Search

Background: Genomic tumour profiling has a crucial role in the management of patients with solid cancers, as it helps selecting and prioritising therapeutic interventions based on prognostic and predictive biomarkers, as well as identifying markers of hereditary cancers. Harmonised approaches to interpret the results of genomic testing are needed to support physicians in their decision making, prevent inequalities in precision medicine and maximise patient benefit from available cancer management options., Methods: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group assembled a group of international experts to propose recommendations for preparing clinical genomic reports for solid cancers. These recommendations aim to foster best practices in integrating genomic testing within clinical settings. After review of available evidence, several rounds of surveys and focused discussions were conducted to reach consensus on the recommendation statements. Only consensus recommendations were reported. Recommendation statements were graded in two tiers based on their clinical importance: level A (required to maintain common standards in reporting) and level B (optional but necessary to achieve ideal practice)., Results: Genomics reports should present key information in a front page(s) followed by supplementary information in one or more appendices. Reports should be structured into sections: (i) patient and sample details; (ii) assay and data analysis characteristics; (iii) sample-specific assay performance and quality control; (iv) genomic alterations and their functional annotation; (v) clinical actionability assessment and matching to potential therapy indications; and (vi) summary of the main findings. Specific recommendations to prepare each of these sections are made., Conclusions: We present a set of recommendations aimed at structuring genomics reports to enhance physician comprehension of genomic profiling results for solid cancers. Communication between ordering physicians and professionals reporting genomic data is key to minimise uncertainties and to optimise the impact of genomic tests in patient care., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024., Methods: Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists")., Key Findings and Limitations: Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Controlled trials have consistently demonstrated the efficacy of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and BRCA1 or BRCA2 alterations (BRCAalt). However, the reported efficacy of PARPi for alterations in other homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes is less consistent. We sought to evaluate the routine practice effectiveness of PARPi between and within these groups., Design: Patient-level data from a deidentified nationwide (USA-based) cancer clinico-genomic database between January 2011 and September 2023 were extracted. Patients with mCRPC and comprehensive genomic profiling by liquid biopsy [circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)] or tissue (tumor) biopsy and who received single-agent PARPi were included and grouped by BRCAalt, ATMalt, other HRR, or no HRR. We further subcategorized BRCAalt into homozygous loss (BRCAloss) and all other deleterious BRCAalt (otherBRCAalt)., Results: A total of 445 patients met inclusion criteria: 214 with tumor and 231 with ctDNA. BRCAalt had more favorable outcomes to PARPi compared with ATM, other HRR, and no HRR groups. Within the BRCAalt subgroup, compared with other BRCAalt, BRCAloss had a more favorable time to next treatment (median 9 versus 19.4 months, P = 0.005), time to treatment discontinuation (median 8 versus 14 months, P = 0.006), and routine practice overall survival (median 14.7 versus 19.4 months, P = 0.016). Tumor BRCAloss prevalence (3.1%) was similar to ctDNA prevalence in liquid biopsy specimens with high tumor fraction (>20%). BRCAloss was not detected in orthogonal germline testing., Conclusions: PARPi routine practice effectiveness between groups mirrors prospective trials. Within the BRCAalt group, BRCAloss had the best outcomes. Unless the ctDNA tumor fraction is very high, somatic tissue testing (archival or metastatic) should be prioritized to identify patients who may benefit most from PARPi. When tissue testing is not clinically feasible, sufficient ctDNA tumor fraction levels for detection are enriched at clinical timepoints associated with tumor progression., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Half of all carriers of inherited cancer-predisposing variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are male, but the implications for their health are underrecognized compared to female individuals. Germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (also known as pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, referred to here as BRCA1/2 PVs) are well known to significantly increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancers in female carriers, and knowledge of BRCA1/2 PVs informs established cancer screening and options for risk reduction. While risks to male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs are less characterized, there is convincing evidence of increased risk for prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer in males. There has also been a rapid expansion of US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted cancer therapies, including poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, for breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers associated with BRCA1/2 PVs., Observations: This narrative review summarized the data that inform cancer risks, targeted cancer therapy options, and guidelines for early cancer detection. It also highlighted areas of emerging research and clinical trial opportunities for male BRCA1/2 PV carriers. These developments, along with the continued relevance to family cancer risk and reproductive options, have informed changes to guideline recommendations for genetic testing and strengthened the case for increased genetic testing for males., Conclusions and Relevance: Despite increasing clinical actionability for male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs, far fewer males than female individuals undergo cancer genetic testing. Oncologists, internists, and primary care clinicians should be vigilant about offering appropriate genetic testing to males. Identifying more male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs will maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer.

Up-front osimertinib leads to clinical benefit in EGFR V834L and L858R comutated NSCLC.

Highlighting here a patient case with neuroblastoma, renal cancer & GIST from germline SDHA.

Purpose: While 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) is an effective therapy for many patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), biomarkers associated with outcomes are not well defined. We hypothesized that prostate cancer mutational profile may associate with clinical activity of LuPSMA. We devised a study to evaluate associations between mCRPC mutational profile with LuPSMA clinical outcomes., Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with mCRPC with next-generation sequencing (NGS) who received LuPSMA. PSA 50 response (ie, ≥50% decline in prostate-specific antigen [PSA]) rate, PSA progression free survival (PSA PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between genetically defined subgroups., Results: One hundred twenty-six patients with NGS results who received at least one cycle of LuPSMA were identified. The median age was 73 (IQR, 68-78) years, 124 (98.4%) received ≥1 prior androgen receptor-signaling inhibitor, and 121 (96%) received ≥1 taxane-based chemotherapy regimen. Fifty-eight (46%) patients with a DNA damage repair gene mutation (DNA damage response group) and 59 (46.8%) with a mutation in TP53 , RB1 , or PTEN tumor suppressor genes (TSG group) were identified. After adjusting for relevant confounders, the presence of ≥1 TSG mutation was associated with shorter PSA PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.93 [95% CI, 1.05 to 3.54]; P = .034) and OS (HR, 2.65 [95% CI, 1.15 to 6.11]; P = .023). There was improved OS favoring the DNA damage response group (HR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.97]; P = .044) on multivariable analysis. Univariate analysis of patients with ATM mutations had significantly higher rates of PSA 50 response, PSA PFS, and OS., Conclusion: Outcomes on LuPSMA varied on the basis of mutational profile. Prospective studies to define the clinical activity of LuPSMA in predefined genomic subgroups are justified.

Aggressive-variant prostate cancers (AVPCs) are a subset of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPCs) characterized by defects in ≥ two of three of TP53 , RB1 , and PTEN (AVPCm), a profile linked to lineage plasticity, androgen indifference, and platinum sensitivity. Men with mCRPC undergoing biopsies for progression were assessed for AVPCm using immunohistochemistry (IHC), next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumor DNA (stDNA), and NGS of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays in CLIA-certified labs. Biopsy characteristics, turnaround times, inter-reader concordance, and inter-assay concordance were assessed. AVPCm was detected in 13 (27%) patients via IHC, two (6%) based on stDNA, and seven (39%) based on ctDNA. The concordance of the IHC reads between pathologists was variable. IHC had a higher detection rate of AVPCm + tumors with the shortest turnaround times. stDNA had challenges with copy number loss detection, limiting its detection rate. ctDNA detected the greatest proportion of AVPCm + tumors but had a low tumor content in two thirds of patients. These data show the operational characteristics of AVPCm detection using various assays, and inform trial design using AVPCm as a criterion for patient selection or stratification.

