MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774213581 · doi:10.1200/jco.2017.74.1173

Role of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer Risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017

2017· review· en· W2774213581 on OpenAlex
Veda N. Giri, Karen E. Knudsen, William Kevin Kelly, Wassim Abida, Gerald L. Andriole, Chris H. Bangma, Justin E. Bekelman, Mitchell C. Benson, Amie Blanco, Arthur L. Burnett, William J. Catàlona, Kathleen A. Cooney, Matthew R. Cooperberg, David Crawford, Robert B. Den, Adam P. Dicker, Scott E. Eggener, Neil Fleshner, Matthew L. Freedman, Freddie C. Hamdy, Jean Hoffman‐Censits, Mark Hurwitz, Colette Hyatt, William B. Isaacs, Christopher J. Kane, Philip W. Kantoff, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Lawrence I. Karsh, Eric A. Klein, Daniel W. Lin, Kevin R. Loughlin, Grace L. Lu‐Yao, S. Bruce Malkowicz, Mark Mann, James Ryan Mark, Peter A. McCue, Martin Miner, Todd M. Morgan, Judd W. Moul, Ronald E. Myers, Sarah M. Nielsen, Elias Obeid, Christian P. Pavlovich, Stephen C. Peiper, David F. Penson, Daniel P. Petrylak, Curtis A. Pettaway, Robert Pilarski, Peter A. Pinto, Wendy Poage, Ganesh V. Raj, Timothy R. Rebbeck, Mark E. Robson, Matt T. Rosenberg, Howard M. Sandler, Oliver Sartor, Edward M. Schaeffer, Gordon F. Schwartz, Mark S. Shahin, Neal D. Shore, Brian Shuch, Howard R. Soule, Scott A. Tomlins, Edouard J. Trabulsi, Robert G. Uzzo, Donald J. Vander Griend, Patrick C. Walsh, Carol J. Weil, Richard C. Wender, Leonard G. Gomella

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDuke Cancer InstituteNational Cancer InstituteMedical School, University of MichiganFeinberg School of MedicineSchool of MedicineUniversity of California, San FranciscoBrown UniversityTulane UniversityAstellas PharmaErasmus Medisch CentrumUniversity of OxfordHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchPerelman School of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaVanderbilt University Medical CenterCedars-Sinai Medical CenterJanssen PharmaceuticalsProstate Cancer FoundationMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversity of WashingtonVanderbilt UniversityUniversity of ChicagoUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterPfizerNorthwestern UniversityOhio State UniversityUniversity of California, San DiegoYale UniversityUniversity of TorontoCleveland ClinicUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsGenetic testingMedicineGenetic counselingProstate cancerConsensus conferenceFamily medicineOncologyCancerInternal medicineGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-driven working framework for comprehensive genetic evaluation of inherited PCA in the multigene testing era addressing genetic counseling, testing, and genetically informed management. Methods An expert consensus conference was convened including key stakeholders to address genetic counseling and testing, PCA screening, and management informed by evidence review. Results Consensus was strong that patients should engage in shared decision making for genetic testing. There was strong consensus to test HOXB13 for suspected hereditary PCA, BRCA1/2 for suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and DNA mismatch repair genes for suspected Lynch syndrome. There was strong consensus to factor BRCA2 mutations into PCA screening discussions. BRCA2 achieved moderate consensus for factoring into early-stage management discussion, with stronger consensus in high-risk/advanced and metastatic setting. Agreement was moderate to test all men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA, regardless of family history, with stronger agreement to test BRCA1/2 and moderate agreement to test ATM to inform prognosis and targeted therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary consensus statement to address a genetic evaluation framework for inherited PCA in the multigene testing era. Future research should focus on developing a working definition of familial PCA for clinical genetic testing, expanding understanding of genetic contribution to aggressive PCA, exploring clinical use of genetic testing for PCA management, genetic testing of African American males, and addressing the value framework of genetic evaluation and testing men at risk for PCA-a clinically heterogeneous disease.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.510
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.084 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it