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
Context: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa)... Show moreContext: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa).Objective: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy.Evidence acquisition: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed.Evidence synthesis: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, >= 80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy.Conclusions: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement <= 50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified.Patient summary: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter). (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. Show less
Broeck, T. van den; Bergh, R.C.N. van den; Arfi, N.; Gross, T.; Moris, L.; Briers, E.; ... ; Mottet, N. 2019
The studies described in this thesis were performed to investigate the short and long-term effects of chemotherapy on bone metabolism, fat metabolism and cardiovascular risk in testicular germ cell... Show moreThe studies described in this thesis were performed to investigate the short and long-term effects of chemotherapy on bone metabolism, fat metabolism and cardiovascular risk in testicular germ cell tumour (GCT) patients. We report a twofold increased prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) in GCT patients who received chemotherapy compared to that in patients with stage 1 disease who did not receive chemotherapy, or to that in healthy controls. Thereafter, we describe disadvantageous metabolic changes and acute alterations in diastolic heart function in GCT patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In the same group of patients we show that, during chemotherapy administrations, serum non-protein bound iron concentrations were inversely related to the latent iron-binding capacity and serum iron concentrations. This suggests that chemotherapy-associated iron overload may play a role in short and long-term chemotherapy induced toxicity in GCT patients. The study on bone metabolism shows an increased prevalence of vertebral fractures, independent of BMD and anticancer treatment, in newly diagnosed as well as long term survivors of testicular cancer. The last chapter reports on a significant decline in lumbar and femoral BMD in metastatic GCT patients one year after chemotherapeutic treatment. Show less
Willemse, P.P.M.; Meer, R.W. van der; Elderen, S. van; Burggraaf, J.; Lamb, H.J.; Roos, A. de; Osanto, S. 2012