Mismatch repair (MMR) protein-deficient non-neoplastic colonic crypts and endometrial glands (dMMR crypts and glands) have been reported as a unique marker of underlying Lynch syndrome (LS). However, no large studies have directly compared the frequency of detection in cases with double somatic (DS) MMR mutations. We retrospectively analyzed 42 colonic resection specimens (24 LS and 18 DS) and 20 endometrial specimens (9 LS and 11 DS), including 19 hysterectomies and 1 biopsy for dMMR crypts and glands. All specimens were from patients with known primary cancers, including colonic adenocarcinomas and endometrial endometrioid carcinomas (including 2 mixed carcinomas). Four blocks of normal mucosa away from the tumor were selected from most cases, as available. MMR immunohistochemistry specific to the primary tumor mutations was analyzed. dMMR crypts were found in 65% of LS and 0% of DS MMR-mutated colonic adenocarcinomas (P < .001). Most dMMR crypts were detected in the colon (12 of 15) compared to the ileum (3 of 15). dMMR crypts showed single and grouped losses of MMR immunohistochemical expression. dMMR glands were found in 67% of LS and 9% (1 of 11) of DS endometrial cases (P = .017). Most dMMR glands were found in the uterine wall, with 1 LS and 1 DS case exhibiting dMMR glands in the lower uterine segment. Most cases exhibited multifocal and grouped dMMR glands. No morphologic atypia was identified in dMMR crypts or glands. Overall, we demonstrate that dMMR crypts and glands are highly associated with underlying LS, while being rarer in those with DS MMR mutations., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence., Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022., Design, Setting, and Participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions., Results and Limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer., Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer., Twitter Summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer., Take-Home Message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Aurelis Omlin: Advisory role (compensated, institutional): Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Molecular Partners, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis. Research support (institutional): TEVA, Janssen. Travel support: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Sanofi Aventis. Speakers Bureau (compensated, institutional): Bayer, Astellas, Janssen. Fizazi Karim: Participation to advisory boards or talks for: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi. Honoraria are provided to Gustave Roussy, my institution. Participation to advisory boards with personal honorarium for: CureVac, Orion. Bossi Alberto: Honoraria: Astellas, Ipsen, Janssen, Myovant. Consulting or advisory role: Astellas, Ipsen, Janssen, Myovant. Speakers’ bureau: Astellas, Ipsen, Elketa. Research funding: Astellas, Ipsen, Myovant. Travel, accommodations, expenses: Janssen. Tombal Bertrand: Advisor for Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, Curium, Ferring, Myovant, Janssens, MSD, Novartis (AAA), Pfizer, Sanofi. Gillessen Silke: SG received personal honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Sanofi, Orion, Roche, Amgen, MSD; other honoraria from RSI (Televisione Svizzera Italiana); invited speaker for ESMO, Swiss group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary oncology (SAMO), Orikata academy research group, China Anti-Cancer Association Genitourinary Oncology Committee (CACA-GU); Speaker’s bureau for Janssen Cilag; travel grant from ProteoMEdiX; institutional honoraria for advisory boards for Bayer, Janssen Cilag, Roche, AAA International including Indipendent Data Monitoring Committee and IDMC and Steering Committee member for Amgen, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Astellas Pharma, Tolero Pharmaceutcials, MSD, Pfizer, Telixpharma, BMS and Orion; patent royalties and other intellectual property for a research method for biomarker WO2009138392. Ian Davis: Research Funding: Company: Astellas Pharma, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Pfizer, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Roche/Genentech, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: MSD Oncology, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: AstraZeneca, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Janssen Oncology, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Eisai, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Bayer, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Amgen, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Movember Foundation, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Exelixis, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Ipsen, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Medivation, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Seagen, Recipient: Your Institution. Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Please describe: International Patent Application No: PCT /US2004/032147 (NY-ESO-1) through Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research; Recipient: You. Christopher Sweeney: Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Dendreon; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Lilly, Genentech. Eric J. Small: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Jannsen, Johnson & Johnson; Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Jannsen, Fortis, Teon, Ulgragenyx, Fortis, Harpoon Johann de Bono: Receipt of grants/research supports: Professor De Bono is an employee of The Institute of Cancer Research, which has received funding or other support for his research work from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Genentech Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and which has a commercial interest in abiraterone, PARP inhibition in DNA repair defective cancers and PI3K/AKT pathway inhibitors (no personal income); Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Professor De Bono has served on advisory boards and received fees from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bioxcel Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, Janssen, Menarini Silicon. Biosystems, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Qiagen, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Terumo, Vertex Pharmaceuticals; Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: AstraZeneca, MSD. Matthew Smith: Receipt of grants/research supports: Clinical trial funding to my institution from: Amgen, Bayer, ESSA, Janssen, ORIC, Pfizer; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Janssen, ORIC, Pfizer. Neal Shore: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boston Scientific, Clovis Oncology, Cold Genesys, Dendreon, Exact Imaging, Exact Sciences, FerGene, Foundation Medicine, Genesis Care, Invitae, Janssen, MDxhealth, Merck, Myvovant, Myriad, Nymox, Pacific Edge, Pfizer, Phosphorous, Propella, Sanofi, Genzyme, Sesen Bio, Tolmar, Urogen; Partecipation in a company sponsored speaker's bureau: Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Foundation Medicina, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Guardant Health. Nicholas James: Receipt of grants/research supports: • Funding for STAMPEDE trial – Coordinating PI – financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: Astellas. • Funding for RADIO trial bladder cancer – Coordinating. PI – financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: AstraZeneca. • Funding for STAMPEDE trial – Coordinating PI – No. financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: Janssen; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: • Advisory Board – Advice around PARP inhibitors, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: AstraZeneca dvisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Clovis. Expert Testimony – Assisted with submissions. regarding licensing for abiraterone, Institutional>€100,001. Name of commercial company: Janssen. Advisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal, €5001–€10,000. Name of commercial company: Janssen. Advisory Board – Bladder cancer therapy, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Merck. Advisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Novartis Expert Testimony – Providing STAMPEDE trial data to facilitate licence extensions internationally for docetaxel, Institutional,>€100,001. Name of commercial company: Sanofi. Advisory Board - Docetaxel, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Sanofi. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Bayer, Novartis. Nicolas MOTTET: Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Sanofi Pasteur, Pierre Fabre; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Jansen, BMS, Bayer, IPSEN, Ferring, Sanofi, Steba, Astra Zeneca, Carrik, Arquer. diagnostics, GE, Takeda. Thomas ZILLI. AFFILIATION: Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Varian Medical Systems International AG; Debiopharm. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Janssen, Astellas, Debiopharm, Ferring, Varian Medical Systems International AG. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Janssen, Astellas, Debiopharm. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Geneva 07.02.2022. Christopher Logothetis. AFFILIATION: MD Anderson Cancer Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Aragon Pharmaceuticals. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Amgen. Participation in a company sponsored speakers bureau: None. Stock shareholder: None. Spouse/partner: None. Other support (please specify): None. Signature: Date: February 7, 2022. William Oh. AFFILIATION: Chief Medical Officer at Sema4 and Clinical Professor of Medicine, Div. of Hematology/Medical Oncology at Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speakers bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 7, 2022. Himisha Beltran. AFFILIATION: Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, AbbVie/Stemcentrx, Eli Lilly, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Janssen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Amgen, Oncorus, LOXO. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: NONE. Stock shareholder: NONE. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 7, 2022. Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen. AFFILIATION: Tampere University and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Only directly to my hospital; Lilly, Merck and Finnish Cancer Society. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: BMS, Merck. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: NONE. Stock shareholder: NONE. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify):reimbursement of expenses to attend conference; Sanofi. Signature: Date: Feb 7, 2022. Prof. Mark A. Rubin, MD. AFFILIATION: University of Bern, Department for BioMedical Research (DBMR). Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, Roche, Novartis. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: NeoGenomics Labs. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 8, 2022. Prof. Dr. Thomas Steuber. AFFILIATION: Martini-Klinik, Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: NONE. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, ProteoMedix, Sanofi, Merck, Astra Zeneca. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 8, 2022. Prof. Rob Bristow. AFFILIATION: University of Manchester. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. IGNACIO DURAN. AFFILIATION: HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO MARQUES DE VALDECILLA. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Roche and Astra-Zeneca. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Ipsen, Roche- Genentech, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, EUSA Pharma, Bayer, Novartis. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. FERNANDO MALUF. AFFILIATION: ONCOLOGIST. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Hiroyoshi Suzuki. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology, Toho University Sakura Medical Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Takeda, AsahiKasei, Taiho, Ono, Chugai, Sanofi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Nihon, Nippon Shinyaku. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Chuga-Roche, MSD. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Takeda, Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Sanofi. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Danny M. Rabah. AFFILIATION: King Saud University and king Faisal specialist hospital and research centre. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. LEVENT TÜRKERİ. AFFILIATION: ACIBADEM M.A. AYDINLAR UNIVERSITY, ISTANBUL, TURKEY. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Mark Frydenberg. AFFILIATION: ACIBADEM M.A. AYDINLAR UNIVERSITY, ISTANBUL, TURKEY. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Anders Bjartell. AFFILIATION: Dept. Of Urology, Skane University Hospital Malmö, Sweden. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Ferring, Bayer, Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, Recordati, Sandoz. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Bayer, IPSEN, Janssen, Recordati, Sandoz. Stock shareholder: LIDDS Pharma, Glactone Pharma, WntResearch. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Dingwei Ye. AFFILIATION: Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Ros Eeles. AFFILIATION: ………………………………………. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: GU-ASCO, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, University of Chicago, ESMO, AstraZeneca UK Limited. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Honorarium as speaker. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): January 2016. Signature: Date: February 15th 2022. Inge van Oort. AFFILIATION: Urology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Bayer, MSD-Astra Zeneca, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Bayer, Astellas. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 22nd 2022. Ravindran Kanesvaran. AFFILIATION: Urology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Sanofi, Eisai. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 22nd 2022. Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Nicola Fossati. AFFILIATION: Urology, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Lugano, CH. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 1st March 2022. Hiroji Uemura. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Yokohama City University Medical Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bayer, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Dai-ichi Sankyo, Pfizer, MSD, Chugai. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: none. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): none. Signature: Date: March 7th 2022. Lisa Horvath. AFFILIATION: Chris O′Brien Lifehouse. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Janssen, Bayer, Imagion Biosystems. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Janssen, Bayer. Stock shareholder: Imagion Biosystems. Spouse/partner: Connected Medicine Solutions (Employee, stocks). Other support (please specify): none. Signature: Date: March 9th 2022. Robert Reiter. AFFILIATION: UCLA Urology. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 11th 2022. Daniel Castellano. AFFILIATION: MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST HEAD GU UNIT HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO 12 DE OCTUBRE. MADRID-UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: JANSSEN. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:ASTELLAS, ROCHE, MERCK, PFIZER, NOVARTIS, MSD, BMS, IPSEN, GILEAD, JANSSEN, BAYER. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: none. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): none. Signature: 28th March 2022. Sandy Srinivas. AFFILIATION: Stanford University, CA. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:BAYER, JANSSEN, MERCK, NOVARTIS. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31ST March 2022. Matthew Sydes. AFFILIATION: MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:ASTELLAS, CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, JANSSEN, NOVARTIS, PFIZER, SANOFI AVENTIS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:ELI LILLY, JANSSEN. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Ekeke, Onyanunam Ngozi. AFFILIATION: DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY, UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT TEACHING HOSPITAL, PORT HARCOUT, NIGERIA. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 30 h 2022. Susan Halabi, PhD. AFFILIATION: Duke University. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:ASCO TAPUR, Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Sanofi, Aveo Oncology. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Cora N. Sternberg, MD, FACP. AFFILIATION: Eeill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas Pharma, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Genzyme, Gilead, Incyte, Medscape, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Msd, Pfizer, Roche, Impact Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, Urotoday, Cco Clinical, Nci. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Hirotsugu Uemura. AFFILIATION:. Kindai University Faculty of Medicine. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:AstraZeneca, Janssen, Takeda, Astellas, Sanofi, Taiho, Ono pharm, Kissei. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, MSD, Ono, BMS, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, MSD, Ono, BMS, Pfizer. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Orazio Caffo. AFFILIATION: Santa Chiara Hospital – Trento (Italy). Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AAA, Astella, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Valérie Fonteyne. AFFILIATION:Ghent University Hospital. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Ipsen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Ipsen, Astellas, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Muhammad Bulbul. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 31st 2022. Claire Vale. AFFILIATION: MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 31st 2022. MRABTI Hind. AFFILIATION: Institut National d′oncologie, Mohamed V University. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Sanofi, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Deborah Mukherji. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Janssen, MSD, Ipsen, BMS. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. AIQ Pharma. Epic Sciences. Janssen. Menarini Silicon Biosystems. ThermoFisher. Howard I. Scher, MD, FASCO. AFFILIATION: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Howard I. Scher, MD, FASCO - Disclosure Form. March 31, 2022. Honoraria. Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Jefferson Health. Elsevier, LTD. Arsenal Capital. Consultancy/Advisory Board. Ambry Genetics Corporation, Konica Minolta,Inc. Amgen. Bayer. Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Pfizer Inc. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. WCG Oncology. Research Funding to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. AIQ Pharma. Epic Sciences. Janssen. Menarini Silicon Biosystems. ThermoFisher. Evan Y. Yu, M.D. AFFILIATION: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and University of Washington. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Bayer, Blue Earth, Daiichi-Sankyo, Dendreon, Lantheus, Merck, Seagen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Abbvie, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Bayer, Clovis, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, Sanofi. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Gedske Daugaard. AFFILIATION: Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Bayer, Sanofi, Astellas, MSD, Bristol Myers. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 30th March 2022. Celestia S. Higano, MD, FACP. AFFILIATION: University of Columbia. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:None last 24 months. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AstraZeneca, Astellas, Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myovant, Tolmar, Vaccitech, Verity. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: CTI Biopharma. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): Expert testimony, Ferring. Signature: 31st March 2022. Dr. Vedang Murthy. AFFILIATION: Radiotion Oncology. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Varian Medical Systems. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Gero Kramer. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:None. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Ferring. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Niven Mehra. AFFILIATION: Radboudumc. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas, Astrazeneca, BMS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Juan Pablo Sade. AFFILIATION: Instituto Alexnder Fleming, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Janssen, Astellas, AtraZeneca, MSD, BMS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Janssen, Bayer, Pfizer, Astellas. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3rd April 2022. Dr Maria De Santis. AFFILIATION: Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Urology. