Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39354185›Full record

GuidelineProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025

Germline and somatic testing for homologous repair deficiency in patients with prostate cancer (part 1 of 2).

Andrew J Armstrong, Amy Taylor, Michael C Haffner, Wassim Abida, Alan H Bryce, Lawrence I Karsh, Scott T Tagawa, Przemyslaw Twardowski, Anthony V Serritella, Joshua M Lang

Abstract readPractice GuidelineReview
In one paragraph

Guideline in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Best of 2025 in prostate cancer and prostatic diseases.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. February 2025 Letters to the Editor.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Andrew J ArmstrongDuke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7012-1754
Amy TaylorUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Michael C HaffnerFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Wassim AbidaMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Alan H BryceCity of Hope, Goodyear, AZ, USA.
Lawrence I KarshThe Urology Center of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
Scott T TagawaWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2777-8587
Przemyslaw TwardowskiSaint John's Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Anthony V SerritellaUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-9887-3054
Joshua M LangUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. jmlang@medicine.wisc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0943-8872

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesUnfortunately, not all metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients receive available life-prolonging systemic therapies, emphasizing the need to optimize mCRPC treatment selections. Better guidelines are necessary to determine genetic testing in prostate cancer. SUBJECTS/

methodsIn this two-part expert opinion-based guide, we provide an expert consensus opinion on the utilization of germline and somatic testing to detect HRR alterations in patients with mCRPC. This guide was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel that convened in 2023-2024, including representatives from medical oncology, urology, radiation oncology, pathology, medical genomics, and basic science. RESULTS/

conclusionWe argue for the widespread adoption of germline testing in all patients with prostate cancer and for somatic mutations testing in patients at the time of recurrent/metastatic disease. In this first part, we review how genomic testing is performed. We also review how to overcome certain barriers to integrate genetic and biomarker testing into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrecision MedicineProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantBiomarkers, TumorConsensusGenetics, MedicalGerm-Line MutationHumansMaleMolecular Targeted TherapyPatient SelectionRadiation OncologyUrologyBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID39354185
PMCPMC12399426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.