Germline genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer in practice: Implications for genetic testing, precision therapy, and cascade testing

Implementation of Universal Germline Genetic Testing Into Standard of Care for Patients With Prostate Cancer: The Time Is Now

Indications for and implications of germline genetic testing (GGT) in patients with prostate cancer have expanded over the past decade, particularly related to precision therapies and management. GGT has become the standard of care for many cancers such as breast, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and metastatic prostate cancer, and it is imperative that patients be offered timely and equitable access to testing as it can inform patient-physician shared decision making for management of the current cancer as well as anticipatory guidance for disease progression. Additionally, GGT guides screening for and prevention of secondary malignancies for the patient and cascade testing for at-risk family members. Here, we present data supporting the notion that clinicians should offer all patients with prostate cancer the opportunity to undergo comprehensive GGT for pathogenic germline variants known to be associated with familial cancer and/or known to have implications for treatment and management.

A qualitative study of the experiences of patients with prostate cancer when receiving negative genetic results: "I still don't have a grasp of what it all means"

Germline genetic testing has been increasingly conducted for treatment implications in patients with prostate cancer due to the expansion of testing eligibility. Understanding patients' comprehension of genetic results is crucial for establishing effective result disclosure practices. This importance has grown due to the increasing prevalence of negative genetic results being conveyed via electronic communication and by providers without a genetics specialization. This study explores patients with prostate cancer's perceptions of genetic results communication. We analyzed 24 qualitative, semi-structured interviews with patients with prostate cancer at an urban safety-net hospital who had genetic results documented in their medical records. Interview questions focused on patient experiences with genetic referrals, genetic counseling, and genetic result disclosure. Audio recordings were professionally transcribed and analyzed by the study team utilizing an inductive thematic approach to generate themes from recurring codes. Of those who participated, 18 were interviewed in English, 5 in Spanish, and 1 in Haitian Creole. No participants reported having a pathogenic variant identified with genetic testing. Study participants identified a number of gaps in results communication which led to misconceptions regarding hereditary cancer risk. Three themes were generated: (1) Patients desired clear communication about the next steps after genetic testing, (2) Patients commonly experienced cognitive dissonance with negative genetic results given personal and family history of cancer, and (3) Patients felt reassurance from negative genetic results. This research suggests that maintaining conversations between patients and healthcare providers alongside the delivery of negative results assists in patient comprehension. Additionally, it is essential to evaluate the accessibility and appropriateness of notes and results sent to patients. Ultimately, understanding communication barriers in genetic results return is imperative in order to provide high-quality genetic care.

Relationship Between Loss of Y Chromosome and Urologic Cancers: New Future Perspectives

Background: The Y chromosome (ChrY) is essential for male sex determination and spermatogenesis. However, recent studies have revealed its broader role in various physiological processes and disease susceptibility, including cancer. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using databases like MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The review included clinical and preclinical studies in animals and humans focusing on the role of LoY in urological tumors. Data on the frequency of LoY, its clinical implications, and underlying mechanisms were extracted and analyzed. Results: The evidence suggests that LoY is associated with an increased risk of urologic neoplasms, potentially serving as an early marker of genomic instability. Studies reveal that LoY in urologic cancers correlates with worse survival outcomes and may contribute to tumor progression. LoY may interfere with chromatin structure and epigenetic regulation, suggesting its role as a contributor to early tumorigenesis. Conclusions: LoY appears to be a structural aberration with unique biological and clinical relevance in urologic cancers, possibly serving as a biomarker for genomic instability. Further research is necessary to identify specific Y-linked genes affected by LoY, potentially informing targeted therapies and early diagnostic strategies for these cancers.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Germline BReast CAncer Gene Testing in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Followed by Cascade Testing of First-Degree Relatives of Mutation Carriers

