Search

Your search keyword '"van Oort I"' showing total 171 results
Start Over Author "van Oort I"
171 results on '"van Oort I"'

5. PD-0570 The value of PROMs for predicting erectile dysfunction in prostate cancer patients

Author

Osong, B., primary, Hasannejadasl, H., additional, van der Poel, H., additional, Vanneste, B., additional, van Roermund, J., additional, Aben, K., additional, Bermejo, I., additional, Van Soest, J., additional, Kiemeney, L., additional, Van Oort, I., additional, Verwey, R., additional, Hochstenbach, L., additional, van Gurp, E.J.B., additional, Dekker, A., additional, and Fijten, R.R., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Corrigendum to 'Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer: A nationwide observational study' (Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations (2020) 38(9) (735.e17–735.e25), (S1078143920302519), (10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.05.022))

Author

Vernooij, R. W. M., Cremers, R. G. H. M., Jansen, H., Somford, D. M., Kiemeney, L. A., van Andel, G., Wijsman, B. P., Busstra, M. B., van Moorselaar, R. J. A., Wijnen, E. M., Pos, F. J., Hulshof, M. C. C. M., Hamberg, P., van den Berkmortel, F., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C. A., van Leenders, G. J. L. H., F€utterer, J. J., van Oort, I. M., Aben, K. K. H., Urology, CCA - Cancer Treatment and quality of life, Radiotherapy, and CCA - Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life

Abstract

The authors regret that the following statements were incorrectly mentioned in the paper. Page 4, line 333, paragraph 3.1. Descriptive statistics: “.2358.” should be 2538 Page 4, line 338-340, paragraph 3.1. Descriptive statistics: “.and were treated with surgery, radiotherapy (not combined with androgen deprivation therapy), or no active treatment.” should be deleted Page 4, line 429, paragraph 4. Discussion: “.and ED.” should be deleted Page 5, line 442, Table 1: “. were treated with surgery, radiotherapy or no active treatment and.” should be deleted Page 5, line 549, paragraph 4. Discussion: “.or radiotherapy.” should be deleted The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. Machine learning-based models for prediction of erectile dysfunction in localized prostate cancer

Author

Hasannejadasl, H., Roumen, C., van der Poel, H., Vanneste, B., van Roermund, J., Aben, K., Kalendralis, P., Osong, B., Kiemeney, L., van Oort, I., Verwey, R., Hochstenbach, L., Bloemen-van Gurp, E.J., Dekker, A., Fijten, R., RS: GROW - R2 - Basic and Translational Cancer Biology, Radiotherapie, Health Services Research, RS: GROW - R3 - Innovative Cancer Diagnostics & Therapy, MUMC+: MA Urologie (9), and RS: FSE BISS

Published
2022

10. What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Onyeanunam, NE, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Pablo Sade, J, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, Omlin, A, Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Onyeanunam, NE, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Pablo Sade, J, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, and Omlin, A

Abstract

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.

Published
2022

11. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Gillessen, S, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, CS, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, JS, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Ekeke, ON, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, DE, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, MR, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Omlin, A, Gillessen, S, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, CS, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, JS, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Ekeke, ON, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, H, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, DE, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, MR, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, and Omlin, A

Abstract

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 eviden

Published
2022

12. What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021 (vol 82, pg 6, 2022)

Author

Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ekeke, ON, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, HI, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, Omlin, A, Turco, F, Armstrong, A, Attard, G, Beer, TM, Beltran, H, Bjartell, A, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Bristow, RG, Bulbul, M, Caffo, O, Chi, KN, Clarke, C, Clarke, N, Davis, ID, de Bono, J, Duran, I, Eeles, R, Efstathiou, E, Efstathiou, J, Evans, CP, Fanti, S, Feng, FY, Fizazi, K, Frydenberg, M, George, D, Gleave, M, Halabi, S, Heinrich, D, Higano, C, Hofman, MS, Hussain, M, James, N, Jones, R, Kanesvaran, R, Khauli, RB, Klotz, L, Leibowitz, R, Logothetis, C, Maluf, F, Millman, R, Morgans, AK, Morris, MJ, Mottet, N, Mrabti, H, Murphy, DG, Murthy, V, Oh, WK, Ekeke, ON, Ost, P, O'Sullivan, JM, Padhani, AR, Parker, C, Poon, DMC, Pritchard, CC, Rabah, DM, Rathkopf, D, Reiter, RE, Rubin, M, Ryan, CJ, Saad, F, Sade, JP, Sartor, O, Scher, HI, Shore, N, Skoneczna, I, Small, E, Smith, M, Soule, H, Spratt, D, Sternberg, CN, Suzuki, H, Sweeney, C, Sydes, M, Taplin, M-E, Tilki, D, Tombal, B, Turkeri, L, Uemura, H, van Oort, I, Yamoah, K, Ye, D, Zapatero, A, Gillessen, S, and Omlin, A

