Controversial issues in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: Results from a Canadian consensus forum

Guidelines for genetic testing in prostate cancer: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing, to identify pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in prostate cancer, is valuable in guiding treatment decisions for men with prostate cancer and to inform cancer prevention and early detection options for their immediate blood relatives. There are various guidelines and consensus statements for genetic testing in prostate cancer. Our aim is to review genetic testing recommendations across current guidelines and consensus statements and the level of evidence supporting those recommendations.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Electronic database searches and manual searches of grey literature, including websites of key organisations were conducted. Using the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework, this scoping review included: men with prostate cancer or men at high risk of prostate cancer and their biological families; existing guidelines and consensus statements with supporting evidence for genetic testing of men with prostate cancer from any geographical location worldwide.

RESULTS

Of the 660 citations identified, 23 guidelines and consensus statements met the inclusion criteria for the scoping review. Based on different levels of evidence about who should be tested and how, a diverse range of recommendations were identified. There was general consensus among the guidelines and consensus statements that men with metastatic disease be offered genetic testing; however, there was less consensus in relation to genetic testing in localised prostate cancer. While there was some consensus in relation to which genes to test, recommendations varied regarding who to test, testing methods and implementation.

CONCLUSION

While genetic testing in prostate cancer is routinely recommended and numerous guidelines exist, there is still considerable lack of consensus regarding who should be tested and how they should be tested. Further evidence is needed to inform value-based genetic testing strategies for implementation in practice.

Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumour boards

PURPOSE

Genitourinary (GU) multidisciplinary tumour boards (GUMTBs) are key components of patient care, as they might lead to changes in treatment plan, improved survival, and increased adherence to guidelines. However, there are no guidelines on how GUMTBs should operate or how to assess their quality of performance.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify criteria and indicators to evaluate quality in GUMTBs. A scientific committee-comprising 12 GU cancer specialists from seven disciplines-proposed a list of criteria and developed indicators, evaluated in two rounds of Delphi method. Appropriateness and utility of indicators were scored using a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds of Delphi respondents selecting a score sub-category that encompassed the median score of the group.

RESULTS

Forty-five criteria were selected to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs covering five dimensions: organisation, personnel, protocol and documentation, resources, and interaction with patients. Then, 33 indicators were developed and evaluated in the first round of Delphi, leading to a selection of 26 indicators in two dimensions: function, governance and resources, and GUMTB sessions. In the second round, consensus was reached on the appropriateness of all 26 indicators and on the utility of 24 of them. Index cards for criteria and indicators were developed to be used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Criteria and indicators were developed to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs, aiming to serve as a guide to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with GU cancer.

Mutational spectrum of DNA damage and mismatch repair genes in prostate cancer

Over the past few years, a number of studies have revealed that a significant number of men with prostate cancer had genetic defects in the DNA damage repair gene response and mismatch repair genes. Certain of these modifications, notably gene alterations known as homologous recombination (HRR) genes; PALB2, CHEK2 BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, and genes for DNA mismatch repair (MMR); MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 are connected to a higher risk of prostate cancer and more severe types of the disease. The DNA damage repair (DDR) is essential for constructing and diversifying the antigen receptor genes required for T and B cell development. But this DDR imbalance results in stress on DNA replication and transcription, accumulation of mutations, and even cell death, which compromises tissue homeostasis. Due to these impacts of DDR anomalies, tumor immunity may be impacted, which may encourage the growth of tumors, the release of inflammatory cytokines, and aberrant immune reactions. In a similar vein, people who have altered MMR gene may benefit greatly from immunotherapy. Therefore, for these treatments, mutational genetic testing is indicated. Mismatch repair gene (MMR) defects are also more prevalent than previously thought, especially in patients with metastatic disease, high Gleason scores, and diverse histologies. This review summarizes the current information on the mutation spectrum and clinical significance of DDR mechanisms, such as HRR and MMR abnormalities in prostate cancer, and explains how patient management is evolving as a result of this understanding.

Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) provide an integrated team approach to ensure individualized and evidence-based treatment recommendations and best expert advice in cancer care. A growing number of patients and more complex treatment options challenge MDTM resources and evoke needs for case prioritization. In this process, decision aids could provide streamlining and standardize evaluation of case complexity. We applied the recently developed Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC, instrument with the aim to validate its performance in another healthcare setting and diagnostic area as a means to provide cases for full MDTM discussions.

METHODS

The 26-item MeDiC instrument evaluates case complexity and was applied to 364 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden. MeDiC scores were generated from individual-level health data and were correlated with clinicopathological parameters, healthcare setting, and the observed clinical case selection for MDTMs.