OBJECTIVES

Patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) with BReast CAncer gene (BRCA) mutations benefit from targeted treatments (eg, olaparib). In addition, family members of affected patients have increased risk of hereditary cancers and benefit from early detection and prevention. International guidelines recommend genetic testing in mPCa; however, the value for money of testing patients with mPCa and cascade testing of blood-related family members has not been assessed. In this context, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing in patients with mPCa followed by cascade testing of first-degree relatives (FDRs) of mutation carriers.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing using 2 scenarios: (1) testing patients with mPCa only and (2) testing patients with mPCa and FDRs of those who test positive. A semi-Markov multi-health-state transition model was constructed using a lifetime time horizon. The analyses were performed from an Australian payer perspective. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with no testing, BRCA testing in mPCa was associated with an incremental cost of AU$3731 and a gain of 0.014 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AU$265 942/QALY. Extending testing to FDRs of variant-positive patients resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AU$16 392/QALY. Probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay of AU$75 000/QALY was 0% in the standalone mPCa analysis and 100% in the cascade testing analysis.

CONCLUSION

BRCA testing when performed as a standalone strategy in patients with mPCa may not be cost-effective but demonstrates significant value for money after the inclusion of cascade testing of FDRs of mutation carriers.

Prognostic value of germline mutations in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC)

BACKGROUND

About 8% to 12% of patients presenting with mHSPC exhibit germline pathogenic variants (PV) in cancer predisposition genes. The aim of this study is to assess the presence of germline PV as a prognostic factor in the setting of mHSPC and to determine whether mutational status can predict rapid progression to castration resistance.

METHODS

Genetic analysis using a multigene next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel was performed on 34 patients diagnosed with mHSPC undergoing treatment. We assessed the prevalence of germline PV and examined differences based on clinical-pathological characteristics, family history (FH), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, impact on time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (TTCRPC), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Germline PV were identified in 6 patients (17,6%). When comparing the clinical-pathological characteristics of PV carriers (n = 6) to noncarriers (n = 28), no significant associations were observed except for the presence of FH of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome and/or Lynch syndrome (P = 0.024). At a median follow-up of 33 months, significant differences in OS were observed based on the presence of PV (26 months in carriers vs. 74 months in noncarriers; P < 0.01). Patients who harbored a BRCA2 mutation (n = 3) showed a worse clinical outcome, presenting a shorter TTCRPC (7 months vs. 23 months; P = 0.005) and lower OS (7 months vs. 74 months; P < 0.001) compared to noncarriers (n = 31).

CONCLUSION

mHSPC germline PV carriers had a worse survival outcome. Furthermore, BRCA2 germline mutation was an independent poor prognostic factor for mHSPC disease, associated with earlier progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer, and shorter OS. These results highlight the importance of evaluating germline mutational status in patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

Organized prostate cancer screening program: a proposal from the Italian Society of Urology (SIU)

To contrast opportunistic PCa screening, the European Union Council suggested extending screening programs to PCa by recommending the implementation of a stepwise approach in the EU Countries to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of an organized program based on PSA testing in combination with additional MRI as a follow-up test. The objective of this expert-based document is to propose an organized PCa screening program according to the EU Council recommendations. The Italian Society of Urology (SIU) developed a team of experts with the aim to report 1) the most recent epidemiologic data about incidence, prevalence, and mortality of PCa; 2) the most important risk factors to identify categories of men with an increased risk to eventually develop the disease; 3) the most relevant studies presenting data on population-based screening; and 4) the current recommendations of the leading International Guidelines. According to previous evidence, the Panel proposed some indications to develop a new organized PCa screening program for asymptomatic men with a life-expectancy of at least fifteen years. The SIU Panel strongly supports the implementation of a pilot, organized PCa screening program inviting asymptomatic men in the age range of 50-55 years. Invited men who are already performing opportunistic screening will be randomized to continue opportunistic screening or to cross into the organized protocol. Men with PSA level ≤3 ng/mL and familiarity for PCa received a DRE as well as all those with PSA levels >3 ng/mL. All other men with PSA levels greater than 3 ng/mL proceed to secondary testing represented by mpMRI. Men with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) lesions 3 and PSAD 0.15 ng/mL/cc or higher as well as those with PI-RADS 4-5 lesions proceed to targeted plus systematic prostate biopsy. The primary outcome of the proposed pilot PCa screening program will be the detection rate of clinically significant PCa defined as a tumor with a ISUP Grade Group ≥2. Main secondary outcomes will be the detection rate of aggressive PCa (ISUP Grade Group ≥4); the detection rate of insignificant PCa (ISUP Grade Group 1); the number of unnecessary prostate biopsy avoided, the metastasis-free survival, and the overall survival. Men will be invited over a one-year period. Preliminary analyses will be planned 2 and 5 years after the baseline enrollment. According to the recent EU Council recommendations on cancer screening, pilot studies evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of PCa screening programs using PSA as the primary and mpMRI as the secondary screening test in selected cohorts of patients must be strongly promoted by scientific societies and supported by national governments.