Published
2022

13. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Tilki, Derya, Gillessen, S.; Armstron, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.S.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Ekeke, O.N.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I., Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, School of Medicine, Tilki, Derya, Gillessen, S.; Armstron, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.S.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Ekeke, O.N.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I., Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, and School of Medicine

Abstract

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 eviden, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship; Prostate Cancer Foundation; Peter MacCallum Foundation; NHMRC Investigator Grant

Published
2022

14. What experts think about prostate cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic: report from The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Tilki, Derya, Turco, F.; Armstrong, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ekeke, O.N.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.-E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I.; Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Gillessen, S.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, School of Medicine, Tilki, Derya, Turco, F.; Armstrong, A.; Attard, G.; Beer, T.M.; Beltran, H.; Bjartell, A.; Bossi, A.; Briganti, A.; Bristow, R.G.; Bulbul, M.; Caffo, O.; Chi, K.N.; Clarke, C.S.; Clarke, N.; Davis, I.D.; de Bono, J.; Duran, I.; Eeles, R.; Efstathiou, E.; Efstathiou, J.; Evans, C.P.; Fanti, S.; Feng, F.Y.; Fizazi, K.; Frydenberg, M.; George, D.; Gleave, M.; Halabi, S.; Heinrich, D.; Higano, C.; Hofman, M.S.; Hussain, M.; James, N.; Jones, R.; Kanesvaran, R.; Khauli, R.B.; Klotz, L.; Leibowitz, R.; Logothetis, C.; Maluf, F.; Millman, R.; Morgans, A.K.; Morris, M.J.; Mottet, N.; Mrabti, H.; Murphy, D.G.; Murthy, V.; Oh, W.K.; Ekeke, O.N.; Ost, P.; O'Sullivan, J.M.; Padhani, A.R.; Parker, C.; Poon, D.M.C.; Pritchard, C.C.; Rabah, D.M.; Rathkopf, D.; Reiter, R.E.; Rubin, M.; Ryan, C.J.; Saad, F.; Sade, J.P.; Sartor, O.; Scher, H.I.; Shore, N.; Skoneczna, I.; Small, E.; Smith, M.; Soule, H.; Spratt, D.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Suzuki, H.; Sweeney, C.; Sydes, M.R.; Taplin, M.-E.; Tombal, B.; Türkeri, L.; Uemura, H.; Uemura, H.; van Oort, I.; Yamoah, K.; Ye, D.; Zapatero, A.; Gillessen, S.; Omlin, A., Koç University Hospital, and School of Medicine

Abstract

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., NA

Published
2022

15. OC-0767 Machine learning-based models for prediction of erectile dysfunction in localized prostate cancer

Author

Hasannejadasl, H., primary, Roumen, C., additional, van der Poel, H., additional, Vanneste, B., additional, van Roermund, J., additional, Aben, K., additional, Kalendralis, P., additional, Osong, B., additional, Kiemeney, L., additional, Van Oort, I., additional, Verwey, R., additional, Hochstenbach, L., additional, Bloemen-van Gurp, E.J., additional, Dekker, A., additional, and Fijten, R., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Author

Gillessen, S. Armstrong, A. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Chi, K.N. Clarke, C.S. Clarke, N. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J.S. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Ekeke, O.N. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fizazi, K. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Hussain, M. James, N. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Maluf, F. Millman, R. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mottet, N. Mrabti, H. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Oh, W.K. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Parker, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Shore, N. Skoneczna, I. Small, E. Smith, M. Soule, H. Spratt, D.E. Sternberg, C.N. Suzuki, H. Sweeney, C. Sydes, M.R. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Tombal, B. Türkeri, L. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. van Oort, I. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Zapatero, A. Omlin, A.

