These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting.
    Author: Mehra N, Kloots I, Vlaming M, Aluwini S, Dewulf E, Oprea-Lager DE, van der Poel H, Stoevelaar H, Yakar D, Bangma CH, Bekers E, van den Bergh R, Bergman AM, van den Berkmortel F, Boudewijns S, Dinjens WNM, Fütterer J, van der Hulle T, Jenster G, Kroeze LI, van Kruchten M, van Leenders G, van Leeuwen PJ, de Leng WWJ, van Moorselaar RJA, Noordzij W, Oldenburg RA, van Oort IM, Oving I, Schalken JA, Schoots IG, Schuuring E, Smeenk RJ, Vanneste BGL, Vegt E, Vis AN, de Vries K, Willemse PM, Wondergem M, Ausems M.
    Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci; 2023 Mar; 49():23-31. PubMed ID: 36874601.
    Abstract:
    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 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 hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline 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 follows: (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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]