Evolution of European prostate cancer screening protocols and summary of ongoing trials

Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced.

Causal relationship between prostatic diseases and prostate cancer: a mendelian randomization study

BACKGROUND

Although it is thought that prostatitis or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is related to prostate cancer (PCa), the underlying causal effects of these diseases are unclear.

METHODS

We assessed the causal relationship between prostatitis or BPH and PCa using a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. The data utilized in this study were sourced from genome-wide association study. The association of genetic variants from cohorts of prostatitis or BPH and PCa patients was determined using inverse-variance weighted and MR Egger regression techniques. The direction of chance was determined using independent genetic variants with genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10-6). The accuracy of the results was confirmed using sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

MR analysis showed that BPH had a significant causal effect on PCa (Odds Ratio = 1.209, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.098-0.281, P = 5.079 × 10- 5) while prostatitis had no significant causal effect on PCa (P > 0.05). Additionally, the pleiotropic test and leave-one-out analysis showed the two-sample MR analyses were valid and reliable.

CONCLUSIONS

This MR study supports that BPH has a positive causal effect on PCa, while genetically predicted prostatitis has no causal effect on PCa. Nonetheless, further studies should explore the underlying biochemical mechanism and potential therapeutic targets for the prevention of these diseases.

Prevalence of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in Japanese patients treated with castration-resistant prostate cancer and efficacy of CRPC treatment in real-world clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

The companion diagnosis for olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor for prostate cancer, aims to detect BRCA1/2 gene variants. In clinical practice, the frequency of germline BRCA1/2 variants in patients receiving castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of germline BRCA1/2 variants and their relationship to prognosis and treatment efficacy in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

METHODS

Between June 2021 and 2023, 92 patients receiving castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment were examined for germline BRCA1/2 variants using BRACAnalysis CDx®. Furthermore, the associations between BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and clinical outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients referred for genetic testing, 6 (6.5%) carried germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2. The BRCA2 variant was the most frequent (n = 5), followed by BRCA1 variant (n = 1). Among the five variants in BRCA2, the p.Asp427Thrfs*3 variant was identified for the first time in prostate cancer. Overall survival from castration-resistant prostate cancer for patients with BRCA1/2 variants was significantly shorter than for patients without BRCA1/2 variants (P = 0.043). Progression-free survival of androgen receptor signaling inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 variants was significantly shorter than for those without (P = 0.003). Progression-free survival of taxane chemotherapy was significantly shorter in patients with BRCA1/2 variants than in those without (P = 0.0149).