Subjects
education
Abstract

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. © 2022 The Author(s)

Published
2022

17. Corrigendum to 'What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021' [Eur Urol 82(1):6–11] (European Urology (2022) 82(1) (6–11), (S0302283822016505), (10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.010))

Author

Turco, F. Armstrong, A. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Bulbul, M. Caffo, O. Chi, K.N. Clarke, C. Clarke, N. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Efstathiou, J. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fizazi, K. Frydenberg, M. George, D. Gleave, M. Halabi, S. Heinrich, D. Higano, C. Hofman, M.S. Hussain, M. James, N. Jones, R. Kanesvaran, R. Khauli, R.B. Klotz, L. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Maluf, F. Millman, R. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mottet, N. Mrabti, H. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Oh, W.K. Ekeke, O.N. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Parker, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Rabah, D.M. Rathkopf, D. Reiter, R.E. Rubin, M. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Shore, N. Skoneczna, I. Small, E. Smith, M. Soule, H. Spratt, D. Sternberg, C.N. Suzuki, H. Sweeney, C. Sydes, M. Taplin, M.-E. Tilki, D. Tombal, B. Türkeri, L. Uemura, H. Uemura, H. van Oort, I. Yamoah, K. Ye, D. Zapatero, A. Gillessen, S. Omlin, A.

Abstract

The authors regret that Axel Heidenreich was added to the author list in error. The author list is now corrected as above, however the affiliations of remaining authors have been retained. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. © 2022 The Author(s)

Published
2022

18. Adjustment disorder in cancer patients after treatment: prevalence and acceptance of psychological treatment

Author

Van Beek, F. E., primary, Wijnhoven, L. M. A., additional, Custers, J. A. E., additional, Holtmaat, K., additional, De Rooij, B. H., additional, Horevoorts, N. J. E., additional, Aukema, E. J., additional, Verheul, S., additional, Eerenstein, S. E. J., additional, Strobbe, L., additional, Van Oort, I. M., additional, Vergeer, M. R., additional, Prins, J. B., additional, Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., additional, and Jansen, F., additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019[Formula presented]

Author

Gillessen, S. Attard, G. Beer, T.M. Beltran, H. Bjartell, A. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Bristow, R.G. Chi, K.N. Clarke, N. Davis, I.D. de Bono, J. Drake, C.G. Duran, I. Eeles, R. Efstathiou, E. Evans, C.P. Fanti, S. Feng, F.Y. Fizazi, K. Frydenberg, M. Gleave, M. Halabi, S. Heidenreich, A. Heinrich, D. Higano, C.T.S. Hofman, M.S. Hussain, M. James, N. Kanesvaran, R. Kantoff, P. Khauli, R.B. Leibowitz, R. Logothetis, C. Maluf, F. Millman, R. Morgans, A.K. Morris, M.J. Mottet, N. Mrabti, H. Murphy, D.G. Murthy, V. Oh, W.K. Ost, P. O'Sullivan, J.M. Padhani, A.R. Parker, C. Poon, D.M.C. Pritchard, C.C. Reiter, R.E. Roach, M. Rubin, M. Ryan, C.J. Saad, F. Sade, J.P. Sartor, O. Scher, H.I. Shore, N. Small, E. Smith, M. Soule, H. Sternberg, C.N. Steuber, T. Suzuki, H. Sweeney, C. Sydes, M.R. Taplin, M.-E. Tombal, B. Türkeri, L. van Oort, I. Zapatero, A. Omlin, A.

Abstract

At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019, 10 important areas of controversy in advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on 123 predefined consensus questions. The full report of the results is summarised here. © 2020 The Authors Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the results from the APCCC 2019. Design, setting, and participants: Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making. © 2020 The Authors

Published
2020

28. Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 in low-volume hormone sensitive metastatic prostate cancer: a prospective study

Author

Privé, B, additional, Peters, S, additional, Muselaers, C, additional, Zamecnik, P, additional, Janssen, M, additional, Scheenen, T, additional, Konijnenberg, M, additional, Verzijlbergen, J, additional, Gerritsen, W, additional, Mehra, N, additional, Somford, D, additional, Sedelaar, J, additional, van Oort, I, additional, Barentsz, JO, additional, Heskamp, S, additional, Gotthardt, M, additional, Witjes, J, additional, and Nagarajah, J, additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

