The Movember Prostate Cancer Landscape Analysis: an assessment of unmet research needs.
Journal
Nature reviews. Urology
ISSN: 1759-4820
Titre abrégé: Nat Rev Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101500082
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
accepted:
08
06
2020
pubmed:
24
7
2020
medline:
21
1
2022
entrez:
24
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous cancer with widely varying levels of morbidity and mortality. Approaches to prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, surveillance, treatment and management differ around the world. To identify the highest priority research needs across the prostate cancer biomedical research domain, Movember conducted a landscape analysis with the aim of maximizing the effect of future research investment through global collaborative efforts and partnerships. A global Landscape Analysis Committee (LAC) was established to act as an independent group of experts across urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, translational research, health economics and patient advocacy. Men with prostate cancer and thought leaders from a variety of disciplines provided a range of key insights through a range of interviews. Insights were prioritized against predetermined criteria to understand the areas of greatest unmet need. From these efforts, 17 research needs in prostate cancer were agreed on and prioritized, and 3 received the maximum prioritization score by the LAC: first, to establish more sensitive and specific tests to improve disease screening and diagnosis; second, to develop indicators to better stratify low-risk prostate cancer for determining which men should go on active surveillance; and third, to integrate companion diagnostics into randomized clinical trials to enable prediction of treatment response. On the basis of the findings from the landscape analysis, Movember will now have an increased focus on addressing the specific research needs that have been identified, with particular investment in research efforts that reduce disease progression and lead to improved therapies for advanced prostate cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32699318
doi: 10.1038/s41585-020-0349-1
pii: 10.1038/s41585-020-0349-1
pmc: PMC7462750
doi:
Types de publication
Consensus Development Conference
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
499-512Références
Ferlay, J. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer 136, E359–E386 (2015).
pubmed: 25220842
Bray, F. et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 68, 394–424 (2018).
pubmed: 30207593
Tindall, D. J. & Scardino, P. T. Defeating prostate cancer: crucial directions for research — excerpt from the report of the Prostate Cancer Progress Review Group. Prostate 38, 166–171 (1999).
pubmed: 9973103
MBC alliance. Changing the landscape for people living with metastatic breast cancer. MBC alliance https://www.icrpartnership.org/library/file/7276/MBCA_Full_Report_Landscape_Analysis.pdf (2014).
BlueRibbonPanel. Cancer Moonshot Blue Ribbon Panel Report 2016. National Cancer Advisory Board https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancer-initiative/blue-ribbon-panel/blue-ribbon-panel-report-2016.pdf (2016).
Kania, J. & Kramer, M. Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact (2011).
Buzza, M. Accelerating Men’s Health via Global Collaboration. Stanford Social Innovation Review https://ssir.org/articles/entry/accelerating_mens_health_via_global_collaboration (2016).
Wahlster, P., Goetghebeur, M., Kriza, C., Niederlander, C. & Kolominsky-Rabas, P. Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). BMC Health Serv. Res. 15, 262 (2015).
pubmed: 26152122
pmcid: 4495941
Sharma, Y. et al. Economic evaluation of an extended nutritional intervention in older Australian hospitalized patients: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 18, 41 (2018).
pubmed: 29402228
pmcid: 5799921
Tomlinson, M. et al. Research priorities for health of people with disabilities: an expert opinion exercise. Lancet 374, 1857–1862 (2009).
pubmed: 19944866
Rudan, I. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method. IV. Key conceptual advances. J. Glob. Health 6, 10501 (2016).
Shah, A., Shewale, A., Hayes, C. J. & Martin, B. C. Cost-effectiveness of oral anticoagulants for ischemic stroke prophylaxis among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. Stroke 47, 1555–1561 (2016).
pubmed: 27103018
Cromwell, I., Peacock, S. J. & Mitton, C. ‘Real-world’ health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv. Res. 15, 164 (2015).
pubmed: 25927636
pmcid: 4433097
Marsh, K., Lanitis, T., Neasham, D., Orfanos, P. & Caro, J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 32, 345–365 (2014).
pubmed: 24504851
AstraZeneca. Lynparza regulatory submission granted Priority Review in the US for HRR-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [news release]. AstraZeneca https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/lynparza-regulatory-submission-granted-priority-review-in-the-us-for-hrr-mutated-metastatic-castration-resistant-prostate-cancer-20012020.html (2020).
