RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Panel testing has been recently introduced to evaluate hereditary cancer; however, limited information is available regarding its use in kidney cancer. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed test results and clinical data from patients who underwent targeted multigene panel testing of up to 19 genes associated with hereditary kidney cancer from 2013 to 2016. The frequency of positive (mutation/variant likely pathogenic), inconclusive (variant of unknown significance), and negative results was evaluated. A logistic regression analysis evaluated predictive factors for a positive test. RESULTS: Patients (n = 1235) had a median age at diagnosis of 46 years, which was significantly younger than the US population of individuals with kidney cancer (P < .0001). Overall, 6.1%, 75.5%, and 18.4% of individuals had positive, negative, and inconclusive results, respectively. The most commonly altered genes included folliculin (FLCN) and fumarate hydratase (FH), which were altered in 1.8% and 1.3% of patients, respectively. Tuberous Sclerosis Complex 2 (TSC2), mesenchymal epithelial transition factor proto-oncogene (MET), and PMS1 homolog 2 (PMS2) had the highest rates of variants of unknown significance, which were identified in 2.7%, 2.2%, and 1.7% of patients, respectively. Early age of onset was the only factor that was identified as predictive of a positive test on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 0.975; P = .0052) and may be the only identifying characteristic of low-penetrant syndromes, such as those associated with MITF (melanogenesis-associated transcription factor) mutations, which do not have singular histology or a family history of kidney cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Panel tests may be particularly useful for patients who lack distinguishing clinical characteristics of known hereditary kidney cancer syndromes. The current results support the use of early age of onset for genetic counseling and/or testing. Cancer 2017;123:4363-71. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/tendencias , Pruebas Genéticas/tendencias , Neoplasias Renales/diagnóstico , Síndromes Neoplásicos Hereditarios/diagnóstico , Transcriptoma , Adulto , Análisis Mutacional de ADN/métodos , Femenino , Predisposición Genética a la Enfermedad , Humanos , Neoplasias Renales/genética , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Síndromes Neoplásicos Hereditarios/genética , Proto-Oncogenes Mas , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas/genética , Estudios Retrospectivos , Proteínas Supresoras de Tumor/genéticaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To evaluate the positive predictive value (PPV) of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) assessment method in patients with a single suspicious finding on prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 176 patients underwent MRI/ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy after the detection of a single suspicious finding on mpMRI. The PPV for cancer detection was determined based on PI-RADS v2 assessment score and location. RESULTS: Fusion biopsy detected prostate cancer in 60.2% of patients. Of these patients, 69.8% had Gleason score (GS) ≥7 prostate cancer. Targeted biopsy detected 90.5% of all GS≥7 prostate cancer. The PPV for GS≥7 detection of PI-RADS v2 category 5 (P5) and category 4 (P4) lesions was 70.2% and 37.7%, respectively. This increased to 88% and 38.5% for P5 and P4 lesions in the peripheral zone (PZ), respectively. Targeted biopsy did not miss GS≥7 disease compared with systematic biopsy in P5 lesions in the PZ and transition zone. CONCLUSION: The PPV of PI-RADS v2 for prostate cancer in patients with a single lesion on mpMRI is dependent on PI-RADS assessment category and location. The highest PPV was for a P5 lesion in the PZ.
Asunto(s)
Biopsia Guiada por Imagen/métodos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/métodos , Próstata/patología , Ultrasonografía/métodos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasias de la PróstataRESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Active surveillance has been increasingly utilized as a strategy for the management of favorable-risk, localized prostate cancer. In this review, we describe contemporary management strategies of active surveillance, with a focus on traditional stratification schemes, new prognostic tools, and patient outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Patient selection, follow-up strategy, and indication for delayed intervention for active surveillance remain centered around PSA, digital rectal exam, and biopsy findings. Novel tools which include imaging, biomarkers, and genetic assays have been investigated as potential prognostic adjuncts; however, their role in active surveillance remains institutionally dependent. Although 30-50% of patients on active surveillance ultimately undergo delayed treatment, the vast majority will remain free of metastasis with a low risk of dying from prostate cancer. The optimal method for patient selection into active surveillance is unknown; however, cancer-specific mortality rates remain excellent. New prognostication tools are promising, and long-term prospective, randomized data regarding their use in active surveillance will be beneficial.