31. High Diagnostic Performance of Short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-naive Men: The Next Step in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accessibility

Author

van der Leest, M., Israel, B., Cornel, E.B. (Erik), Zamecnik, P., Schoots, I.G. (Ivo), van der Lelij, H., Padhani, A.R., Rovers, M., van Oort, I., Sedelaar, M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C.A. (Christina), Hannink, G., Veltman, J., Barentsz, J. (Jelle), van der Leest, M., Israel, B., Cornel, E.B. (Erik), Zamecnik, P., Schoots, I.G. (Ivo), van der Lelij, H., Padhani, A.R., Rovers, M., van Oort, I., Sedelaar, M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C.A. (Christina), Hannink, G., Veltman, J., and Barentsz, J. (Jelle)

Abstract

Background: To make magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) more accessible to men at risk of high-grade prostate cancer (PCa), there is a need for quicker, simpler, and less costly MRI protocols. Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of monoplanar (“fast” biparametric MRI [bp-MRI]) and triplanar noncontrast bp-MRI with that of the current contrast-enhanced multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) in the detection of high-grade PCa in biopsy-naïve men. Design, setting, and participants: A prospective, multireader, head-to-head study included 626 biopsy-naïve men, between February 2015 and February 2018. Intervention: Men underwent prebiopsy contrast-enhanced mp-MRI. Prior to biopsy, two blinded expert readers subsequently assessed “fast” bp-MRI, bp-MRI, and mp-MRI. Thereafter, systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies (SBs) were performed. Men with suspicious mp-MRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3–5 lesions) also underwent MR-in-bore biopsy (MRGB). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of each protocol for the detection of high-grade PCa. Secondary outcomes included the difference in biopsy avoidance, detection of low-grade PCa, acquisition times, decision curve analyses, inter-reader agreement, and direct costs. Results from combined MRGB and SB were used as the reference standard. High-grade PCa was defined as grade 2. Results and limitations: Sensitivity for high-grade PCa for all protocols was 95% (180/ 190; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 91–97%). Specificity was 65% (285/436; 95% CI: 61–70%) for “fast” bp-MRI and 69% (299/436; 95% CI: 64–73%) for bp-MRI and mp-MRI. With fast bp-MRI, 0.96% (6/626) more low-grade PCa was detected. Biopsy could be avoided in 47% for the fast bp-MRI and in 49% for the bp-MRI and mp-MRI protocols. Fast bp-MRI and bp-MRI can be performed in 8 and 13 min, respectively, instead of 16 m

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

32. High Diagnostic Performance of Short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-naive Men: The Next Step in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accessibility

Author

van der Leest, M, Israel, B, Cornel, EB, Zamecnik, P, Schoots, Ivo, van der Lelij, H, Padhani, AR, Rovers, M, van Oort, I, Sedelaar, M, Hulsbergen-van Kaa, C, Hannink, G, Veltman, J, Barentsz, J, van der Leest, M, Israel, B, Cornel, EB, Zamecnik, P, Schoots, Ivo, van der Lelij, H, Padhani, AR, Rovers, M, van Oort, I, Sedelaar, M, Hulsbergen-van Kaa, C, Hannink, G, Veltman, J, and Barentsz, J

Published
2019

33. Treatment outcomes of 3rd treatment in a real-world metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) population: Results from the Dutch CAPRI-registry

Author

Notohardjo, J.C.L., primary, Kuppen, M.C.P., additional, Westgeest, H.M., additional, van den Eertwegh, A.J.M., additional, Van Moorselaar, J., additional, Mehra, N., additional, Coenen, J.L., additional, van Oort, I., additional, van den Bergh, A.C.M., additional, Aben, K.K.H., additional, Somford, D.M., additional, de Wit, R., additional, Bergman, A.M., additional, Lavalaye, L., additional, Uyl-de Groot, C., additional, and Gerritsen, W.R., additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

34. Natural dendritic cell vaccinations generate immune responses that correlate with clinical outcome in patients with chemo-naive castration-resistant prostate cancer