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice, 6.5% of patients treated with castration-resistant prostate cancer carried germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. Japanese castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutants have a poor prognosis and may be less responsive to treatment with androgen receptor signaling inhibitors and taxane-based chemotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Role of FDG PET/CT in Management of Patients with Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide. [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging, a well-known and effective technique for detecting malignancies, has not been considered a useful tool for prostate cancer imaging by many because of its perceived low [18F]FDG uptake. Incidentally detected focal [18F]FDG uptake in the prostate is not uncommon, and typically benign. Imaging features that would increase concern for an underlying prostatic carcinoma, include focal uptake in the periphery near the gland margin without calcifications. [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging provides little value in the initial staging of prostate cancer, particularly in the era of prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radiotracer. In cases of biochemical recurrence, the value of [18F]FDG PET/CT increases notably when Grade group 4 or 5 and elevated PSA levels are present. Active research is underway for theranostic approaches to prostate cancer, including [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy. Dual tracer staging using FDG and PSMA imaging significantly enhances the accuracy of disease site assessment. Specifically, the addition of [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging allows for the evaluation of discordant disease (PSMA negative/FDG positive). The maximal benefit from [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy relies on significant PSMA accumulation across all disease sites, and the identification of discordant disease suggests that these patients may derive less benefit from the treatment. The genuine value of [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging lies in advanced prostate cancer, PSMA-negative disease, as a prognostic biomarker, and the realm of new targeted theranostic agents.

Metastatic prostate cancer is associated with distinct higher frequency of genetic mutations at diagnosis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

We explored characteristic genetic mutations associated with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) by comparing next generation sequencing (NGS) data between men with or without metastatic disease at diagnosis.

METHODS

We queried the American Association for Cancer Research Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange (GENIE) registry for men diagnosed with PCa. Patients were categorized into with (M1) or without metastatic disease (M0) groups. The difference in the frequency of genetic mutations between the two groups and the prognostic significance of the mutations were analyzed using SPSS V28. We included frequency rate of > 5% and P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant to maintain over 95% true positive detection rate.

RESULTS

Of a total of 10,580 patients with diagnosis of PCa in the dataset, we selected a study cohort of 1268 patients without missing data; 700 (55.2%) had nonmetastatic PCa, 421 (33.2%) and 147 (11.6%) patients had metastatic castration sensitive and resistant PCa respectively. The median age at diagnosis and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level for the entire cohort was 62.8 years (IQR 56.3-68.4) and 8.0 ng/ml (IQR 4.9-20.9) respectively. A vast majority of the cohort were of Caucasian ancestry (89.1%). Of a total of 561 genes sequenced, there were mutations in 79 genes (14.1%). The mutation frequency was significantly higher in M1PCa compared to M0PCa, 35.7% and 23.3%, respectively (P = <0.001). The median tumor mutational burden was also significantly higher in the samples from M1PCa (2.59 mut/MB) compared to M0PCa (1.96 mut/MB) (P < 0.001). Compared to M0PCa patients, M1PCa patients demonstrated significantly higher rate of genetic mutations; TP53 (38.73% vs. 17.71% P < 0.001), PTEN (25.70% vs. 11.71% P < 0.001), AR (17.25% vs. 1.43% P < 0.001), APC (11.8% vs. 4.43% P < 0.001), TMPRSS2 (31.5% vs. 11.14% P < 0.001), ERG (23.59% vs. 13.13% P < 0.001), FOXA1 (17.43% vs. 6.33% P < 0.001), MYC (8.45% vs. 2.29% P < 0.001), RB1 (10.39% vs. 2.43% P < 0.001) and CDK12 (8.45% vs. 1.31% P < 0.001).  Of the various cellular signaling pathways, the androgen receptor signaling pathway was most often impacted. In the cohort with M1 disease, compared to men without genetic mutations the men with genetic mutations demonstrated worse survival (P = <0.001, log rank test). Compared to castration sensitive M1 patients, AR (57% vs. 4% P < 0.001), TP53 (50.7% vs. 34% P < 0.001), PTEN (35.2% vs. 22.1% P < 0.001), RB1(23.9% vs. 4.75% P < 0.001) were significantly more frequently mutated in castration resistant M1 patients. In contrast, mutations of SPOP (13.3% vs. 7.9% P < 0.001), FOXA1 (17.6% vs. 5.3% P < 0.001) and CDK12 (12% vs. 6.45% P < 0.001) were significantly more frequently found in castration sensitive M1 patients compared to castration resistant patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients with M1PCa demonstrated characteristic genetic mutations compared to M0PCa, which most often influenced androgen receptor signaling and is associated with worse survival. In addition, we identified distinct genetic mutations between castration sensitive and resistant M1PCa. These findings may be used to further our understanding and management of men with PCa.