Janssen. U.S. FDA breakthrough therapy designation granted for niraparib for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Johnson & Johnson https://www.jnj.com/janssen-announces-u-s-fda-breakthrough-therapy-designation-granted-for-niraparib-for-the-treatment-of-metastatic-castration-resistant-prostate-cancer (2019).
Ku, S. Y., Gleave, M. E. & Beltran, H. Towards precision oncology in advanced prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 645–654 (2019).
pubmed: 31591549
pmcid: 6858516
OECD Health Division. Addressing challenges in access to oncology medicines - Analytical report. https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Addressing-Challenges-in-Access-to-Oncology-Medicines-Analytical-Report.pdf (2020).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03678025 (2019).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02680587 (2020).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01558427 (2016).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04037358 (2020).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03569241 (2019).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03556904 (2020).
Lane, A. et al. Patient-reported outcomes in the ProtecT randomized trial of clinically localized prostate cancer treatments: study design, and baseline urinary, bowel and sexual function and quality of life. BJU Int. 118, 869–879 (2016).
pubmed: 27415448
pmcid: 5113698
Stephenson, A. J. et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98, 715–717 (2006).
pubmed: 16705126
pmcid: 2242430
Hull, G. W. et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J. Urol. 167, 528–534 (2002).
pubmed: 11792912
Perera, M. et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68ga–prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Urology 70, 926–937 (2016).
pubmed: 27363387
Giesel, F. L. et al. Intra-individual comparison of 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT and multi-parametric MR for imaging of primary prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 43, 1400–1406 (2016).
pubmed: 26971788
pmcid: 4906063
Bagheri, M. H. et al. Advances in medical imaging for the diagnosis and management of common genitourinary cancers. Urol. Oncol. 35, 473–491 (2017).
pubmed: 28506596
pmcid: 5931389
Palma, D. A. et al. The oligometastatic state — separating truth from wishful thinking. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 11,, 549–557 (2014).
Ost, P. et al. Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence: a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase II trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 446–453 (2018).
pubmed: 29240541
Palma, D. A. et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for comprehensive treatment of oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET): study protocol for a randomized phase II trial. BMC Cancer 12, 305 (2012).
pubmed: 22823994
pmcid: 3433376
Phillips, R. et al. Outcomes of observation vs stereotactic ablative radiation for oligometastatic prostate cancer: the ORIOLE phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 6, 650–659 (2020).
pmcid: 7225913
Sweeney, C. J. et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 737–746 (2015).
pubmed: 26244877
pmcid: 4562797
James, N. et al. Abiraterone for prostate cancer not previously treated with hormone therapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 338–351 (2017).
pubmed: 28578639
pmcid: 5533216
Gravis, G. et al. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel versus ADT alone in metastatic non castrate prostate cancer: impact of metastatic burden and long-term survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 GETUG-AFU15 trial. Eur. Urol. 70, 256–262 (2016).
pubmed: 26610858
Cicero, G. et al. Cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients progressing after docetaxel: a prospective single-center study. Oncology 92, 94–100 (2017).
pubmed: 27960186
Zhang, T. et al. Exploring the clinical benefit of docetaxel or enzalutamide after disease progression during abiraterone acetate and prednisone treatment in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 13, 392–399 (2015).
pubmed: 25708161
Khalaf, D. J. et al. Optimal sequencing of enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2, crossover trial. Lancet Oncol. 2045, 1–10 (2019).
MovemberFoundation. IRONMAN — An International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer. https://ironmanregistry.org/
Abida, W. et al. Non-BRCA DNA damage repair gene alterations and response to the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: analysis from the phase 2 TRITON2 study. Clin. Cancer Res. 26, 2487–2496 (2020).
pubmed: 32086346
Mateo, J. et al. Olaparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DNA repair gene aberrations (TOPARP-B): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet. Oncol. 21, 162–174 (2020).
pubmed: 31806540
pmcid: 6941219
Hofman, M. S. et al. TheraP: a randomized phase 2 trial of (177) Lu-PSMA-617 theranostic treatment vs cabazitaxel in progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (Clinical Trial Protocol ANZUP 1603). BJU Int. 124,, 5–13 (2019).