Author

Creemers, J., primary, Westdorp, H., additional, van Oort, I., additional, Schreibelt, G., additional, Gorris, M., additional, Mehra, N., additional, Simons, M., additional, de Goede, A., additional, van Rossum, M., additional, Croockewit, S., additional, Figdor, C., additional, Witjes, J.A., additional, Aarntzen, E., additional, Mus, R., additional, Gotthardt, M., additional, Barentsz, J., additional, de Vries, J., additional, and Gerritsen, W.R., additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. Real-world use of radium-223 for treatment of metastatic castration resistant-prostate cancer (mCRPC): Results from the Dutch CAPRI registry

Author

Kuppen, M.C.P., primary, Westgeest, H.M., additional, van den Eertwegh, A.J.M., additional, Van Moorselaar, J., additional, Mehra, N., additional, Coenen, J.L., additional, van Oort, I., additional, van den Bergh, A.C.M., additional, Lavalaye, J., additional, Aben, K.K.H., additional, Somford, D.M., additional, de Wit, R., additional, Bergman, A.M., additional, Uyl-de Groot, C., additional, and Gerritsen, W.R., additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. Role of multidisciplinary team meetings in implementation of chemohormonal therapy in metastatic prostate cancer in daily practice

Author

Creemers, S. G., Van Santvoort, B., van den Berkmortel, F. W. P. J., Kiemeney, L. A., van Oort, I. M., Aben, K. K. H., and Hamberg, P.

Abstract

Background: The recommended treatment for a subset of patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) changed from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to combinations with chemotherapy such as docetaxel. Implementation of new evidence from trials is however complex and challenging. We investigated the effect of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) on adopting the newest emerging combination therapy in patients with mPC and assessed the overall survival of chemohormonal therapy in a real-world setting. Methods: All mPC patients diagnosed between October 2015 and April 2016 in the Netherlands were identified from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (n= 962). Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the role of patient- and tumor characteristics, with special emphasis on MDTs, on receiving chemohormonal therapy versus ADT monotherapy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess overall survival (OS). Results: As many patients received ADT monotherapy as chemohormonal therapy (both n= 452). Being discussed in a MDT as patient, younger age, less comorbidities, a better performance status and high-volume disease were significantly associated with receiving chemohormonal therapy compared to ADT monotherapy. After adjustment for these factors, the presence of a MDT was independently associated with the administration of chemohormonal therapy (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.68–4.59). The 2-year OS was 82.1% (95% CI: 78.5–85.6%) for patients receiving chemohormonal therapy and 59.9% (95% CI: 55.4–64.4%) for patients receiving ADT monotherapy. Conclusion: Being discussed in a MDT is independently associated with the administration of chemohormonal therapy in this group of patients with mPC. This supports the hypothesis that implementation of innovative treatment options is facilitated by an organizational structure with MDTs.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and Diffusion MRI Targeting for Cone-Beam CT-Guided Bone Biopsies of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients.

Author

van Steenbergen, T. R. F., Smits, M., Scheenen, T. W. J., van Oort, I. M., Nagarajah, J., Rovers, M. M., Mehra, N., and Fütterer, J. J.

Subjects
DIFFUSION magnetic resonance imaging, PROSTATE cancer patients, PROSTATE biopsy, CASTRATION-resistant prostate cancer, ENDORECTAL ultrasonography, CONE beam computed tomography, BONE tumors, TREATMENT effectiveness, PILOT projects, RESEARCH evaluation, BONES, BIOPSY, OLIGOPEPTIDES, MAGNETIC resonance imaging, INTERVENTIONAL radiology, ETHYLENEDIAMINETETRAACETIC acid, COMPUTED tomography, PROSTATE tumors, LONGITUDINAL method
Abstract