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AAA, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Bioclin, BMS, EISAI, Ferring, Immunomedics, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, SeaGen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Iwona Skoneczna. AFFILIATION: Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Szpital Grochowski, Warsaw, Poland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Roche. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Laurence Klotz. AFFILIATION: University of Toronto. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:miR Scientific, Exact Imaging. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:miR Scientific, Antev. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 30th March 2022. Yüksel Ürün. AFFILIATION: Ankara University School of Medicine. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, AtraZeneca, BMS, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Pfizer, Roche. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Amgen, AtraZeneca, BMS, Janssen Oncology, Pfizer, Roche. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 01st April 2022. Howard R. Soule. AFFILIATION: Prostate Cancer Foundation. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Compugen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 4th April 2022. Simon Chowdhury. AFFILIATION:. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Janssen Oncology, Beigene, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer,. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Janssen Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Sandoz. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): Janssen Oncology (Advisory board). Novartis (advisory board, consultancy). Bayer (Advisory board). Astellas (advisory board, consultancy). Athenex (advisory board). Beigene (advisory board). Clovis Oncology (Advisory board). Telix (advisory board, consultancy). Curve.Life (founder and stock). Huma (consulting fees and Stock). Remedy Bio: consulting fees, Stock. Signature: 4th April 2022. Daniel Heinrich. AFFILIATION: Innlandet Hospital, Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Gjøvik, Norway. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: 28th February 2022. Raya Leibowitz. AFFILIATION: Shamir Medical Center, Zerifin, Be’er Yaakov, Israel. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:MSD, BMS, Isotopia, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 05th April 2022. Raja Khauli. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut Medical Ctr Clinical. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): honoraria: Astellas, Janssen, Algorithm SAL. Signature: 06th April 2022. Axel Merseburger. AFFILIATION: Campus Lübeck, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Lectures/Speaker/Honoraria:. Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ferring, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Janssen, Takeda, TEVA, Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer, Recordati and Roche. Consultant:. AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, EUSAPharm, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Takeda, Teva, Pfizer, Recordati and Roche. Research and clinical trials:. AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, EUSAPharm, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Takeda, Teva, Pfizer und Roche. Signature: 06th April 2022. Carmel Pezaro. AFFILIATION: Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Advanced Accelerator Applications, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): Bayer, Ipsen (travel support). Signature: 06th April 2022. All remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Personalizing prostate cancer therapy requires germline and tumor molecular tests that predict who will respond to specific treatments and who may not. The review covers molecular testing of DNA damage response pathways, the first biomarker-driven precision target with clinical utility for treatment selection in patients with castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)., Recent Findings: Recurrent somatic and germline variants cause deficiency of the mismatch repair (MMR) or homologous recombination (HR) pathways in about a quarter of CRPC patients. In prospective clinical trials, patients with deleterious variants in the MMR pathway more frequently experience a therapeutic response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Similarly, somatic and germline events affecting HR predict response to poly(ADP) ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy. Molecular testing of these pathways currently involves assaying for loss of function variants in individual genes and for the genome-wide consequences of repair deficiency., Summary: DNA damage response pathways are the first major area of molecular genetic testing in CRPC settings and offer insights into this new paradigm. Our hope is that eventually an arsenal of molecularly-guided therapies will be developed across many pathways to enable precision medicine options for most men with prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Among mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) prostate cancers, loss of MLH1 is relatively uncommon and few cases have been reported in detail., Methods: Here, we describe the molecular features of two cases of primary prostate cancer with MLH1 loss detected by immunohistochemistry, and in one case, confirmed via transcriptomic profiling., Results: Both cases were microsatellite stable on standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, but showed evidence of MSI on a newer PCR-based long mononucleotide repeat (LMR) assay and by next-generation sequencing. Germline testing was negative for Lynch syndrome-associated mutations in both cases. Targeted or whole-exome tumor sequencing using multiple commercial/academic platforms (Foundation, Tempus, JHU, and UW-OncoPlex) showed modestly elevated, though variable, tumor mutation burden estimates (2.3-10 mutations/Mb) consistent with MMRd, but without identifiable pathogenic single-nucleotide or indel mutations in MLH1 . Copy-number analysis confirmed biallelic MLH1 loss in one case and monoallelic MLH1 loss in the second case, without evidence of MLH1 promoter hypermethylation in either. The second patient was treated with single-agent pembrolizumab and demonstrated a short-lived prostate-specific antigen response., Conclusion: These cases highlight the challenges in identifying MLH1-deficient prostate cancers using standard MSI testing and commercial sequencing panels, and support the utility of immunohistochemical assays and LMR- or sequencing-based MSI testing for detection of MMRd prostate cancers.

Background: Amphicrine prostate carcinoma (AMPC) is a poorly defined subset of prostate cancer in which cells co-express luminal prostate epithelial and neuroendocrine markers. The optimal treatment strategy is unknown. We sought to further characterize the clinical, histomorphologic, and molecular characteristics of AMPC and to identify areas of potential future treatment investigations., Methods: We retrospectively identified 17 cases of AMPC at a single institution, defined as synaptophysin expression in >70% of cells and co-expression of androgen receptor (AR) signaling markers (either AR, PSA, or NKX3.1) in >50% of cells. Clinical and histologic features of AMPC cases as well as response to treatment and clinical outcomes were described., Results: Five AMPC cases arose de novo in the absence of prior systemic treatment and behaved distinctly from cases that were treatment-emergent. In these de novo cases, despite expression of neuroendocrine markers, prognosis appeared more favorable than high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma, with two (40%) patients with de novo metastatic disease, universal response to androgen deprivation therapy, and no deaths at a median follow-up of 12.3 months. Treatment-emergent AMPC arose a median of 41.1 months after androgen deprivation therapy initiation and was associated with poor response to therapy., Conclusions: We show that amphicrine prostate cancer is a unique entity and differs in clinical and molecular features from high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of the prostate. Our study highlights the need to recognize AMPC as a unique molecularly defined subgroup of prostate cancer., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Several studies have reported the association of germline BRCA2 (gBRCA2) mutations with poor clinical outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa), but the impact of concurrent somatic events on gBRCA2 carriers survival and disease progression is unknown., Patients and Methods: To ascertain the role of frequent somatic genomic alterations and histology subtypes in the outcomes of gBRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers, we correlated the tumour characteristics and clinical outcomes of 73 gBRCA2 and 127 non-carriers. Fluorescent in-situ hybridisation and next-generation sequencing were used to detect copy number variations in BRCA2, RB1, MYC and PTEN. Presence of intraductal and cribriform subtypes was also assessed. The independent impact of these events on cause-specific survival (CSS), metastasis-free survival and time to castration-resistant disease was assessed using cox-regression models., Results: Somatic BRCA2-RB1 co-deletion (41% versus 12%, p < 0.001) and MYC amplification (53.4% versus 18.8%, p < 0.001) were enriched in gBRCA2 compared to sporadic tumours. Median CSS from diagnosis of PCa was 9.1 versus 17.6 years in gBRCA2 carriers and non-carriers, respectively (HR 2.12; p = 0.002), Median CSS in gBRCA2 carriers increased to 11.3 and 13.4 years in the absence of BRCA2-RB1 deletion or MYC amplification, respectively. Median CSS of non-carriers decreased to 8 and 2.6 years if BRCA2-RB1 deletion or MYC amplification were detected., Conclusions: gBRCA2-related prostate tumours are enriched for aggressive genomic features, such as BRCA2-RB1 co-deletion and MYC amplification. The presence or absence of these events modify the outcomes of gBRCA2 carriers., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management., Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022., Design, Setting, and Participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement., Results and Limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis., Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Advanced prostate cancers comprise distinct phenotypes, but tumor classification remains clinically challenging. Here, we harnessed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to study tumor phenotypes by ascertaining nucleosome positioning patterns associated with transcription regulation. We sequenced plasma ctDNA whole genomes from patient-derived xenografts representing a spectrum of androgen receptor active (ARPC) and neuroendocrine (NEPC) prostate cancers. Nucleosome patterns associated with transcriptional activity were reflected in ctDNA at regions of genes, promoters, histone modifications, transcription factor binding, and accessible chromatin. We identified the activity of key phenotype-defining transcriptional regulators from ctDNA, including AR, ASCL1, HOXB13, HNF4G, and GATA2. To distinguish NEPC and ARPC in patient plasma samples, we developed prediction models that achieved accuracies of 97% for dominant phenotypes and 87% for mixed clinical phenotypes. Although phenotype classification is typically assessed by IHC or transcriptome profiling from tumor biopsies, we demonstrate that ctDNA provides comparable results with diagnostic advantages for precision oncology., Significance: This study provides insights into the dynamics of nucleosome positioning and gene regulation associated with cancer phenotypes that can be ascertained from ctDNA. New methods for classification in phenotype mixtures extend the utility of ctDNA beyond assessments of somatic DNA alterations with important implications for molecular classification and precision oncology. