Search

PurposeGermline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services.MethodsA multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider).ResultsLarge germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing-initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing-was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches.ConclusionThis multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

Purpose Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-driven working framework for comprehensive genetic evaluation of inherited PCA in the multigene testing era addressing genetic counseling, testing, and genetically informed management. Methods An expert consensus conference was convened including key stakeholders to address genetic counseling and testing, PCA screening, and management informed by evidence review. Results Consensus was strong that patients should engage in shared decision making for genetic testing. There was strong consensus to test HOXB13 for suspected hereditary PCA, BRCA1/2 for suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and DNA mismatch repair genes for suspected Lynch syndrome. There was strong consensus to factor BRCA2 mutations into PCA screening discussions. BRCA2 achieved moderate consensus for factoring into early-stage management discussion, with stronger consensus in high-risk/advanced and metastatic setting. Agreement was moderate to test all men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA, regardless of family history, with stronger agreement to test BRCA1/2 and moderate agreement to test ATM to inform prognosis and targeted therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary consensus statement to address a genetic evaluation framework for inherited PCA in the multigene testing era. Future research should focus on developing a working definition of familial PCA for clinical genetic testing, expanding understanding of genetic contribution to aggressive PCA, exploring clinical use of genetic testing for PCA management, genetic testing of African American males, and addressing the value framework of genetic evaluation and testing men at risk for PCA-a clinically heterogeneous disease.

Quality assurance (QA) guidelines are essential to provide uniform execution of clinical trials with uniform quality hyperthermia treatments. This document outlines the requirements for appropriate QA of all current superficial heating equipment including electromagnetic (radiative and capacitive), ultrasound, and infrared heating techniques. Detailed instructions are provided how to characterize and document the performance of these hyperthermia applicators in order to apply reproducible hyperthermia treatments of uniform high quality. Earlier documents used specific absorption rate (SAR) to define and characterize applicator performance. In these QA guidelines, temperature rise is the leading parameter for characterization of applicator performance. The intention of this approach is that characterization can be achieved with affordable equipment and easy-to-implement procedures. These characteristics are essential to establish for each individual applicator the specific maximum size and depth of tumors that can be heated adequately. The guidelines in this document are supplemented with a second set of guidelines focusing on the clinical application. Both sets of guidelines were developed by the European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology (ESHO) Technical Committee with participation of senior Society of Thermal Medicine (STM) members and members of the Atzelsberg Circle.

Management of men with prostate cancer is fraught with uncertainty as physicians and patients balance efficacy with potential toxicity and diminished quality of life. Utilization of genomics as a prognostic biomarker has improved the informed decision-making process by enabling more rationale treatment choices. Recently investigations have begun to determine whether genomic information from tumor transcriptome data can be used to impact clinical decision-making beyond prognosis. Here we discuss the potential of genomics to alter management of a patient who presented with high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma. We suggest that this information help selecting patients for advanced imaging, chemotherapies, or clinical trial.

Pain due to bone metastases is a common cause of cancer-related morbidity, with few options available for patients refractory to medical therapies and who do not respond to radiation therapy. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS), a noninvasive method of thermal tissue ablation for palliation of pain due to bone metastases. Patients with painful bone metastases were randomly assigned 3:1 to receive MRgFUS sonication or placebo. The primary endpoint was improvement in self-reported pain score without increase of pain medication 3 months after treatment and was analyzed by Fisher's exact test. Components of the response composite, Numerical Rating Scale for pain (NRS) and morphine equivalent daily dose intake, were analyzed by t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test, respectively. Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-QoL), a measure of functional interference of pain on quality of life, was compared between MRgFUS and placebo by t test. Statistical tests were two-sided. One hundred forty-seven subjects were enrolled, with 112 and 35 randomly assigned to MRgFUS and placebo treatments, respectively. Response rate for the primary endpoint was 64.3% in the MRgFUS arm and 20.0% in the placebo arm (P < .001). MRgFUS was also superior to placebo at 3 months on the secondary endpoints assessing worst score NRS (P < .001) and the BPI-QoL (P < .001). The most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) was sonication pain, which occurred in 32.1% of MRgFUS patients. Two patients had pathological fractures, one patient had third-degree skin burn, and one patient suffered from neuropathy. Overall 60.3% of all AEs resolved on the treatment day. This multicenter phase III trial demonstrated that MRgFUS is a safe and effective, noninvasive treatment for alleviating pain resulting from bone metastases in patients that have failed standard treatments.