Introduction: Precision medicine expands the treatment options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) by targeting druggable genetic aberrations. Aberrations can be identified following molecular analysis of metastatic tissue. Bone metastases, commonly present in mCRPC, hinder precision medicine due to a high proportion of biopsies with insufficient tumor cells for next-generation DNA sequencing. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of incorporating advanced target planning and needle guidance in bone biopsies and whether this procedure increases biopsy tumor yield and success rate of molecular analysis as compared to the current standards, utilizing only CT guidance.Materials and Methods: In a pilot study, ten mCRPC patients received 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET/CT and diffusion-weighted MRI as biopsy planning images. These datasets were fused for targeting metastatic lesions with high tumor densities. Biopsies were performed under cone-beam CT (CBCT) guidance. Feasibility of target planning and needle guidance was assessed, and success of molecular analysis and tumor yield were reported.Results: Fusion target planning and CBCT needle guidance were feasible. Nine out of ten biopsies contained prostate cancer cells, with a median of 39% and 40% tumor cells by two different sequencing techniques. Molecular analysis was successful in eight of ten patients (80%). This exceeds previous reports on CT-guided biopsies that ranged from 33 to 44%. In two patients, important druggable aberrations were found.Discussion: A biopsy procedure using advanced target planning and needle guidance is feasible and can increase the success rate of molecular analysis in bone metastases, thereby having the potential of improving treatment outcome for patients with mCRPC.Level Of Evidence: Level 4, case series. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. Post-docetaxel survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is improving in the Netherlands

Author

Westgeest, H.-M., primary, Kuppen, M., additional, Van Den Eertwegh, F., additional, Van Moorselaar, J., additional, Mehra, N., additional, Coenen, J., additional, Van Oort, I., additional, Van Den Bergh, F., additional, Aben, K., additional, Somford, R., additional, Bergman, A., additional, Lavalaye, J., additional, Uyl-De Groot, C., additional, and Gerritsen, W., additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

43. Symptomatic skeletal related events (SSE) and SSE-free-survival in real world castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients: Results from CAPRI

Author

Kuppen, M., primary, Westgeest, H.M., additional, van den Eertwegh, A.J.M., additional, Van Moorselaar, J., additional, Mehra, N., additional, van Oort, I., additional, van den Bergh, A.C.M., additional, Coenen, J.L., additional, Aben, K.K.H., additional, Somford, R., additional, Lavalaye, J., additional, Bergman, A., additional, Uyl-de Groot, C.A., additional, and Gerritsen, W.R., additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. In-depth assessment of metastatic prostate cancer with high tumour mutational burden

Author

Mehra, N., primary, van Riet, J., additional, Smits, M., additional, Westdorp, H., additional, Gorris, M., additional, van Ee, T., additional, van der Doelen, M., additional, van Oort, I., additional, Sedelaar, M., additional, Textor, J., additional, Cuppen, E., additional, Grunberg, K., additional, Ligtenberg, M.J.L., additional, Zwart, W., additional, Bergman, A., additional, van de Werken, H.J.G., additional, Schalken, J., additional, de Vries, I.J.M., additional, Lolkema, M.P., additional, and Gerritsen, W.R., additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

45. PCN388 - PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN THE CASTRATION RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER REGISTRY (PRO-CAPRI) IN THE NETHERLANDS

Author

Kuppen, M., primary, Westgeest, H.M., additional, Van den Eertwegh, A., additional, Moorselaar, R., additional, Mehra, N., additional, Coenen, J., additional, Van Oort, I., additional, Van den Bergh, A., additional, Aben, K., additional, Somford, D., additional, Lavalaye, J., additional, Gerritsen, W., additional, and Uyl - de Groot, C., additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

46. Cabazitaxel treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) clinical trials compared to usual care in CAPRI: An observational study in the Netherlands

Author

Westgeest, H.M., primary, Kuppen, M., additional, van den Eertwegh, A.J.M., additional, Van Moorselaar, J., additional, Mehra, N., additional, van Oort, I., additional, van den Bergh, A.C.M., additional, Coenen, J.L., additional, Aben, K.K.H., additional, Somford, R., additional, de Wit, R., additional, Bergman, A., additional, Lavalaye, J., additional, Uyl-de Groot, C.A., additional, and Gerritsen, W.R., additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

48. Outcomes of crossover between androgen receptor targeting drugs in the castration resistant prostate cancer registry (CAPRI)

Author

Kuppen, M., primary, Westgeest, H., additional, Van Den Eertwegh, F., additional, Van Moorselaar, J., additional, De Wit, R., additional, Van Oort, I., additional, Aben, K., additional, Verhoeven, R., additional, Van Den Bergh, F., additional, Coenen, J., additional, Uyl-De Groot, C., additional, and Gerritsen, W., additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results