Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)  (3)
  • 1
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 36, No. 4 ( 2018-02-01), p. 414-424
    Abstract: Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-driven working framework for comprehensive genetic evaluation of inherited PCA in the multigene testing era addressing genetic counseling, testing, and genetically informed management. Methods An expert consensus conference was convened including key stakeholders to address genetic counseling and testing, PCA screening, and management informed by evidence review. Results Consensus was strong that patients should engage in shared decision making for genetic testing. There was strong consensus to test HOXB13 for suspected hereditary PCA, BRCA1/2 for suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and DNA mismatch repair genes for suspected Lynch syndrome. There was strong consensus to factor BRCA2 mutations into PCA screening discussions. BRCA2 achieved moderate consensus for factoring into early-stage management discussion, with stronger consensus in high-risk/advanced and metastatic setting. Agreement was moderate to test all men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA, regardless of family history, with stronger agreement to test BRCA1/2 and moderate agreement to test ATM to inform prognosis and targeted therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary consensus statement to address a genetic evaluation framework for inherited PCA in the multigene testing era. Future research should focus on developing a working definition of familial PCA for clinical genetic testing, expanding understanding of genetic contribution to aggressive PCA, exploring clinical use of genetic testing for PCA management, genetic testing of African American males, and addressing the value framework of genetic evaluation and testing men at risk for PCA—a clinically heterogeneous disease.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2012
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 30, No. 4_suppl ( 2012-02-01), p. 158-158
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 30, No. 4_suppl ( 2012-02-01), p. 158-158
    Abstract: 158 Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a widely used local therapy for small, unresectable liver tumors (LT). Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been used for similar patients, and has the advantage that it can be used when lesions are adjacent to blood vessels, are difficult to reach and cannot be imaged on ultrasound. We examined RFA and SBRT outcomes for treating primary and metastatic LT at our institution and identified predictive factors for local control. Methods: This study included 62 patients (pts) with 106 LT (69 metastatic, 37 primary) treated with SBRT and 127 pts with 206 LT (80 metastatic, 126 primary) treated with RFA from 2000 to 2010. 42 lesions were ablated intra-operatively while 164 were ablated percutaneously. Mean tumor size by maximum diameter was 2.2 cm (0.4-11) and 2.3 cm (0.6-6.2) for RFA- and SBRT-treated LT, respectively. Freedom from local progression (FFLP) for SBRT was defined as absence of progressive LT within or at the PTV margin while FFLP for RFA was defined as recurrence within or immediately adjacent to the ablation zone. Results: With a median follow-up of 29.4 months (0.46 to 120.8), 1- and 2-yr FFLP rates for all SBRT- vs RFA-treated LT were 93% and 84% vs 86% and 83%. There were 14 cases of residual LT after RFA, 6 of which were re-ablated; these were not counted as RFA failures. Significantly more pts in the SBRT group had received prior systemic therapy (54% vs 31%, p=0.0001) and had active extrahepatic disease at treatment start (36% vs 23%, p=0.01). For SBRT, neither LT size nor dose predicted for FFLP. For RFA, tumor size ≥3 cm had worse FFLP (HR: 5.3, p 〈 0.0001) but an intraoperative approach had better FFLP (HR: −2.2, p=0.01). For tumors 〉 3cm, SBRT had significantly better FFLP than percutaneous RFA (HR: 0.32, p=0.018). In the RFA group, there were 9 complications, including pneumothorax, hemothorax, and small bowel injury, 2 of which resulted in death. In the SBRT group, there was 1 case of radiation-induced liver disease in a Child-Pugh Class B pt but no other significant toxicities. Conclusions: SBRT is a safe alternative to RFA, can be used in a wider variety of patients, and may be more effective than percutaneous RFA at locally controlling larger liver tumors.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2012
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 34, No. 12 ( 2016-04-20), p. 1402-1418
    Abstract: Evolving treatments, disease phenotypes, and biology, together with a changing drug development environment, have created the need to revise castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) clinical trial recommendations to succeed those from prior Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Groups. Methods An international expert committee of prostate cancer clinical investigators (the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 [PCWG3]) was reconvened and expanded and met in 2012-2015 to formulat e updated criteria on the basis of emerging trial data and validation studies of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 recommendations. Results PCWG3 recommends that baseline patient assessment include tumor histology, detailed records of prior systemic treatments and responses, and a detailed reporting of disease subtypes based on an anatomic pattern of metastatic spread. New recommendations for trial outcome measures include the time to event end point of symptomatic skeletal events, as well as time to first metastasis and time to progression for trials in the nonmetastatic CRPC state. PCWG3 introduces the concept of no longer clinically benefiting to underscore the distinction between first evidence of progression and the clinical need to terminate or change treatment, and the importance of documenting progression in existing lesions as distinct from the development of new lesions. Serial biologic profiling using tumor samples from biopsies, blood-based diagnostics, and/or imaging is also recommended to gain insight into mechanisms of resistance and to identify predictive biomarkers of sensitivity for use in prospective trials. Conclusion PCWG3 moves drug development closer to unmet needs in clinical practice by focusing on disease manifestations most likely to affect prognosis adversely for therapeutics tested in both nonmetastatic and metastatic CRPC populations. Consultation with regulatory authorities is recommended if a trial is intended to seek support for drug approval.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages