Search

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined. Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa. Design, setting, and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline. Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa. Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

Background and purpose: For irradiation of localized prostate-cancer, moderately-hypofractionated regimens with a variety of dose per fraction are used. We adopted a regimen of 70 Gy in 28 fractions of 2.5 Gy, using state of the art radiotherapy (RT) and closely monitored the efficacy, toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a large cohort, using patient-reported outcomes. Materials and methods: Between 2008 and 2016, 462 patients with intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer were treated with RT, 28 fractions of 2.5 Gy, using IMRT/VMAT, an online fiducial-maker based correction protocol and a daily inserted endorectal balloon. Overall freedom from failure (no biochemical or clinical recurrence) , as well as self-reported genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) related toxicity and HRQoL are reported. Results: Overall freedom from failure rates at 3 and 5 years were 92.0% (89.1–94.9%) and 83.5% (78.6–88.4%), respectively. Prevalence rates of grade ≥ 2 GU/GI-toxicity were 16.3%/6.3% and 22,1%/3.2% after 3 and 5 years respectively. The 5-year actuarial incidences of grade ≥ 2 GU/GI-toxicity were 43.5%/18.5%. HRQoL worsened during RT and gradually recovered thereafter, In accordance with the prevalence rates. Conclusion: Treatment of intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer with RT to 70 Gy in 28 fractions with IMRT/VMAT, using fiducial markers and an endorectal balloon leads to good long-term tumor control rates and acceptable patient reported toxicity rates. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes, including HRQoL, are essential for a good comparison between different studies. Finally, prevalence rates show a better correlation with HRQoL than actuarial incidence rates do and might therefore better represent the burden of toxicity.

PurposeExternal Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) techniques dramatically changed over the years. This may have affected the risk of radiation-induced second primary cancers (SPC), due to increased irradiated low dose volumes and scatter radiation. We investigated whether patterns of SPC after EBRT have changed over the years in prostate cancer (PCa) survivors.Materials and MethodsPCa survivors diagnosed between 1990-2014 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients treated with EBRT were divided in three time periods, representing 2-dimensional Radiotherapy (RT), 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), and the advanced RT (AdvRT) era. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and absolute excess risks (AER) were calculated to estimate relative and excess absolute SPC risks. Sub-hazard ratios (sHRs) were calculated to compare SPC rates between the EBRT and prostatectomy cohort. SPCs were categorized by subsite and anatomic region.ResultsPCa survivors who received EBRT had an increased risk of developing a solid SPC (SIR=1.08; 1.05-1.11), especially in patients aged