RESULTS

Application of the MeDiC instrument was feasible with rapid scoring based on available clinical data. Patients with high-risk prostate cancers had significantly higher MeDiC scores than patients with low or intermediate-risk cancers. In the total study, population affected lymph nodes and metastatic disease significantly influenced MDTM referral, whereas comorbidities and age did not predict MDTM referral. When individual patient MeDiC scores were compared to the clinical MDTM case selection, advanced stage, T3/T4 tumors, involved lymph nodes, presence of metastases and significant physical comorbidity were identified as key MDTM predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the MeDiC instrument in prostate cancer may be used to streamline case selection for MDTMs in cancer care and may complement clinical case selection.

Addressing Challenges and Controversies in the Management of Prostate Cancer with Multidisciplinary Teams

The diagnostic and treatment landscapes of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving. This has led to several challenges and controversies regarding optimal management of the disease that outpace guidelines and clinical data. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be used to engage the array of specialists that collaborate to treat complex malignancies such as prostate cancer. While the rationale for the use of MDTs in prostate cancer is well known, ways to optimally use MDTs to address the challenges and controversies associated with prostate cancer management are less well understood. One area of MDT care that remains undefined is how MDTs can most effectively provide guidance on clinical decision-making in situations in which information from novel diagnostic testing (genetic testing, molecular imaging) is substantially different from the established clinical risk factors. In this review, we provide a clinical perspective on ways that MDTs can be used to address this and other challenges and controversies across the prostate cancer disease continuum, from diagnosis to end-of-life considerations. Beyond clinical scenarios, we also review ways in which MDTs can mitigate disparities of care in prostate cancer. Overall, MDTs play a central role in helping to address the daily vexing issues faced by clinicians related to diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment. Given the accelerating advances in precision medicine and targeted therapy, and the new questions and controversies these will bring, the value of MDTs for prostate cancer management will only increase in the future.

Genetic Testing and Its Clinical Application in Prostate Cancer Management: Consensus Statements from the Hong Kong Urological Association and Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology

Background

In recent years, indications for genetic testing in prostate cancer (PC) have expanded from patients with a family history of prostate and/or related cancers to those with advanced castration-resistant disease, and even to early PC patients for determination of the appropriateness of active surveillance. The current consensus aims to provide guidance to urologists, oncologists and pathologists working with Asian PC patients on who and what to test for in selected populations.

Methods

A joint consensus panel from the Hong Kong Urological Association and Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology was convened over a series of 5 physical and virtual meetings. A background literature search on genetic testing in PC was performed in PubMed, ClinicalKey, EBSCOHost, Ovid and ProQuest, and three working subgroups were formed to review and present the relevant evidence. Meeting agendas adopted a modified Delphi approach to ensure that discussions proceed in a structured, iterative and balanced manner, which was followed by an anonymous voting on candidate statements. Of 5 available answer options, a consensus statement was accepted if ≥ 75% of the panelists chose “Accept Completely” (Option A) or “Accept with Some Reservation” (Option B).

Results

The consensus was structured into three parts: indications for testing, testing methods, and therapeutic implications. A list of 35 candidate statements were developed, of which 31 were accepted. The statements addressed questions on the application of PC genetic testing data and guidelines to Asian patients, including patient selection for germline testing, selection of gene panel and tissue sample, provision of genetic counseling, and use of novel systemic treatments in metastatic castration-resistant PC patients.

Conclusion

This consensus provides guidance to urologists, oncologists and pathologists working with Asian patients on indications for genetic testing, testing methods and technical considerations, and associated therapeutic implications.

Sequencing of Systemic Therapies in the Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer in India: a Delphi-Based Consensus

INTRODUCTION

With the availability of an increasing number of therapeutic options for advanced prostate cancer (APC), optimal sequencing and combination of therapies have emerged to be the areas of challenges. In the Indian context, there is a dearth of consensus recommendations to guide clinicians regarding optimal sequencing of therapy in APC management. A Delphi-based consensus regarding optimal therapy sequencing in APC management was developed by an expert panel of medical oncologists from across India.

METHODS

An expert scientific committee of 11 medical oncologists and an expert panel of 53 medical oncologists from India constituted the panel for the Delphi consensus. In the first phase, a questionnaire with 41 clinical statements was developed in several critical controversial areas in APC treatment. In the second phase, 29 clinical statements were reworked and sent to eight experts to obtain their opinions on best practices. The consensus ratings were based on a 9-point Likert scale. Based on the overall response, statements with a mean score of ≥ 7 with 1 outlier were considered as "consensus."