Management of individuals with germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in CHEK2: A clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

PURPOSE

Although the role of CHEK2 germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition is well known, resources for managing CHEK2 heterozygotes in clinical practice are limited.

METHODS

An international workgroup developed guidance on clinical management of CHEK2 heterozygotes informed by peer-reviewed publications from PubMed.

RESULTS

Although CHEK2 is considered a moderate penetrance gene, cancer risks may be considered as a continuous variable, which are influenced by family history and other modifiers. Consequently, early cancer detection and prevention for CHEK2 heterozygotes should be guided by personalized risk estimates. Such estimates may result in both downgrading lifetime breast cancer risks to those similar to the general population or upgrading lifetime risk to a level at which CHEK2 heterozygotes are offered high-risk breast surveillance according to country-specific guidelines. Risk-reducing mastectomy should be guided by personalized risk estimates and shared decision making. Colorectal and prostate cancer surveillance should be considered based on assessment of family history. For CHEK2 heterozygotes who develop cancer, no specific targeted medical treatment is recommended at this time.

CONCLUSION

Systematic prospective data collection is needed to establish the spectrum of CHEK2-associated cancer risks and to determine yet-unanswered questions, such as the outcomes of surveillance, response to cancer treatment, and survival after cancer diagnosis.

Efficacy of National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines in Identifying Pathogenic Germline Variants Among Unselected Patients with Prostate Cancer: The PROCLAIM Trial

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in cancer predisposition genes may be eligible for U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies, clinical trials, or enhanced screening. Studies suggest that eligible patients are missing genetics-informed care due to restrictive testing criteria.

OBJECTIVE

To establish the prevalence of actionable PGVs among prospectively accrued, unselected PCa patients, stratified by their guideline eligibility.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive, unselected PCa patients were enrolled at 15 sites in the USA from October 2019 to August 2021, and had multigene cancer panel testing.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Correlates between the prevalence of PGVs and clinician-reported demographic and clinical characteristics were examined.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 958 patients (median [quartiles] age at diagnosis 65 [60, 71] yr), 627 (65%) had low- or intermediate-risk disease (grade group 1, 2, or 3). A total of 77 PGVs in 17 genes were identified in 74 patients (7.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-9.6%). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of PGVs among patients who met the 2019 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Prostate criteria (8.8%, 43/486, 95% CI 6.6-12%) versus those who did not (6.6%, 31/472, 95% CI 4.6-9.2%; odds ratio 1.38, 95% CI 0.85-2.23), indicating that these criteria would miss 42% of patients (31/74, 95% CI 31-53%) with PGVs. The criteria were less effective at predicting PGVs in patients from under-represented populations. Most PGVs (81%, 60/74) were potentially clinically actionable. Limitations include the inability to stratify analyses based on individual ethnicity due to low numbers of non-White patients with PGVs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that almost half of PCa patients with PGVs are missed by current testing guidelines. Comprehensive germline genetic testing should be offered to all patients with PCa.

PATIENT SUMMARY

One in 13 patients with prostate cancer carries an inherited variant that may be actionable for the patient's current care or prevention of future cancer, and could benefit from expanded testing criteria.

