TY  - JOUR
A1  - Spohn, Simon K. B.
A1  - Draulans, Cédric
A1  - Kishan, Amar U.
A1  - Spratt, Daniel
A1  - Ross, Ashley
A1  - Maurer, Tobias
A1  - Tilki, Derya
A1  - Berlin, Alejandro
A1  - Blanchard, Pierre
A1  - Collins, Sean
A1  - Bronsert, Peter
A1  - Chen, Ronald
A1  - Dal Pra, Alan
A1  - de Meerleer, Gert
A1  - Eade, Thomas
A1  - Haustermans, Karin
A1  - Hölscher, Tobias
A1  - Höcht, Stefan
A1  - Ghadjar, Pirus
A1  - Davicioni, Elai
A1  - Heck, Matthias M.
A1  - Kerkmeijer, Linda G. W.
A1  - Kirste, Simon
A1  - Tselis, Nikolaos
A1  - Tran, Phuoc T.
A1  - Pinkawa, Michael
A1  - Pommier, Pascal
A1  - Deltas, Constantinos
A1  - Schmidt-Hegemann, Nina-Sophie
A1  - Wiegel, Thomas
A1  - Zilli, Thomas
A1  - Tree, Alison C.
A1  - Qiu, Xuefeng
A1  - Murthy, Vedang
A1  - Epstein, Jonathan I.
A1  - Graztke, Christian
A1  - Gao, Xin
A1  - Grosu, Anca L.
A1  - Kamran, Sophia C.
A1  - Zamboglou, Constantinos
T1  - Genomic classifiers in personalized prostate cancer radiation therapy approaches: a systematic review and future perspectives based on international consensus
T2  - International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
N2  - Background: Current risk-stratification systems for prostate cancer (PCa) do not sufficiently reflect the disease heterogeneity. Genomic classifiers (GC) enable improved risk-stratification after surgery, but less data exists for patients treated with definitive radiotherapy (RT) or RT in oligo-/metastatic disease stages. In order to guide future perspectives of GCs for RT, we conducted (i) a systematic review on the evidence of GCs for patients treated with RT and (ii) a survey of experts using the DELPHI method, addressing the role of GCs in personalized treatments to identify relevant fields of future clinical and translational research. 

Methods: We performed a systematic review and screened ongoing clinical trials on “clinicaltrials.gov”. Based on these results a multidisciplinary international team of experts received an adapted DELPHI method survey. 31 and 30 experts answered round 1 and round 2, respectively. Questions with ≥ 75% agreement were considered as relevant and included into the qualitative synthesis. 

Results: Evidence for GCs as predictive biomarkers is mainly available to the postoperative RT setting. Validation of GCs as prognostic markers in the definitive RT settings is emerging. Experts used GCs in PCa patients with extensive metastases (30%), in postoperative settings (27%) and newly diagnosed PCa (23%). 47% of experts do not currently use GCs in clinical practice. Expert consensus demonstrates that GCs are promising tools to improve risk-stratification in primary and oligo-/metastatic patients in addition to existing classifications. Experts were convinced that GCs might guide treatment decisions in terms of RT-field definition and intensification/de-intensification in various disease stages. 

Conclusions: This work confirms the value of GCs and the promising evidence of GC utility in the setting of RT. Additional studies of GCs as prognostic biomarkers are anticipated and form the basis for future studies addressing predictive capabilities of GCs to optimize RT and systemic therapy. The expert consensus points out future directions for GC research in the management of PCa.
Y1  - 2023
UR  - https://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/frontdoor/index/index/docId/124427
UR  - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-opus4-1244273
SN  - 0360-3016
VL  - 116
IS  - 3
SP  - 503
EP  - 520
PB  - Elsevier BV
CY  - Amsterdam
ER  -