Boettcher, A. N. et al. Past, current, and future of immunotherapies for prostate cancer. Front. Oncol. 9, 884 (2019).
pubmed: 31572678
pmcid: 6749031
Morrison, G. J. & Goldkorn, A. Development and application of liquid biopsies in metastatic prostate cancer. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 20, 35 (2018).
pubmed: 29572775
pmcid: 7446728
Kim, E. H. & Andriole, G. L. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening: controversy and guidelines. BMC Med. 13, 61 (2015).
pubmed: 25857320
pmcid: 4371717
Fedewa, S. A. et al. Recent patterns in shared decision making for prostate-specific antigen testing in the United States. Ann. Fam. Med. 16, 139–144 (2018).
pubmed: 29531105
pmcid: 5847352
Fenton, J. J. et al. Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Report No.: 17-05229-EF-1 (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018).
McGinley, K. F., Tay, K. J. & Moul, J. W. Prostate cancer in men of African origin. Nat. Rev. Urol. 13, 99–107 (2016).
pubmed: 26718455
Tosoian, J. J. et al. Prostate Health Index density improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 120, 793–798 (2017).
pubmed: 28058757
Schalken, J. A., Hessels, D. & Verhaegh, G. New targets for therapy in prostate cancer: differential display code 3 (DD3(PCA3)), a highly prostate cancer-specific gene. Urology 62, 34–43 (2003).
pubmed: 14607216
Vickers, A. et al. Reducing unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a four-kallikrein panel: an independent replication. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 2493–2498 (2010).
pubmed: 20421547
pmcid: 2881727
Van Neste, L. et al. Detection of high-grade prostate cancer using a urinary molecular biomarker-based risk score. Eur. Urol. 70, 740–748 (2016).
pubmed: 27108162
McKiernan, J. et al. A prospective adaptive utility trial to validate performance of a novel urine exosome gene expression assay to predict high-grade prostate cancer in patients with prostate-specific antigen 2–10 ng/ml at initial biopsy. Eur. Urol. 74, 731–738 (2018).
pubmed: 30237023
Kohaar, I., Petrovics, G. & Srivastava, S. A rich array of prostate cancer molecular biomarkers: opportunities and challenges. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 1813 (2019).
pmcid: 6515282
Gronberg, H. et al. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet. Oncol. 16, 1667–1676 (2015).
pubmed: 26563502
Cui, Y. et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer antigen 3 for detecting prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 6, 25776 (2016).
pubmed: 27161545
pmcid: 4861967
Chiu, P. K.-F. et al. A multicentre evaluation of the role of the prostate health index (PHI) in regions with differing prevalence of prostate cancer: adjustment of PHI reference ranges is needed for European and Asian settings. Eur. Urol. 75, 558–561 (2019).
pubmed: 30396635
Drost, F.-J. H. et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4, CD012663 (2019).
pubmed: 31022301
Padhani, A. R. et al. PI-RADS steering committee: the PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology 292, 464–474 (2019).
pubmed: 31184561
pmcid: 6677282
Ahmed, H. U. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389, 815–822 (2017).
pubmed: 28110982
Lotan, Y. et al. Decision analysis model comparing cost of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. repeat biopsy for detection of prostate cancer in men with prior negative findings on biopsy. Urol. Oncol. 33, 266.e9–16 (2015).
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management (update). NICE https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131/chapter/Recommendations#assessment-and-diagnosis (2018).
PCUK. mpMRI before biopsy can radically improve diagnosis. Prostate Cancer UK https://prostatecanceruk.org/about-us/projects-and-policies/mpmri (2018).
Westphalen, A. C. et al. Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the society of abdominal radiology prostate cancer disease-focused panel. Radology 296, 76–84 (2020).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04060589 (2019).
