Molecular biomarkers in the context of focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations of a Delphi Consensus from the Focal Therapy Society

Giancarlo Marra, Maria P. Laguna, Jochen Walz, Christian P. Pavlovich, Fernando Bianco, Justin Gregg, Amir H. Lebastchi, Herbert Lepor, Petr Macek, Soroush Rais-Bahrami, Cary Robertson, Daniel Rukstalis, Georg Salomon, Osamu Ukimura, Andre L. Abreu, Yann Barbe, Xavier Cathelineau, Giorgio Gandaglia, Arvin K. George, Juan Gomez RivasRajan T. Gupta, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Derek Lomas, Bernard Malavaud, Daniel Margolis, Yoh Matsuoka, Sherif Mehralivand, Marco Moschini, Marco Oderda, Hazem Orabi, Ardeshir R. Rastinehad, Mesut Remzi, Ariel Schulman, Toshitaka Shin, Takumi Shiraishi, Abhinav Sidana, Sunao Shoji, Armando Stabile, Massimo Valerio, Varaha S. Tammisetti, Wei Phin Tan, Willemien van Den Bos, Arnaud Villers, Peter Paul Willemse, Jean de la Rosette, Thomas Polascik, Rafael Sanchez-Salas*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is promising. However, long-term oncological results are awaited and there is no consensus on follow-up strategies. Molecular biomarkers (MB) may be useful in selecting, treating and following up men undergoing FT, though there is limited evidence in this field to guide practice. We aimed to conduct a consensus meeting, endorsed by the Focal Therapy Society, amongst a large group of experts, to understand the potential utility of MB in FT for localized PCa. METHODS: A 38-item questionnaire was built following a literature search. The authors then performed three rounds of a Delphi Consensus using DelphiManager, using the GRADE grid scoring system, followed by a face-to-face expert meeting. Three areas of interest were identified and covered concerning MB for FT, 1) the current/present role; 2) the potential/future role; 3) the recommended features for future studies. Consensus was defined using a 70% agreement threshold. RESULTS: Of 95 invited experts, 42 (44.2%) completed the three Delphi rounds. Twenty-four items reached a consensus and they were then approved at the meeting involving (N.=15) experts. Fourteen items reached a consensus on uncertainty, or they did not reach a consensus. They were re-discussed, resulting in a consensus (N.=3), a consensus on a partial agreement (N.=1), and a consensus on uncertainty (N.=10). A final list of statements were derived from the approved and discussed items, with the addition of three generated statements, to provide guidance regarding MB in the context of FT for localized PCa. Research efforts in this field should be considered a priority. CONCLUSIONS: The present study detailed an initial consensus on the use of MB in FT for PCa. This is until evidence becomes available on the subject.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)581-589
Number of pages9
JournalMinerva Urology and Nephrology
Volume74
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2022

Bibliographical note

on behalf of the Focal Therapy Society

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Molecular biomarkers in the context of focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations of a Delphi Consensus from the Focal Therapy Society'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this