RESULTS

Degarelix was the preferred androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While ADT plus docetaxel was the preferred option for metastatic castrate-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer patients with high-volume disease, ADT with abiraterone was the preferred choice for low-volume disease. Docetaxel was the preferred first-line treatment option in men who received ADT alone in the castrate-sensitive/naïve setting. For patients progressing on or after docetaxel for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (without prior abiraterone or enzalutamide), the experts reached a consensus on the use of enzalutamide as the preferred second-line treatment option. No consensus was reached for the third-line treatment options.

CONCLUSION

This article is intended to serve as a guide to help clinicians discuss with their patients as part of the shared and multidisciplinary decision-making for improved APC management in India.

The evolving role of germline genetic testing and management in prostate cancer: Report from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre international retreat

Prostate cancer is a significant cause of cancer mortality. It has been well-established that certain germline pathogenic variants confer both an increased risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer and dying of prostate cancer.1 There are exciting developments in both the availability of genetic testing and opportunities for improved treatment of patients.On August 19, 2020, the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Ontario, hosted a virtual retreat, bringing together international experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, medical genetics, and translational research, as well as a patient representative. We are pleased to provide this manuscript as a review of those proceedings for Canadian clinicians.We highlighted several needs for future research and policy action based on this meeting:Increased access to funding for germline testing for the common genetic disorders associated with increased risk of prostate cancer.More research into identifying genetic factors influencing risk stratification, treatment response, and outcomes of prostate cancer within Canadian populations at higher genetic risk for prostate cancer.Added awareness about genetic risk factors among the Canadian public.Development of patient-specific and reported outcomes research in tailored care for patients at increased genetic risk of prostate cancer.Creation of multidisciplinary clinics that specialize in tailored care for patients at increased genetic risk of prostate cancer.

Consensus-based recommendations for titrating cannabinoids and tapering opioids for chronic pain control

AIMS

Opioid misuse and overuse have contributed to a widespread overdose crisis and many patients and physicians are considering medical cannabis to support opioid tapering and chronic pain control. Using a five-step modified Delphi process, we aimed to develop consensus-based recommendations on: 1) when and how to safely initiate and titrate cannabinoids in the presence of opioids, 2) when and how to safely taper opioids in the presence of cannabinoids and 3) how to monitor patients and evaluate outcomes when treating with opioids and cannabinoids.

RESULTS

In patients with chronic pain taking opioids not reaching treatment goals, there was consensus that cannabinoids may be considered for patients experiencing or displaying opioid-related complications, despite psychological or physical interventions. There was consensus observed to initiate with a cannabidiol (CBD)-predominant oral extract in the daytime and consider adding tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). When adding THC, start with 0.5-3 mg, and increase by 1-2 mg once or twice weekly up to 30-40 mg/day. Initiate opioid tapering when the patient reports a minor/major improvement in function, seeks less as-needed medication to control pain and/or the cannabis dose has been optimised. The opioid tapering schedule may be 5%-10% of the morphine equivalent dose (MED) every 1 to 4 weeks. Clinical success could be defined by an improvement in function/quality of life, a ≥30% reduction in pain intensity, a ≥25% reduction in opioid dose, a reduction in opioid dose to <90 mg MED and/or reduction in opioid-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This five-stage modified Delphi process led to the development of consensus-based recommendations surrounding the safe introduction and titration of cannabinoids in concert with tapering opioids.

Consensus recommendations on dosing and administration of medical cannabis to treat chronic pain: results of a modified Delphi process

BACKGROUND

Globally, medical cannabis legalization has increased in recent years and medical cannabis is commonly used to treat chronic pain. However, there are few randomized control trials studying medical cannabis indicating expert guidance on how to dose and administer medical cannabis safely and effectively is needed.

METHODS

Using a multistage modified Delphi process, twenty global experts across nine countries developed consensus-based recommendations on how to dose and administer medical cannabis in patients with chronic pain.

RESULTS

There was consensus that medical cannabis may be considered for patients experiencing neuropathic, inflammatory, nociplastic, and mixed pain. Three treatment protocols were developed. A routine protocol where the clinician initiates the patient on a CBD-predominant variety at a dose of 5 mg CBD twice daily and titrates the CBD-predominant dose by 10 mg every 2 to 3 days until the patient reaches their goals, or up to 40 mg/day. At a CBD-predominant dose of 40 mg/day, clinicians may consider adding THC at 2.5 mg and titrate by 2.5 mg every 2 to 7 days until a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day of THC. A conservative protocol where the clinician initiates the patient on a CBD-predominant variety at a dose of 5 mg once daily and titrates the CBD-predominant dose by 10 mg every 2 to 3 days until the patient reaches their goals, or up to 40 mg/day. At a CBD-predominant dose of 40 mg/day, clinicians may consider adding THC at 1 mg/day and titrate by 1 mg every 7 days until a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day of THC. A rapid protocol where the clinician initiates the patient on a balanced THC:CBD variety at 2.5-5 mg of each cannabinoid once or twice daily and titrates by 2.5-5 mg of each cannabinoid every 2 to 3 days until the patient reaches his/her goals or to a maximum THC dose of 40 mg/day.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, using a modified Delphi process, expert consensus-based recommendations were developed on how to dose and administer medical cannabis for the treatment of patients with chronic pain.