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 517., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: KRAS variant alleles may have differential biological properties which impact prognosis and therapeutic options in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDA)., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with advanced PDA who received first-line therapy and underwent blood and/or tumor genomic sequencing at the University of Washington between 2013 and 2020. We examined the incidence of KRAS mutation variants with and without co-occurring PI3K or other genomic alterations and evaluated the association of these mutations with clinicopathological characteristics and survival using a Cox proportional hazards model., Results: One hundred twenty-six patients had genomic sequencing data; KRAS mutations were identified in 111 PDA and included the following variants: G12D (43)/G12V (35)/G12R (23)/other (10). PI3K pathway mutations (26% vs. 8%) and homologous recombination DNA repair (HRR) defects (35% vs. 12.5%) were more common among KRAS G12R vs. non-G12R mutated cancers. Patients with KRAS G12R vs. non-G12R cancers had significantly longer overall survival (OS) (HR 0.55) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.58), adjusted for HRR pathway co-mutations among other covariates. Within the KRAS G12R group, co-occurring PI3K pathway mutations were associated with numerically shorter OS (HR 1.58), while no effect was observed on PFS., Conclusions: Patients with PDA harboring KRAS G12R vs. non-G12R mutations have longer survival, but this advantage was offset by co-occurring PI3K alterations. The KRAS/PI3K genomic profile could inform therapeutic vulnerabilities in patients with PDA., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Targeted therapies have transformed clinical management of advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis is an attractive approach for cancer genomic profiling that overcomes many limitations of traditional tissue-based analysis. We examined cfDNA as a tool to inform clinical management of patients with advanced BTC and generate novel insights into BTC tumor biology., Patients and Methods: We analyzed next-generation sequencing data of 2068 cfDNA samples from 1671 patients with advanced BTC generated with Guardant360. We carried out clinical annotation on a multi-institutional subset (n = 225) to assess intra-patient cfDNA-tumor concordance and the association of cfDNA variant allele fraction (VAF) with clinical outcomes., Results: Genetic alterations were detected in cfDNA in 84% of patients, with targetable alterations detected in 44% of patients. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusions, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations, and BRAF V600E were clonal in the majority of cases, affirming these targetable alterations as early driver events in BTC. Concordance between cfDNA and tissue for mutation detection was high for IDH1 mutations (87%) and BRAF V600E (100%), and low for FGFR2 fusions (18%). cfDNA analysis uncovered novel putative mechanisms of resistance to targeted therapies, including mutation of the cysteine residue (FGFR2 C492F) to which covalent FGFR inhibitors bind. High pre-treatment cfDNA VAF was associated with poor prognosis and shorter response to chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Finally, we report the frequency of promising targets in advanced BTC currently under investigation in other advanced solid tumors, including KRAS G12C (1.0%), KRAS G12D (5.1%), PIK3CA mutations (6.8%), and ERBB2 amplifications (4.9%)., Conclusions: These findings from the largest and most comprehensive study to date of cfDNA from patients with advanced BTC highlight the utility of cfDNA analysis in current management of this disease. Characterization of oncogenic drivers and mechanisms of therapeutic resistance in this study will inform drug development efforts to reduce mortality for patients with BTC., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Prostate cancer (PCa) is characterized by profound genomic heterogeneity. Recent advances in personalized treatment entail an increasing need of genomic profiling. For localized PCa, gene expression assays can support clinical decisions regarding active surveillance and adjuvant treatment. In metastatic PCa, homologous recombination deficiency, microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), and CDK12 deficiency constitute main actionable alterations. Alterations in DNA repair genes confer variable sensitivities to poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase inhibitors, and the use of genomic instability assays as predictive biomarker is still incipient. MSI can be assessed by immunohistochemistry To date there is a lack of consensus as to testing standards., Competing Interests: Disclosure D. Akhoundova and. C.C. Pritchard declare no conflicts of interests. F.Y. Feng serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of Artera, BlueStar Genomics, SerImmune, and the Immuno-Oncology Program for Bristol Myers Squibb, and has consulted for Foundation Medicine, Tempus, Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Myovant, Roivant, and Novartis. M.A. Rubin is a coinventor on patents in the area for diagnosis and therapy in prostate cancer for ETS fusions (University of Michigan and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital), SPOP mutations (Cornell University), and EZH2 (University of Michgian)., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pathogenic germline mutations in several rare penetrant cancer predisposition genes are associated with an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer (PC). Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of pathogenic germline mutations in men with low-risk PC on active surveillance, and assess whether pathogenic germline mutations associate with grade reclassification or adverse pathology, recurrence, or metastases, in men treated after initial surveillance., Methods: Men prospectively enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) were retrospectively sampled for the study. Germline DNA was sequenced utilizing a hereditary cancer gene panel. Mutations were classified according to the American College of Clinical Genetics and Genomics' guidelines. The association of pathogenic germline mutations with grade reclassification and adverse characteristics was evaluated by weighted Cox proportional hazards modeling and conditional logistic regression, respectively., Results: Overall, 29 of 437 (6.6%) study participants harbored a pathogenic germline mutation of which 19 occurred in a gene involved in DNA repair (4.3%). Eight participants (1.8%) had pathogenic germline mutations in three genes associated with aggressive PC: ATM, BRCA1, and BRCA2. The presence of pathogenic germline mutations in DNA repair genes did not associate with adverse characteristics (univariate analysis HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.36-2.06, p = 0.7). The carrier rates of pathogenic germline mutations in ATM, BRCA1, and BRCA2did not differ in men with or without grade reclassification (1.9% vs. 1.8%)., Conclusion: The frequency of pathogenic germline mutations in penetrant cancer predisposition genes is extremely low in men with PC undergoing active surveillance and pathogenic germline mutations had no apparent association with grade reclassification or adverse characteristics., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence., Objective: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021., Design, Setting, and Participants: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process., Results and Limitations: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material., Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) is a tyrosine kinase with genomic and expression changes in many solid tumors. ALK inhibition is first line therapy for lung cancers with ALK alterations, and an effective therapy in other tumor types, but has not been well-studied in prostate cancer. Here, we aim to delineate the role of ALK genomic and expression changes in primary and metastatic prostate cancer. We determined ALK expression by immunohistochemistry and RNA-Seq, and genomic alterations by NGS. We assessed functional consequences of ALK overexpression and pharmacological ALK inhibition by cell proliferation and cell viability assays. Among 372 primary prostate cancer cases we identified one case with uniformly high ALK protein expression. Genomic analysis revealed a SLC45A3-ALK fusion which promoted oncogenesis in in vitro assays. We observed ALK protein expression in 5/52 (9%) of metastatic prostate cancer cases, of which 4 of 5 had neuroendocrine features. ALK-expressing neuroendocrine prostate cancer had a distinct transcriptional program, and earlier disease progression. An ALK-expressing neuroendocrine prostate cancer model was sensitive to pharmacological ALK inhibition. In summary, we found that ALK overexpression is rare in primary prostate cancer, but more frequent in metastatic prostate cancers with neuroendocrine differentiation. Further, ALK fusions similar to lung cancer are an occasional driver in prostate cancer. Our data suggest that ALK-directed therapies could be an option in selected patients with advanced prostate cancer., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest disclosure statement: No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Focal