Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting

Niven Mehra*, Iris Kloots, Michiel Vlaming, Shafak Aluwini, Els Dewulf, Daniela E Oprea-Lager, Henk van der Poel, Herman Stoevelaar, Derya Yakar, Chris H Bangma, Elise Bekers, Roderick van den Bergh, Andries M Bergman, Franchette van den Berkmortel, Steve Boudewijns, Winand N M Dinjens, Jurgen Fütterer, Tom van der Hulle, Guido Jenster, Leonie I KroezeMichel van Kruchten, Geert van Leenders, Pim J van Leeuwen, Wendy W J de Leng, R Jeroen A van Moorselaar, Walter Noordzij, Rogier A Oldenburg, Inge M van Oort, Irma Oving, Jack A Schalken, Ivo G Schoots, Ed Schuuring, Robert J Smeenk, Ben G L Vanneste, Erik Vegt, André N Vis, Kim de Vries, Peter-Paul M Willemse, Maurits Wondergem, Margreet Ausems

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
76 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 

Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 

The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: 

Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:

 Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline.

CONCLUSIONS: 

The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa.

PATIENT SUMMARY: 

A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)23-31
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Urology Open Science
Volume49
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding/Support and role of the sponsor:
The consensus study was
funded by Astellas Pharma B.V., but this company had no influence on
the content in any stage of the process.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this