DNA damage repair gene mutation testing and genetic counseling in men with/without prostate cancer: a systematic review

Background: Ongoing clinical trials are investigating PARP inhibitors to target the DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway in prostate cancer. DDR mutation screening will guide treatment strategy and assess eligibility for clinical trials. Materials & methods: This systematic review estimated the rate of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling among men with or at risk of prostate cancer. Results: From 6856 records, one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria and described men undiagnosed with prostate cancer with a family history of BRCA1/2 mutation who received DDR mutation testing. Conclusion: With only one study included in this first systematic review of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling in men with or at risk of prostate cancer, more research is warranted.

Treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: focus on second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) is defined as a rising prostate-specific antigen concentration, despite castrate levels of testosterone with ongoing androgen-deprivation therapy or orchiectomy, and no detectable metastases by conventional imaging. Patients with nmCRPC progress to metastatic disease and are at risk of developing cancer-related symptoms and morbidity, eventually dying of their disease. While patients with nmCRPC are generally asymptomatic from their disease, they are often older and have chronic comorbidities that require long-term concomitant medication. Therefore, careful consideration of the benefit-risk profile of potential treatments is required.

METHODS

In this review, we will discuss the rationale for early treatment of patients with nmCRPC to delay metastatic progression and prolong survival, as well as the factors influencing this treatment decision. We will focus on oral pharmacotherapy with the second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors, apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide, and the importance of balancing the clinical benefit they offer with potential adverse events and the consequential impact on quality of life, physical capacity, and cognitive function.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

While the definition of nmCRPC is well established, the advent of next-generation imaging techniques capable of detecting hitherto undetectable oligometastatic disease in patients with nmCRPC has fostered debate on the criteria that inform the management of these patients. However, despite these developments, published consensus statements have maintained that the absence of metastases on conventional imaging suffices to guide such therapeutic decisions. In addition, the prolonged metastasis-free survival and recently reported positive overall survival outcomes of the three second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors have provided further evidence for the early use of these agents in patients with nmCRPC in order to delay metastases and prolong survival. Here, we discuss the benefit-risk profiles of apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide based on the data available from their pivotal clinical trials in patients with nmCRPC.

Real-world management of advanced prostate cancer: A description of management practices of community-based physicians and prostate cancer specialists

INTRODUCTION

The Canadian Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) conducted a consensus development conference leading to 31 recommendations. Using the GURC consensus development questionnaire, we conducted a survey to measure the corresponding community-based practices on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).

METHODS

An 87-item online questionnaire was sent to 600 community urologists and oncologists involved in the treatment of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Seventy-two community physicians responded to the survey. Of note, 50% community physicians indicated they would treat nmCRPC with agents approved for this indication if advanced imaging showed metastases. Radiation to the prostate for low-volume mCSPC was identified as a treatment practice by 27% of community physicians, and 35% indicated docetaxel as the next line of treatment after use of apalutamide. Use of genetic testing was reported in 36% of community physicians for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several areas of community-based management of advanced prostate cancer that could represent potential areas for education, practice tools, and future research.

A systematic scoping review of multidisciplinary cancer team and decision-making in the management of men with advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The early diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent access to the treatment options helps to achieve optimal cancer outcomes. As the treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer continues to evolve, patients need to access a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting to receive best-practice care.

METHODS

In this paper a MEDLINE review was performed to assess clinical decision making in the context of MDT discussions for patients with advanced prostate cancer.

RESULTS

From 441 returned articles and abstracts, 50 articles were assessed for eligibility and 16 articles included for analysis. Sixteen articles were identified, 9 of the 16 articles used quantitative methodology including three retrospective analysis of clinical registry data, patient medical records and/or MDT meeting notes and three cross-sectional surveys. Other study designs included one observation study and one study using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies and one mini-review. There were also four editorials included in the review and two consensus statements.

CONCLUSION

This paper highlights the important role the inter-disciplinary MDT has on shared decision making for men with advanced prostate cancer. The application of MDT care is a rapidly growing trend in uro-oncology and an efficient MDT service requires further research to assess its efficiency so that it may expand through all aspect of uro-oncology.