Frequency of Germline and Somatic BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Prostate Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In prostate cancer (PC), the presence of BRCA somatic and/or germline mutation provides prognostic and predictive information. Meta-analysis aims to estimate the frequency of BRCA mutations in patients with PC (PCp). In November 2022, we reviewed literature searching for all articles testing the proportion of BRCA mutations in PCp, without explicit enrichment for familiar risk. The frequency of germline and somatic BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations was described in three stage disease populations (any/metastatic/metastatic castration-resistant PC, mCRPC). Out of 2253 identified articles, 40 were eligible. Here, 0.73% and 1.20% of any stage PCp, 0.94% and 1.10% of metastatic PCp, and 1.21% and 1.10% of mCRPC patients carried germline and somatic BRCA1 mutation, respectively; 3.25% and 6.29% of any stage PCp, 4.51% and 10.26% of metastatic PCp, and 3.90% and 10.52% of mCRPC patients carried germline and somatic BRCA2 mutation, respectively; and 4.47% and 7.18% of any stage PCp, 5.84% and 10.94% of metastatic PCp, and 5.26% and 11.26% of mCRPC patients carried germline and somatic BRCA1/2 mutation, respectively. Somatic mutations are more common than germline and BRCA2 are more common than BRCA1 mutations; the frequency of mutations is higher in the metastatic setting. Despite that BRCA testing in PC is now standard in clinical practice, several open questions remain.

Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting

Background

Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined.

Objective

To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa.

Design setting and participants

The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Results and limitations

Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline.

Conclusions

The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa.

Patient summary

A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study's innovative approaches to promote uptake of clinical genetic testing among cancer patients: a study protocol for a 3-arm randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although most cancers are sporadic, germline genetic variants are implicated in 5-10% of cancer cases. Clinical genetic testing identifies pathogenic germline genetic variants for hereditary cancers. The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study is a three-arm randomized clinical trial that aims to test the efficacy of two patient-level behavioral interventions on uptake of cancer genetic testing.

METHODS

The two interventions being tested are (1) a virtual genetics navigator and (2) motivational interviewing by genetic health coaches. Eligible participants are adults with a diagnosis of breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer who meet the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Participants are recruited through community oncology practices affiliated with the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC) and have used the Family Health History Tool (FHHT) to determine testing eligibility. The recruitment goal is 759 participants, who will be randomized to usual care or to either the virtual genetics navigator or the motivational interviewing intervention arms. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals who complete germline genetic testing within 6 months.

DISCUSSION

This study addresses patient-level factors which are associated with the uptake of genetic testing. The study will test two different intervention approaches, both of which can help address the shortage of genetic counselors and improve access to care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan Medical School (HUM00192898) and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05162846).

Motivation and family communication in hereditary prostate cancer genetic testing: Survey of patients from a US tertiary medical center

Identification of a hereditary prostate cancer in an affected individual can guide treatment and may also impact cancer screening and surveillance for patients and their relatives. This study aimed to determine the factors that are associated with the decision-making process of individuals with prostate cancer regarding whether to pursue genetic testing as well as how, why, and with whom genetic test results are shared. We surveyed 113 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who received cancer genetic counseling through a United States tertiary medical center, inquiring about genetic testing motivations and family communication about results. Among those who pursued genetic testing, (1) learning about my family's possible cancer risk (98%), (2) learning information that may guide cancer treatment (93%), and (3) learning if I am at risk for future cancers (92%) were most frequently identified as slightly or very important factors in their decision. Participants shared their genetic test results in a higher proportion to male first-degree relatives than female first-degree relatives; however, no significant difference was found (p = 0.103). Our study may suggest sex differences related to family communication about genetic testing results. Such findings indicate a critical need for genetic counselors to clearly communicate the impact of genetic test results on both male and female relatives. Further research on motivation and family communication about genetic test results in diverse cohorts is needed.

Risk of cancer in individuals with Lynch-like syndrome and their families: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Lynch-like syndrome (LLS) tumors have similar clinicopathological features to Lynch syndrome (LS) tumors but have no identifiable pathogenic germline mismatch repair gene variant. However, cancer risks in LLS patients and first-degree relatives (FDRs) are not well defined.

METHODS

To clarify LLS-associated cancer risks, a systematic review of all studies examining all cancer risks in LLS was performed. Searching of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane and CINAHL databases and reference/citation checking identified relevant studies published between January 1, 1980 and February 11, 2021. Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Tools assessed the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Six studies (five cohort/one cross-sectional) were eligible for study inclusion. One study found no difference in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence between LLS and LS patients or CRC risks at aged 70 years. Three studies found CRC incidence in LLS FDRs was higher than the general population but lower than LS FDRs. Two studies showed no difference in CRC diagnosis age between LLS patients and LS patients. Endometrial cancer risks in LLS patients were higher than the general population but lower than LS patients.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of elevated CRC risks in LLS patients and FDRs supports increased colonoscopy surveillance strategies for LLS patients and FDRs in line with current recommendations for LS. Due to heterogeneity amongst LLS populations, extended intervals between screening may be advised for low-risk families. Studies to resolve the molecular characterization and definition of LLS are needed to clarify cancer risks associated with LLS which in turn may individualize surveillance strategies for LLS patients and families.

What is the most effective way to ensure that patients successfully undergo germline testing for prostate cancer?

INTRODUCTION

We sought to identify the most effective way to refer patients with prostate cancer to germline testing.

METHODS

After IRB approval, we queried the electronic medical records (EMR) to identify patients (ages 18-89) with prostate cancer who were referred for or offered germline testing for prostate cancer from May 1, 2019 to February 24, 2021 through either telephone referral, EMR referral or in-office testing. The 3 cohorts were compared on receipt of testing and time to testing. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox regression evaluated the influence of referral cohort and reason for testing on receipt of testing and time to testing, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 184 patients met study inclusion criteria; 47 were referred for germline testing via telephone, 70 were referred through the EMR and 67 were offered testing in the office. No significant demographic or clinical differences were observed. Telephone referral yielded the lowest response (17%; P < 0.001) with the longest time interval between referral and testing (103 days; P < 0.001); in-office testing yielded the highest response (66%). More patients were referred because of both family history and high risk characteristics in the EMR and in-office testing cohorts (21.4% and 25.4% respectively). Referral method was significantly (P < 0.001) associated with receipt of test, while reason for testing was not. Referral method was also independently related to time to testing (P < 0.001) while reason for referral was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Urologists should offer germline testing in the office for the most effective and expedient results.

Comprehensive Clinical and Genetic Analysis of CHEK2 in Croatian Men with Prostate Cancer

Germline pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in CHEK2 have been associated with increased prostate cancer (PrCa) risk. Our objective was to analyze their occurrence in Croatian PrCa men and to evaluate the clinical characteristics of P/LP variant carriers. Therefore, we analyzed CHEK2 in 150 PrCa patients unselected for age of onset, family history of PrCa or clinical outcome, and the frequency of identified variants was compared to findings in 442 cancer-free men, of Croatian ancestry. We identified four PrCa cases harboring a P/LP variant in CHEK2 (4/150, 2.67%), which reached a statistical significance (p = 0.004) as compared to the control group. Patients with P/LP variants in CHEK2 developed PrCa almost 9 years earlier than individuals with CHEK2 wild-type alleles (8.9 years; p = 0.0198) and had an increased risk for lymph node involvement (p = 0.0047). No association was found between CHEK2 status and further clinical characteristics, including the Gleason score, occurrence of aggressive PrCa, the tumor or metastasis stage. However, carriers of the most common P/LP CHEK2 variant, the c.1100delC, p.Thr367Metfs15*, had a significantly higher Gleason score (p = 0.034), risk for lymph node involvement (p = 0.0001), and risk for developing aggressive PrCa (p = 0.027). Thus, in a Croatian population, CHEK2 P/LP variant carriers were associated with increased risk for early onset prostate cancer, and carriers of the c.1100delC, p.Thr367Metfs15* had increased risk for aggressive PrCa.

Prognostic Role of DNA Damage Response Genes Mutations and their Association With the Sensitivity of Olaparib in Prostate Cancer Patients

Objective

Evidence shows that gene mutation is a significant proportion of genetic factors associated with prostate cancer. The DNA damage response (DDR) is a signal cascade network that aims to maintain genomic integrity in cells. This comprehensive study was performed to determine the link between different DNA damage response gene mutations and prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Papers published up to February 1, 2022 were retrieved. The DDR gene mutations associated with prostate cancer were identified by referring to relevant research and review articles. Data of prostate cancer patients from multiple PCa cohorts were obtained from cBioPortal. The OR or HR and 95% CIs were calculated using both fixed-effects models (FEMs) and random-effects models (REMs).

