Back to Authors

Pinover, Wayne H.

Mayo Clinic

Abington Memorial Hospital

Citations 2

Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019
Kelly, William Kevin, Cheng, Heather H. , Cookson, Michael S. , Dahut, William L. , Weissman, Scott M., Soule, Howard R. , Petrylak, Daniel P. , Dicker, Adam P. , AlDubayan, Saud H. , Pettaway, Curtis A. , Daly, Mary B., Mohler, James L. , Parsons, J. Kellogg , Pilarski, Robert , Blanco, Amie , Woodson, Ashley, Taplin, Mary-Ellen, Polascik, Thomas J. , Hyatt, Colette, Feng, Felix Y. , Mullane, Michael P., Powers, Jacqueline, Concepcion, Raoul S. , Lin, Daniel W. , Wender, Richard C. , Mark, James Ryan , Costello, Anthony J. , Isaacs, William B. , Xu, Jianfeng , Weitzel, Jeffrey N. , Andriole, Gerald L. , Beltran, Himisha , Briganti, Alberto , Byrne, Lindsey , Calvaresi, Anne, Chandrasekar, Thenappan , Chen, David Y.T. , Dobi, Albert , Crawford, E. David , Eastham, James A., Eggener, Scott E. , Freedman, Matthew L. , Garnick, Marc B. , Gomella, Patrick T. , Handley, Nathan , Hurwitz, Mark , Izes, Joseph K. , Karnes, R. Jeffrey , Lallas, Costas D. , Languino, Lucia R. , Loughlin, Kevin R. , Lu‐Yao, Grace , Malkowicz, S. Bruce, Mann, Mark, Mille, Patrick , Miner, Martin , Morgan, Todd M. , Mucci, Lorelei A. , Nielsen, Sarah M. , O’Neil, Brock , Pinover, Wayne H., Pinto, Peter A. , Poage, Wendy, Raj, Ganesh V. , Ryan, Charles J. , Schiewer, Matthew J. , Szymaniak, Brittany M. , Tester, William , Trabulsi, Edouard J. , Vapiwala, Neha , Gomella, Leonard G. , Weitzel, Jeffrey N , Morgan, Todd M , Cheng, Heather H , Dicker, Adam P , Giri, Veda N. , Knudsen, Karen E. , Cooney, Kathleen A. , Toland, Amanda Ewart , Pritchard, Colin C. , Carroll, Peter R , Rahm, Alanna Kulchak , Taplin, Mary‐Ellen , Helfand, Brian T. , Morgans, Alicia K. , Burnett, Arthur L. “Bud” , Sartor, Oliver , Den, Robert B. , Loeb, Stacy , López, Ana María , Moreno, Jose, Myers, Ronald E. , Rebbeck, Timothy R. , Sandler, Howard M. , Scott, E. Michael D., Yu, Evan Y , Zeigler-Johnson, Charnita M

Journal of Clinical Oncology | June 9, 2020 | Volume: 38 | Issue: 24 | Pages: 2798-2811

10.1200/jco.20.00046 Get It

PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.
RADI-04. PRETREATMENT VOLUME OF MRI-DETERMINED WHITE MATTER INJURY (WMI) PREDICTS COGNITIVE DECLINE AFTER HIPPOCAMPAL AVOIDANT (HA) WBRT FOR BRAIN METASTASES: SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF NRG ONCOLOGY RTOG 0933
Bovi, Joseph , Pugh, Stephanie L. , Sabesevitz, David, Paulson, E.S. , Gondi, Vinai , Pinover, Wayne H., Chao, Samuel T. , Machtay, Mitchell , DeNittis, Albert S., Laack, Nadia, Greenspoon, Jeffrey , Mannel, Robert S., Dominello, M.M., Kachnic, Lisa A. , Robinson, Clifford G. , Mehta, Minesh P. , Kundapur, Vijayananda , Huang, Jiayi

Neuro-Oncology Advances | August 12, 2019 | Volume: 1 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: i22-i22

10.1093/noajnl/vdz014.097 Get It

Abstract PURPOSE: RTOG 0933 demonstrated benefits to memory following HA-WBRT, supporting the hypothesis of hippocampal radiosensitivity and associated memory specificity. However, some patients demonstrated cognitive decline, suggesting mechanisms outside hippocampal radiosensitivity playing a role. WMI has been implicated in RT-induced cognitive decline. This secondary analysis explored the relationship between pre-treatment WMI and memory following HA-WBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 113 patients received HA-WBRT. Standardized cognitive assessments were performed at baseline, 2, 4, and 6 months. The primary endpoint was Hopkins Verbal Learning Test Delayed Recall (HVLT-DR) at 4 mos. Secondary endpoints included HVLT Total Recall (HVLT-TR) and Recognition (HVLT-Recog). Of 113 patients, 34 underwent pre-treatment and 4-month post-treatment HVLT testing and pre-treatment post-contrast volumetric T1 and axial T2/FLAIR MRI. Volumetric analysis of metastatic disease burden and disease-unrelated WMI was conducted on the pre-treatment MRI. Correlational analyses were performed examining the relationship between pre-treatment WMI and HVLT outcomes following HA-WBRT. RESULTS: Correlation was found between larger volumes of pre-treatment WMI and decline in HVLT-Recog (r=.54, p< .05) and a correlational trend was observed between larger volume of pre-treatment WMI and decline in HVLT-DR (r=.31, p=.08). Patients with higher pre-treatment disease burden experienced a greater magnitude of stability or positive shift in HVLT-recall and –delayed recall following HA-WBRT. (r=-.36 and r=-.36, p’s < .05), compared to the magnitude of stability/positive shift in those with lesser disease burden. CONCLUSION: In patients receiving HA-WBRT, pre-treatment-WMI predicts memory decline, suggesting white matter integrity pre-treatment contributes to the pathogenesis of post-WBRT cognitive toxicity independent of hippocampal stem cell radiosensitivity. Less decline or improvement in HVLT following HA-WBRT for patients with higher pre-treatment intracranial metastatic burden supports the importance of WBRT-induced intracranial control on cognition. These imaging biomarkers for cognitive toxicity will be further explored on NRG CC001 and CC003, phase III trials of WBRT with or without HA.