indicating pain progression. The mean duration of PF was 2.1 days for group A, 4.5 days for group B, and 3.3 days for group C (P = .0567). Dexamethasone postponed PF occurrence; in group A 52% occurred on days 2 to 5 versus 73% in group B and 99% in group C (P = .02). Patients in group A reported lower mean pain scores on days 2 to 5 than those in group B or C (P < .001). Side effects were similar.Conclusions: There was insufficient evidence that dexamethasone reduced the incidence of radiation-induced PF. However, dexamethasone postponed the occurrence of PF and led to lower mean pain scores on days 2 to 5. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Show less
Linden, Y. van der; Westhoff, P.; Stellato, R.; Kasperts, N.; Baardwijk, A. van; Vries, K. de; ... ; Graeff, A. de 2018