Albertsen, P. C., Hanley, J. A. & Fine, J. B. A. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293, 2095–2101 (2005).
pubmed: 15870412
Klotz, L. et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 272–277 (2015).
pubmed: 25512465
Selvadurai, E. D. et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 64, 981–987 (2013).
pubmed: 23473579
Cooperberg, M. R. et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 228–234 (2011).
pubmed: 21115873
Klotz, L. Active surveillance in intermediate risk prostate cancer. Curr. Urol. Rep. 18, 80 (2019).
Auffenberg, G. B., Lane, B. R., Linsell, S., Cher, M. L. & Miller, D. C. Practice- vs physician-level variation in use of active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer: implications for collaborative quality improvement. JAMA Surg. 152, 978–980 (2017).
pubmed: 28636713
pmcid: 5831460
Cooperberg, M. R. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer — an evolving international standard of care. JAMA Oncol. 3, 1398–1399 (2017).
pubmed: 27768167
Parker, C. Active surveillance: towards a new paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol. 5, 101–106 (2004).
pubmed: 14761814
Albertsen, P. C. Active surveillance: a ten-year journey. Eur. Urol. 72, 542–543 (2017).
pubmed: 27842723
Athanazio, D., Gotto, G., Shea-Budgell, M., Yilmaz, A. & Trpkov, K. Global Gleason grade groups in prostate cancer: concordance of biopsy and radical prostatectomy grades and predictors of upgrade and downgrade. Histopathology 70, 1098–1106 (2017).
pubmed: 28370140
Beckmann, K. et al. Extent and predictors of grade upgrading and downgrading in an Australian cohort according to the new prostate cancer grade groupings. Asian J. Urol. 6, 321–329 (2019).
pubmed: 31768317
pmcid: 6872773
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines for patients: prostate cancer. NCCN https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/prostate/14/ (2019).
Glaser, Z. A., Gordetsky, J. B., Porter, K. K., Varambally, S. & Rais-Bahrami, S. Prostate cancer imaging and biomarkers guiding safe selection of active surveillance. Front. Oncol. 7, 256 (2017).
pubmed: 29164056
pmcid: 5670116
Schoots, I. G. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 67, 627–636 (2015).
pubmed: 25511988
Moore, C. M. et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 63, 125–140 (2013).
pubmed: 22743165
Fradet, V. et al. Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 256, 176–183 (2010).
pubmed: 20505068
pmcid: 2897693
Park, B. H. et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int. 113, 864–870 (2014).
pubmed: 24053308
Lam, T. B. L. et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel Consensus Statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study). Eur. Urol. 76, 790–813 (2019).
pubmed: 31587989
Kalapara, A. A. et al. adherence to active surveillance protocols for low-risk prostate cancer: results of the Movember foundation’s global action plan prostate cancer active surveillance initiative. Eur. Urol. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.014 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.014
pubmed: 31564531
Macleod, L. C. et al. Timing of adverse prostate cancer reclassification on first surveillance biopsy: results from the canary prostate cancer active surveillance study. J. Urol. 197, 1026–1033 (2017).
pubmed: 27810448
Coley, R. Y. et al. A Bayesian hierarchical model for prediction of latent health states from multiple data sources with application to active surveillance of prostate cancer. Biometrics 73, 625–634 (2017).
pubmed: 27548645
Bokhorst, L. P. et al. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur. Urol. 70, 954–960 (2016).
pubmed: 27329565
Mamawala, M. K. et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification of men with grade group 1 prostate cancer on active surveillance. BJU Int. 125, 861–866 (2020).
pubmed: 32039537
Klotz, L. Contemporary approach to active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer. Asian J. Urol. 6, 146–152 (2019).
pubmed: 31061800
Borque-Fernando, A. et al. The management of active surveillance in prostate cancer: validation of the canary prostate active surveillance study risk calculator with the Spanish Urological Association registry. Oncotarget 8, 108451–108462 (2017).
pubmed: 29312542
pmcid: 5752455
Huntley, J. H. et al. Clinical evaluation of an individualized risk prediction tool for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urology 121, 118–124 (2018).
