Semini Sumanasuriya1, Aurelius Omlin2, Andrew Armstrong3, Gerhardt Attard1, Kim N Chi4, Charlotte L Bevan5, Aki Shibakawa5, Maarten J IJzerman6, Bram De Laere7, Martijn Lolkema8, David Lorente9, Jun Luo10, Niven Mehra11, David Olmos12, Howard Scher13, Howard Soule14, Nikolas H Stoecklein15, Leon W M M Terstappen6, David Waugh16, Johann S de Bono17. 1. Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK; The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK. 2. Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. 3. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 4. BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 5. Imperial College London, London, UK. 6. University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands. 7. Centre for Oncological Research, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 8. Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Servicio Oncologia Medica Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia, Spain. 10. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 11. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 12. Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain. 13. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 14. Prostate Cancer Foundation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 15. University Hospital and Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 16. Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. 17. Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK; The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: johann.de-bono@icr.ac.uk.
Abstract
CONTEXT: In advanced prostate cancer (PC), there is increasing investigation of circulating biomarkers, including quantitation and characterization of circulating tumour cells and cell-free nucleic acids, for therapeutic monitoring and as prognostic and predictive biomarkers. However, there is a lack of consensus and standardisation regarding analyses, reporting, and integration of results into specific clinical contexts. A consensus meeting on circulating biomarkers was held to address these topics. OBJECTIVE: To present a report of the consensus statement on circulating biomarkers in advanced PC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Four important areas of controversy in the field of circulating biomarkers in PC management were identified: known clinical utility of circulating biomarkers; unmet clinical needs for circulating biomarkers in PC care; most pressing blood-based molecular assays required; and essential steps for developing circulating biomarker assays. A panel of 18 international PC experts in the field of circulating biomarkers developed the programme and consensus questions. The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 50 predefined questions developed following a modified Delphi process. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Voting was based solely on panellist opinions of the predefined topics and therefore not on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article and in the detailed voting results provided in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: The expert voting results presented can guide the future development of circulating biomarkers for PC care. Notably, the consensus meeting highlighted the importance of reproducibility and variability studies, among other significant areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. PATIENT SUMMARY: A panel of international experts met to discuss and vote on the use of different blood-based prostate cancer tests, and how they can be used to guide treatment and disease monitoring to deliver more precise and better patient care.
CONTEXT: In advanced prostate cancer (PC), there is increasing investigation of circulating biomarkers, including quantitation and characterization of circulating tumour cells and cell-free nucleic acids, for therapeutic monitoring and as prognostic and predictive biomarkers. However, there is a lack of consensus and standardisation regarding analyses, reporting, and integration of results into specific clinical contexts. A consensus meeting on circulating biomarkers was held to address these topics. OBJECTIVE: To present a report of the consensus statement on circulating biomarkers in advanced PC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Four important areas of controversy in the field of circulating biomarkers in PC management were identified: known clinical utility of circulating biomarkers; unmet clinical needs for circulating biomarkers in PC care; most pressing blood-based molecular assays required; and essential steps for developing circulating biomarker assays. A panel of 18 international PC experts in the field of circulating biomarkers developed the programme and consensus questions. The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 50 predefined questions developed following a modified Delphi process. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Voting was based solely on panellist opinions of the predefined topics and therefore not on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article and in the detailed voting results provided in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: The expert voting results presented can guide the future development of circulating biomarkers for PC care. Notably, the consensus meeting highlighted the importance of reproducibility and variability studies, among other significant areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. PATIENT SUMMARY: A panel of international experts met to discuss and vote on the use of different blood-based prostate cancer tests, and how they can be used to guide treatment and disease monitoring to deliver more precise and better patient care.
Authors: Richard R Drake; Peggi M Angel; Jennifer Wu; Russell K Pachynski; Joseph E Ippolito Journal: Expert Rev Mol Diagn Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 5.225
Authors: Heidi Fettke; Edmond M Kwan; Maria M Docanto; Patricia Bukczynska; Nicole Ng; Lisa-Jane K Graham; Kate Mahon; Christine Hauser; Winston Tan; Xiao Hong Wang; Zhixin Zhao; Tiantian Zheng; Kemin Zhou; Pan Du; Jianjun Yu; Yong Huang; Shidong Jia; Manish Kohli; Lisa G Horvath; Arun A Azad Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Irene Casanova-Salas; Alejandro Athie; Paul C Boutros; Marzia Del Re; David T Miyamoto; Kenneth J Pienta; Edwin M Posadas; Adam G Sowalsky; Arnulf Stenzl; Alexander W Wyatt; Joaquin Mateo Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 24.267
Authors: Thomas Dillinger; Raheleh Sheibani-Tezerji; Walter Pulverer; Ines Stelzer; Melanie R Hassler; Janine Scheibelreiter; Carlos Uziel Pérez Malla; Madeleine Kuroll; Sandra Domazet; Elisa Redl; Sarah Ely; Stefanie Brezina; Andreas Tiefenbacher; Katharina Rebhan; Nicolai Hübner; Bernhard Grubmüller; Markus Mitterhauser; Marcus Hacker; Andreas Weinhaeusel; Judit Simon; Markus Zeitlinger; Andrea Gsur; Gero Kramer; Shahrokh F Shariat; Lukas Kenner; Gerda Egger Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 27.401
Authors: Verena Lieb; Amer Abdulrahman; Katrin Weigelt; Siegfried Hauch; Michael Gombert; Juan Guzman; Laura Bellut; Peter J Goebell; Robert Stöhr; Arndt Hartmann; Bernd Wullich; Helge Taubert; Sven Wach Journal: Cells Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 6.600
Authors: Edmond M Kwan; Chao Dai; Heidi Fettke; Christine Hauser; Maria M Docanto; Patricia Bukczynska; Nicole Ng; Siavash Foroughi; Lisa-Jane K Graham; Kate Mahon; Winston Tan; Xiaohong Wang; Zhixin Zhao; Tiantian Zheng; Kemin Zhou; Jianjun Yu; Pan Du; Lisa G Horvath; Shidong Jia; Manish Kohli; Arun A Azad Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-04-06
Authors: Shenglin Cai; Thomas Pataillot-Meakin; Akifumi Shibakawa; Ren Ren; Charlotte L Bevan; Sylvain Ladame; Aleksandar P Ivanov; Joshua B Edel Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Edmund Lau; Patrick McCoy; Fairleigh Reeves; Ken Chow; Michael Clarkson; Edmond M Kwan; Kate Packwood; Helen Northen; Miao He; Zoya Kingsbury; Stefano Mangiola; Michael Kerger; Marc A Furrer; Helen Crowe; Anthony J Costello; David J McBride; Mark T Ross; Bernard Pope; Christopher M Hovens; Niall M Corcoran Journal: Genome Med Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 11.117