malformations of cortical development including focal cortical dysplasia, hemimegalencephaly and megalencephaly, are a spectrum of neurodevelopmental disorders associated with brain overgrowth, cellular and architectural dysplasia, intractable epilepsy, autism and intellectual disability. Importantly, focal cortical dysplasia is the most common cause of focal intractable paediatric epilepsy. Gain and loss of function variants in the PI3K-AKT-MTOR pathway have been identified in this spectrum, with variable levels of mosaicism and tissue distribution. In this study, we performed deep molecular profiling of common PI3K-AKT-MTOR pathway variants in surgically resected tissues using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR), combined with analysis of key phenotype data. A total of 159 samples, including 124 brain tissue samples, were collected from 58 children with focal malformations of cortical development. We designed an ultra-sensitive and highly targeted molecular diagnostic panel using ddPCR for six mutational hotspots in three PI3K-AKT-MTOR pathway genes, namely PIK3CA (p.E542K, p.E545K, p.H1047R), AKT3 (p.E17K) and MTOR (p.S2215F, p.S2215Y). We quantified the level of mosaicism across all samples and correlated genotypes with key clinical, neuroimaging and histopathological data. Pathogenic variants were identified in 17 individuals, with an overall molecular solve rate of 29.31%. Variant allele fractions ranged from 0.14 to 22.67% across all mutation-positive samples. Our data show that pathogenic MTOR variants are mostly associated with focal cortical dysplasia, whereas pathogenic PIK3CA variants are more frequent in hemimegalencephaly. Further, the presence of one of these hotspot mutations correlated with earlier onset of epilepsy. However, levels of mosaicism did not correlate with the severity of the cortical malformation by neuroimaging or histopathology. Importantly, we could not identify these mutational hotspots in other types of surgically resected epileptic lesions (e.g. polymicrogyria or mesial temporal sclerosis) suggesting that PI3K-AKT-MTOR mutations are specifically causal in the focal cortical dysplasia-hemimegalencephaly spectrum. Finally, our data suggest that ultra-sensitive molecular profiling of the most common PI3K-AKT-MTOR mutations by targeted sequencing droplet digital polymerase chain reaction is an effective molecular approach for these disorders with a good diagnostic yield when paired with neuroimaging and histopathology., (© The Author(s) (2022). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Lynch syndrome is an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline defects in any of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Diagnosis of carriers makes precision prevention, early detection, and tailored treatment possible. Herein we report a novel founder deletion of 18,758 bp, mediated by Alu repeats on both sides, detected in Ethiopian Jews. The deletion, which encompasses exon 9-10 of the MSH2 coding sequence, is associated mainly with early-onset MSH2/MSH6-deficient colorectal cancer (CRC) and liposarcoma. Testing of 35 members of 5 seemingly unrelated families of Ethiopian origin yielded 10/21 (48%) carriers, of whom 9 had CRC. Age at first tumor diagnosis ranged from 16 to 89 years. Carriers from the oldest generations were diagnosed after age 45 years (mean 57), and carriers from the younger generation were diagnosed before age 45 years (mean 30). Awareness of this founder deletion is important to improve patient diagnosis, institute surveillance from an early age, and refer patients for genetic counseling addressing the risk of bi-allelic constitutional MMR deficiency syndrome., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Background: Reporting standards, such as PRISMA aim to ensure that the methods and results of systematic reviews are described in sufficient detail to allow full transparency. Flow diagrams in evidence syntheses allow the reader to rapidly understand the core procedures used in a review and examine the attrition of irrelevant records throughout the review process. Recent research suggests that use of flow diagrams in systematic reviews is poor and of low quality and called for standardised templates to facilitate better reporting in flow diagrams. The increasing options for interactivity provided by the Internet gives us an opportunity to support easy-to-use evidence synthesis tools, and here we report on the development of a tool for the production of PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams., Methods and Findings: We developed a free-to-use, Open Source R package and web-based Shiny app to allow users to design PRISMA flow diagrams for their own systematic reviews. Our tool allows users to produce standardised visualisations that transparently document the methods and results of a systematic review process in a variety of formats. In addition, we provide the opportunity to produce interactive, web-based flow diagrams (exported as HTML files), that allow readers to click on boxes of the diagram and navigate to further details on methods, results or data files. We provide an interactive example here; https://prisma-flowdiagram.github.io/., Conclusions: We have developed a user-friendly tool for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams for users with coding experience and, importantly, for users without prior experience in coding by making use of Shiny (https://estech.shinyapps.io/prisma&#95;flowdiagram/). This free-to-use tool will make it easier to produce clear and PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Significantly, users can also produce interactive flow diagrams for the first time, allowing readers of their reviews to smoothly and swiftly explore and navigate to further details of the methods and results of a review. We believe this tool will increase use of PRISMA flow diagrams, improve the compliance and quality of flow diagrams, and facilitate strong science communication of the methods and results of systematic reviews by making use of interactivity. We encourage the systematic review community to make use of the tool, and provide feedback to streamline and improve their usability and efficiency., Competing Interests: Matthew Page co‐led the development of the PRISMA 2020 statement and Luke McGuinness is a coauthor of the PRISMA 2020 statement, but they have no commercial interest in the use of this reporting guideline., (© 2022 The Authors. Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration.)

Purpose: Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have poor outcomes. The Intensive Trial of Omics in Cancer (ITOMIC) sought to determine the feasibility and potential efficacy of informing treatment decisions through multiple biopsies of mTNBC deposits longitudinally over time, accompanied by analysis using a distributed network of experts., Methods: Thirty-one subjects were enrolled and 432 postenrollment biopsies performed (clinical and study-directed) of which 332 were study-directed. Molecular profiling included whole-genome sequencing or whole-exome sequencing, cancer-associated gene panel sequencing, RNA-sequencing, and immunohistochemistry. To afford time for analysis, subjects were initially treated with cisplatin (19 subjects), or another treatment they had not received previously. The results were discussed at a multi-institutional ITOMIC Tumor Board, and a report transmitted to the subject's oncologist who arrived at the final treatment decision in conjunction with the subject. Assistance was provided to access treatments that were predicted to be effective., Results: Multiple biopsies in single settings and over time were safe, and comprehensive analysis was feasible. Two subjects were found to have lung cancer, one had carcinoma of unknown primary site, tumor samples from three subjects were estrogen receptor-positive and from two others, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive. Two subjects withdrew. Thirty-four of 112 recommended treatments were accessed using approved drugs, clinical trials, and single-patient investigational new drugs. After excluding the three subjects with nonbreast cancers and the two subjects who withdrew, 22 of 26 subjects (84.6%) received at least one ITOMIC Tumor Board-recommended treatment., Conclusion: Further exploration of this approach in patients with mTNBC is merited., Competing Interests: Kimberly A. BurtonEmployment: All4Cure, Just Biotherapeutics (I), Northwest Medical SpecialtiesLeadership: Just Biotherapeutics (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Just Biotherapeutics (I)Other Relationship: NantWorks Eric Quentin KonnickHonoraria: Ventana Medical Systems, Roche, Clinical Care Options, Medscape, National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkConsulting or Advisory Role: River West Meeting AssociatesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ventana Medical Systems, Roche, Clinical Care Options LLC, Medscape, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, River West Meeting Associates Sibel BlauEmployment: Northwest Medical SpecialtiesLeadership: Northwest Medical Specialties, Quality Cancer Care AllianceStock and Other Ownership Interests: Northwest Medical Specialties, All4Cure (I)Honoraria: Cardinal Health, Novartis, Puma Biotechnology, American Journal of Managed CareResearch Funding: Northwest Medical SpecialtiesExpert Testimony: Northwest Medical SpecialtiesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Northwest Medical Specialties, Quality Cancer Care AllianceOther Relationship: Northwest Medical Specialties, All4Cure (I), Quality Cancer Care Alliance Michael O. DorschnerEmployment: Guardant HealthStock and Other Ownership Interests: Guardant Health Arturo B. RamirezEmployment: RareCytePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I hold six patents for my work at RareCyte Stephanie ParkerEmployment: IQvia Colin C. PritchardConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Sana BiotechnologyResearch Funding: Color Genomics (I) Christopher SzetoEmployment: NantHealth, Zai Lab, ImmunityBioStock and Other Ownership Interests: NantWorks, Zai LabPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Listed as inventor or coinventor on several patents and patent applications filed with NantOmics; listed as inventor or coinventor on several patents and applications filed with ImmunityBio Patricia SpilmanEmployment: ImmunityBio IncStock and Other Ownership Interests: ImmunityBio IncResearch Funding: ImmunityBio Inc Vijayakrishna K. GadiStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sengine Precision Medicine, Novilla, 3rdEyeBio, Phoenix Molecular Designs, New Equilibrium BiosciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Novartis, SanofiSpeakers' Bureau: Seattle Genetics, Hologics, Genentech/Roche, Puma BiotechnologyResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche (Inst), SignalOne Bio, AgendiaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Seattle Genetics, Genentech/Roche, Puma BiotechnologyOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/2511 Roy RonenOther Relationship: Data4Cure Jackie StilwellEmployment: Umoja Biopharma, Seattle GeneticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Seattle Genetics Eric KaldjianEmployment: RareCyte IncStock and Other Ownership Interests: RareCyte Inc Janusz DutkowskiPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patents pending on methods and systems for data analysis including biomedical data analysis (Inst)Other Relationship: Data4Cure Inc Stephen Charles BenzEmployment: NantWorks, ImmunityBio, NantHealthStock and Other Ownership Interests: Novartis, Celgene, NantWorks, NantHealth, Pfizer, Regeneron, Bluebird BioPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patents issued and pending Shahrooz RabizadehEmployment: ImmunityBio, Sagittarius BioLeadership: NantBioScience Inc, NantWorks, ImmunityBio, Sagittarius BioStock and Other Ownership Interests: NantHealth, ImmunityBio, Sagittarius BioPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Made inventions that resulted in IP for NantBioScience and NantOmics; made inventions that resulted in IP for ImmunityBio; made inventions that resulted in IP for Sagittarius Bio Patrick Soon-ShiongEmployment: ImmunityBio, NantWorks, NantHealthLeadership: ImmunityBio, NantWorks, NantHealthStock and Other Ownership Interests: ImmunityBio, NantWorks, NantHealthPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: NantWorks and Affiliates, NantKwest, ImmunityBio C. Anthony BlauEmployment: All4CureLeadership: All4CureStock and Other Ownership Interests: All4CureConsulting or Advisory Role: GlaxoSmithKline (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis (I)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Inherited germline TP53 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (gTP53) cause autosomal dominant multicancer predisposition including Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). However, there is no known association of prostate cancer with gTP53., Objective: To determine whether gTP53 predisposes to prostate cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multi-institutional retrospective study characterizes prostate cancer incidence in a cohort of LFS males and gTP53 prevalence in a prostate cancer cohort., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: We evaluated the spectrum of gTP53 variants and clinical features associated with prostate cancer., Results and Limitations: We identified 31 prostate cancer cases among 163 adult LFS males, including 26 of 54 aged ≥50 yr. Among 117 LFS males without prostate cancer at the time of genetic testing, six were diagnosed with prostate cancer over a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 3.0 (1.3-7.2) yr of follow-up, a 25-fold increased risk (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.2-55; p < 0.0001). We identified gTP53 in 38 of 6850 males (0.6%) in the prostate cancer cohort, a relative risk 9.1-fold higher than that of population controls (95% CI 6.2-14; p < 0.0001; gnomAD). We observed hotspots at the sites of attenuated variants not associated with classic LFS. Two-thirds of available gTP53 prostate tumors had somatic inactivation of the second TP53 allele. Among gTP53 prostate cancer cases in this study, the median age at diagnosis was 56 (IQR: 51-62) yr, 44% had Gleason ≥8 tumors, and 29% had advanced disease at diagnosis., Conclusions: Complementary analyses of prostate cancer incidence in LFS males and gTP53 prevalence in prostate cancer cohorts suggest that gTP53 predisposes to aggressive prostate cancer. Prostate cancer should be considered as part of LFS screening protocols and TP53 considered in germline prostate cancer susceptibility testing., Patient Summary: Inherited pathogenic variants in the TP53 gene are likely to predispose men to aggressive prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Mutational burden is positively correlated with tumor neoantigen load and studies have demonstrated an association between high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and response to checkpoint blockade. On the basis of a phase II study, the anti-PD-1 therapy, pembrolizumab, was given FDA approval for use in any solid tumor with a high TMB (i.e., >10 mutations/megabase) as assessed by the FoundationOne companion diagnostic. This was an important step in expanding a potentially efficacious treatment option to patients who are likely to benefit and have limited other therapies available. Following this approval, there has been debate regarding the wide applicability of this approval and the most appropriate use of TMB as a predictive biomarker, with several studies questioning the predictive utility of TMB in this context. We discuss the scientific rationale and utility of using TMB as a tool to predict response to immunotherapy as well as address this biomarker's limitations., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Cancers with homology-directed DNA repair (HRR) deficiency exhibit high response rates to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum chemotherapy. Though mutations disrupting BRCA1 and BRCA2 associate with HRR deficiency (HRRd), patterns of genomic aberrations and mutation signatures may be more sensitive and specific indicators of compromised repair. Here, we evaluated whole-exome sequences from 418 metastatic prostate cancers (mPCs) and determined that one-fifth exhibited genomic characteristics of HRRd that included Catalogue Of Somatic Mutations In Cancer mutation signature 3. Notably, a substantial fraction of tumors with genomic features of HRRd lacked biallelic loss of a core HRR-associated gene, such as BRCA2. In this subset, HRRd associated with loss of chromodomain helicase DNA binding protein 1 but not with mutations in serine-protein kinase ATM, cyclin dependent kinase 12, or checkpoint kinase 2. HRRd genomic status was strongly correlated with responses to PARPi and platinum chemotherapy, a finding that supports evaluating biomarkers reflecting functional HRRd for treatment allocation.

Prostate cancer is a significant cause of cancer mortality. It has been well-established that certain germline pathogenic variants confer both an increased risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer and dying of prostate cancer.1 There are exciting developments in both the availability of genetic testing and opportunities for improved treatment of patients.On August 19, 2020, the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Ontario, hosted a virtual retreat, bringing together international experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, medical genetics, and translational research, as well as a patient representative. We are pleased to provide this manuscript as a review of those proceedings for Canadian clinicians.We highlighted several needs for future research and policy action based on this meeting:Increased access to funding for germline testing for the common genetic disorders associated with increased risk of prostate cancer.More research into identifying genetic factors influencing risk stratification, treatment response, and outcomes of prostate cancer within Canadian populations at higher genetic risk for prostate cancer.Added awareness about genetic risk factors among the Canadian public.Development of patient-specific and reported outcomes research in tailored care for patients at increased genetic risk of prostate cancer.Creation of multidisciplinary clinics that specialize in tailored care for patients at increased genetic risk of prostate cancer.

Importance: DNA damage repair (DDR) gene mutations represent actionable alterations that can guide precision medicine strategies for advanced prostate cancer. However, acquisition of contemporary tissue samples for molecular testing can be a barrier to deploying precision medicine approaches. We hypothesized that most DDR alterations represent truncal events in prostate cancer and that primary tissue would faithfully reflect mutations found in cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and/or metastatic tissue., Objective: To assess concordance in DDR gene alterations between primary prostate cancer and metastases or ctDNA specimens., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients were included if a DDR pathway mutation was detected in metastatic tissue or ctDNA and primary tissue sequencing was available for comparison. Sequencing data from 3 cohorts were analyzed: (1) FoundationOne, (2) University of Washington clinical cases (University of Washington-OncoPlex or Stand Up to Cancer-Prostate Cancer Foundation International Dream Team sequencing pipelines), and (3) University of Washington rapid autopsy series. Only pathogenic somatic mutations were included, and more than 30 days between primary tumor tissue and ctDNA and/or metastatic tissue acquisition was required. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and germline events were adjudicated by an expert molecular pathologist and excluded., Main Outcomes and Measures: The DDR gene alterations detected in primary prostate tissue matched with metastatic tissue and/or ctDNA findings., Results: A total of 72 men with known DDR alterations were included in the analysis, and primary samples with paired ctDNA and/or metastatic tissue were sequenced. After excluding patients with ctDNA where only CHIP and/or germline events (n = 21) were observed, 51 patients remained and were included in the final analysis. The median (range) time from acquisition of primary tissue to acquisition of ctDNA or tumor tissue was 55 (5-193) months. Concordance in DDR gene mutation status across samples was 84% (95% CI, 71%-92%). Rates of concordance between metastatic-primary and ctDNA-primary pairs were similar when patients with CHIP events were excluded. Multiclonal BRCA2 reversion mutations associated with resistance to PARP inhibitors and platinum chemotherapy were detected in ctDNA from 2 patients., Conclusions and Relevance: In this genetic association study of 3 patient cohorts, primary prostate tissue accurately reflected the mutational status of actionable DDR genes in metastatic tissue, consistent with DDR alterations being truncal in most patients. After excluding likely CHIP events, ctDNA profiling accurately captured these DDR mutations while also detecting reversion alterations that may suggest resistance mechanisms.

