Hurwitz, Mark

PURPOSE Precision medicine has revolutionized oncology; however, tumor biomarkers are not reflective of the heterogeneous cancer population. We evaluated NRG Oncology prostate cancer (PCa) clinical trials for demographic differences among patients with optional biospecimen collection (BC) consent and biospecimen submission (BSub). METHODS Data from 19 NRG PCa clinical trials closed before 2015 were analyzed. Patients who consented to BC and completed BSub were evaluated by race, ethnicity, median income, area deprivation index (ADI; categorized as highest v lowest three quartiles), age at enrollment, site, and year of enrollment. T/chi-square tests were used for continuous/categorical variables, respectively, followed by logistic regression. RESULTS Of the 15,648 randomized patients eligible for BC, 11,796 (75%) had specimens submitted. In all, 4,598 (82.2%) of 5,597 eligible patients consented for optional BC in nine clinical trials with a separate BC consent process (consent rates by race/ethnicity: 74.1% Black, 72.8% Hispanic/Latino, 83.8% White). A smaller proportion of Black and Hispanic/Latino patients consented to optional BC compared with those who did not (12.1% v 19.5% Black, P < .0001; 3.5% v 5.8% Hispanic, P = .0006). In univariable logistic regression models, high ADI (more socioeconomic disadvantage) was associated with a decreased likelihood for optional BC consent (odds ratio [OR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.82]; P = .02), but not a decreased likelihood for BSub (OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.53 to 1.04]; P = .08). Multivariable models demonstrated that Black/Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to consent to optional BC, and Black patients were less likely to have BSub ( P < .05 for all). CONCLUSION White/non-Hispanic patients and those with less socioeconomic disadvantage were more likely to consent to optional BC, whereas Black patients were less likely to have BSub. Targeted solutions are needed to improve biorepository representation so that precision medicine approaches better reflect the cancer population.

Aim/Objectives/Background: The goal of therapy with unsealed radiopharmaceutical sources is to provide either cure or significant prolongation of disease-specific survival, and effective reduction and/or prevention of adverse disease-related symptoms or untoward events while minimizing treatment-associated side effects and complications. Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is an alpha particle–emitting isotope used for targeted bone therapy. This practice parameter is intended to guide appropriately trained and licensed physicians performing therapy with radium-223. Such therapy requires close cooperation and communication between the physicians who are responsible for the clinical management of the patient and those who administer radiopharmaceutical therapy and manage the attendant side effects. Adherence to this parameter should help to maximize the efficacious use of radium-223, maintain safe conditions, and ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Methods: This practice parameter was developed according to the process described on the American College of Radiology (ACR) website (“The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards,” www.acr.org/ClinicalResources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the American College of Nuclear Medicine (ACNM), the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI). All these societies contributed to the development of the practice parameter and approved the final document. Results: This practice parameter addresses the many factors which contribute to appropriate, safe, and effective clinical use of radium-223. Topics addressed include qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, specifications of patient examination and treatment; documentation, radiation safety, quality control/improvement, infection control, and patient education. Conclusions: This practice parameter is intended as a tool to guide clinical use of radium-223 with the goal of facilitating safe and effective medical care based on current knowledge, available resources and patient needs. The sole purpose of this document is to assist practitioners in achieving this objective.

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.