pubmed: 30171924
Nieboer, D., Tomer, A., Rizopoulos, D., Roobol, M. J. & Steyerberg, E. W. Active surveillance: a review of risk-based, dynamic monitoring. Transl. Androl. Urol. 7, 106–115 (2018).
pubmed: 29594025
pmcid: 5861286
Bruinsma, S. M. et al. The Movember foundation’s GAP3 cohort: a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date. BJU Int. 121, 737–744 (2018).
pubmed: 29247473
Kalapara, A. A. et al. Adherence to active surveillance protocols for low-risk prostate cancer: results of the Movember foundation’s global action plan prostate cancer active surveillance initiative. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 3, 80–91 (2020).
pubmed: 31564531
Van Hemelrijck, M. et al. Reasons for discontinuing active surveillance: assessment of 21 centres in 12 countries in the Movember GAP3 consortium. Eur. Urol. 75, 523–531 (2019).
pubmed: 30385049
van der Kwast, T. H. et al. Consistent biopsy quality and Gleason grading within the global active surveillance global action plan 3 initiative: a prerequisite for future studies. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2, 333–336 (2019).
pubmed: 31200849
Drost, F.-J. H., Nieboer, D., Morgan, T. M., Carroll, P. R. & Roobol, M. J. Predicting biopsy outcomes during active surveillance for prostate cancer: external validation of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study Risk Calculators in five large active surveillance cohorts. Eur. Urol. 76, 693–702 (2019).
pubmed: 31451332
Scher, H. I. et al. Increased survival with enzalutamide in prostate cancer after chemotherapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1187–1197 (2012).
pubmed: 22894553
de Bono, J. S. et al. Abiraterone and increased survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 1995–2005 (2011).
pubmed: 21612468
pmcid: 3471149
Mateo, J. et al. DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 1697–1708 (2015).
pubmed: 26510020
pmcid: 5228595
Taghizadeh, H. et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in mCRPC — rationales, challenges and perspectives. Oncoimmunology 8, e1644109 (2019).
pubmed: 31646092
pmcid: 6791446
Thalgott, M. et al. Detection of circulating tumor cells in different stages of prostate cancer. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 139, 755–763 (2013).
pubmed: 23358719
Moreno, J. G. & Gomella, L. G. Evolution of the liquid biopsy in metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 132, 1–9 (2019).
pubmed: 31207303
Graf, R. P. et al. Clinical utility of the nuclear-localized AR-V7 biomarker in circulating tumor cells in improving physician treatment choice in castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 77, 170–177 (2019).
pubmed: 31648903
Plymate, S. R., Sharp, A. & de Bono, J. S. Nuclear circulating tumor cell androgen receptor variant 7 in castration-resistant prostate cancer: the devil is in the detail. JAMA Oncol. 4, 1187–1188 (2018).
pubmed: 29955776
Wyatt, A. W. et al. Concordance of circulating tumor DNA and matched metastatic tissue biopsy in prostate cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 109, djx118 (2017).
pmcid: 6440274
Lallous, N. et al. Functional analysis of androgen receptor mutations that confer anti-androgen resistance identified in circulating cell-free DNA from prostate cancer patients. Genome Biol. 17, 10 (2016).
pubmed: 26813233
pmcid: 4729137
Robinson, D. et al. Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer. Cell 161, 1215–1228 (2015).
pubmed: 26000489
pmcid: 4484602
Quigley, D. et al. Analysis of circulating cell-free DNA identifies multiclonal heterogeneity of BRCA2 reversion mutations associated with resistance to PARP inhibitors. Cancer Discov. 7, 999–1005 (2017).
pubmed: 28450426
pmcid: 5581695
Mayrhofer, M. et al. Cell-free DNA profiling of metastatic prostate cancer reveals microsatellite instability, structural rearrangements and clonal hematopoiesis. Genome Med. 10, 85 (2018).
pubmed: 30458854
pmcid: 6247769
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00268476 (2020).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03903835 (2019).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03385655 (2019).
Palmirotta, R. et al. Liquid biopsy of cancer: a multimodal diagnostic tool in clinical oncology. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 10, 1758835918794630 (2018).
pubmed: 30181785
pmcid: 6116068