Hereditary cancer syndromes infer high cancer risks and require intensive surveillance. Identification of high-risk individuals among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) needs improvement., Methods: Three thousand three hundred ten unselected adults who underwent surgical resection for primary invasive CRC were prospectively accrued from 51 hospitals across Ohio between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. Universal Tumor screening (UTS) for mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency was performed for all, and pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) were identified using multigene panel testing (MGPT) in those who met at least one inclusion criterion: MMR deficiency, diagnosed < 50 years, multiple primary tumors (CRC or endometrial cancer), or with a first-degree relative with CRC or endometrial cancer., Results: Five hundred twenty-five patients (15.9%) had MMR deficiency. Two hundred thirty-four of 3,310 (7.1%; 16% of the 1,462 who received MGPT) had 248 PGVs in cancer susceptibility genes. One hundred forty-two (4.3%) had a PGV in an MMR gene, and 101 (3.1%) had a PGV in a non-MMR gene. Ten with Lynch syndrome (LS) also had a non-MMR PGV and were included in both groups. Two (0.06%) had constitutional MLH1 hypermethylation. Of unexplained MMR-deficient patients, 88.4% (76 of 86) had double somatic MMR mutations. Testing for only MMR genes in MMR-deficient patients would have missed 18 non-MMR gene PGVs (7.3% of total PGVs identified). Had UTS been the only method used to screen for hereditary cancer syndromes, 38.6% (91 of 236) would have been missed, including 6.3% (9 of 144) of those with LS. These results have treatment implications as 5.3% (175 of 3,310) had PGVs in genes with therapeutic targets., Conclusion: UTS alone is insufficient for identifying a large proportion of CRC patients with hereditary syndromes, including some with LS. At a minimum, 7.1% of individuals with CRC have a PGV and pan-cancer MGPT should be considered for all patients with CRC., Competing Interests: Heather Hampel Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Genome Medical Consulting or Advisory Role: InVitae, Genome Medical, Promega, 23andMe No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.Heather Hampel Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Genome Medical Consulting or Advisory Role: InVitae, Genome Medical, Promega, 23andMe No other potential conflicts of interest were reported., (© 2021 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Comprehensive understanding of molecular principles in cancer and the diversification of oncological therapy promise individual therapeutic concepts, which have not yet found their way into urogenital cancer therapy. In March 2019 the International Society of Urogenital Pathology (ISUP) therefore held a consensus conference on recommendations for molecular diagnostics of genitourinary tumors, which were published in five separate manuscripts and are summarized in this article.In preparation for the conference, a comprehensive survey of current practices for molecular testing of urogenital tumors was carried out by members of the ISUP. At the conference, the results and the corresponding background information were presented by five working groups and recommendations for action for diagnostics were developed. An agreement between 66% of the conference participants was defined as consensus.

Background: Intraductal (IDC) and cribriform (CRIB) histologies in prostate cancer have been associated with germline BRCA2 (gBRCA2) mutations in small retrospective series, leading to the recommendation of genetic testing for patients with IDC in the primary tumour., Patients and Methods: To examine the association of gBRCA2 mutations and other tumour molecular features with IDC and/or cribriform (CRIB) histologies, we conducted a case-control study in which primary prostate tumours from 58 gBRCA2 carriers were matched (1:2) by Gleason Grade Group and specimen type to 116 non-carriers. Presence/absence of IDC and CRIB morphologies was established by two expert uropathologists blinded to gBRCA2 status. Fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) were used to detect BRCA2 alterations, PTEN deletions and TMPRSS2-ERG fusions. Chi-squared tests were used to compare the frequency of IDC and CRIB in gBRCA2 carriers and controls and to assess associations with other variables. Logistic regression models were constructed to identify independent factors associated with both histology patterns., Results: No significant differences between gBRCA2 carriers and non-carriers were observed in the prevalence of IDC (36% gBRCA2 versus 50% non-carriers, p = 0.085) or CRIB (53% gBRCA2 versus 43% non-carriers p = 0.197) patterns. However, IDC histology was independently associated with bi-allelic BRCA2 alterations (OR 4.3, 95%CI 1.1-16.2) and PTEN homozygous loss (OR 5.2, 95%CI 2.1-13.1). CRIB morphology was also independently associated with bi-allelic BRCA2 alterations (OR 5.6, 95%CI 1.7-19.3)., Conclusions: While we found no association between gBRCA2 mutations and IDC or CRIB histologies, bi-allelic BRCA2 loss in primary prostate tumours was significantly associated with both variant morphologies, independently of other clinical-pathologic factors., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement R.L. declares speaker fees from Roche, Janssen, Sanofi and Bayer, and travel support from Roche, Janssen, Sanofi and Astellas Pharma. S.S. declares honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, Merck Serono consulting or Advisory Role from AstraZeneca and Merck, research funding from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Amgen and Endocyte. F.L-C. declares consulting or Advisory Role from Astella Pharma, speaker fees from Janseen, Astellas Pharma, Research Funding from Astellas Pharma (Inst) and travel support from Astellas Pharma and Janssen. J.R-B. declares consulting or Advisory Role from Janssen, Astellas Pharma and Bayer, and Research Funding from HealthMDx (Inst). J.R.B declares consulting or advisory role from Astellas Pharma, Bayer and Janssen-Cilag and research funding from MDxHealth (Inst). C.L. declares honoraria from Roche and travel support from Astellas Pharma and Angelini. N.R-L. declares speaker fees from MSD, consulting or Advisory Role from Ipsen, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Tesaro, AstraZeneca and Sanofi, research funding from Janssen (Inst), and Pfizer (Inst) and travel support from Janssen. F.Z. declares expert testimony for Sanofi and travel support from Ipsen. D.L. declares speaker fees from Janssen, Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Pfizer and BMS, consulting or Advisory Role from Sanofi, and travel support from Janssen, and Astellas Pharma. J.M. declares consulting or advisory role from Astra Zeneca, Janssen and Roche, speaker's bureau from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca and Sanofi and travel support from AstraZeneca, Ipsen and Sanofi. C.C.P. declares consulting or Advisory Role from AstraZeneca and Promega. E.S.A. declares honoraria and consulting or advisory role from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Dendreon, ESSA, Janssen Biotech, Medivation, Merck, Sanofi; Research Funding from Aragon Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Astellas (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Constellation Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Dendreon (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Genetech (Inst), Janssen Biotech (Inst), Johnson&Johnson (Inst), Merck (Inst), Millennium (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Sanofi (Inst) and Tokai pharmaceuticals (Inst); co-inventor of a biomarker technology licensed to Qiagen. D.O. declares honoraria from Bayer, Janssen and Sanofi, consulting or Advisory Role from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, MSD and Roche, research funding from Astellas (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Medivation (Inst), MSD (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), F. Hoffman-Roche (Inst) and Tokai Pharmaceutics (Inst) and travel support from Bayer, Ipsen, Janssen and Roche. T.L. declares consulting or advisory role for Janssen and research funding from DeepBio and Ventana Medical Systems. E.C. declares honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, Pfizer and Roche, consulting or Advisory Roles for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, MSD and Pfizer, research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bayer (Inst) and Janssen (Inst) and travel support from Astra Zeneca, Bayer and Janssen. D.C.S, I.M.A., H.T., A.M.G-P., L.M., T.D., A.S., J.D.P, I.G., M.I.P., T.G. and P.P-L. do not have any relationships to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)