Results

Seventy-four studies were included in this research, and the frequency of 13 DDR genes was examined. Through the analysis of 33 articles that focused on the risk estimates of DDR genes between normal people and PCa patients, DDR genes were found to be more common in prostate cancer patients (OR = 3.6293 95% CI [2.4992; 5.2705]). Also, patients in the mutated group had a worse OS and DFS outcome than those in the unmutated group (P < .05). Of the 13 DDR genes, the frequency of 9 DDR genes in prostate cancer was less than 1%, and despite differences in race, BRCA2 was the potential gene with the highest frequency (REM Frequency = .0400, 95% CI .0324 - .0541). The findings suggest that mutations in genes such as ATR, BLM, and MLH1 in PCa patients may increase the sensitivity of Olaparib, a PARP inhibitor.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that mutation in any DDR pathway results in a poor prognosis for PCa patients. Furthermore, mutations in ATR, BLM, and MLH1 or the expression of POLR2L, PMS1, FANCE, and other genes significantly influence Olaparib sensitivity, which may be underlying therapeutic targets in the future.

Disparities in germline testing among racial minorities with prostate cancer

Germline testing is becoming increasingly relevant in prostate cancer (PCa) screening, prognosis, and management. A subset of patients with PCa harbor pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (P/LPVs) in genes mediating DNA-repair processes, and these P/LPVs have implications for cancer screening, treatment, and cascade testing. As a result, it is recommended that all men with high-risk localized and metastatic PCa undergo routine germline testing. As more PCa patients undergo germline testing, it is important that clinicians and genetics experts recognize current disparities in germline testing rates among racial/ethnic minorities in the United States. The reasons for these disparities are multiple and require similarly manifold consideration to close the germline testing gap and reduce inequities in PCa screening, management, and treatment.

Germline Variant Spectrum Among African American Men Undergoing Prostate Cancer Germline Testing: Need for Equity in Genetic Testing

PURPOSE

Guidelines for prostate cancer (PCA) germline testing (GT) have expanded, with impact on clinical management and hereditary cancer assessment. African American (AA) men have lower engagement in GT, with concern for widening disparities in genetically informed care. We evaluated the germline spectrum in a cohort of men with PCA enriched for AA men who underwent GT to inform tailored genetic evaluation strategies.

METHODS

Participants included AA and White men with PCA tested with a 14-gene PCA panel: ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, EPCAM, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PALB2, PMS2, RAD51D, and TP53. Germline analysis was performed per standard clinical testing and variant classification protocols. Data were compared with Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or two sample t-tests, as appropriate. Multivariable analysis was conducted using Akaike's Information Criterion. The significance level was set a priori at .05.

RESULTS

The data set included 427 men all tested using the 14-gene PCA panel: AA (n = 237, 56%) and White (n = 190, 44%). Overall, the pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant rate was 8.2%, with AA men having lower rates of P/LP variants then White men (5.91% v 11.05%, respectively; P = .05). Borderline associations with P/LP variant status were observed by race (AA v White; odds ratio = 0.51; P = .07) and age (> 50 v ≤ 50 years; odds ratio = 0.48; P = .06). The P/LP spectrum was narrower in AA men (BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and BRCA1) than White men (BRCA2, ATM, HOXB13, CHEK2, TP53, and NBN). A significant difference was noted in rates of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) between AA men and White men overall (25.32% v 16.32%; P = .02) and for carrying multiple VUSs (5.1% v 0.53%, P = .008).

CONCLUSION

Germline evaluation in a cohort enriched for AA men highlights the narrower spectrum of germline contribution to PCA with significantly higher rates of multiple VUSs in DNA repair genes. These results underscore the imperative to engage AA men in GT, the need for larger panel testing in AA men, and the necessity to incorporate novel genomic technologies to clarify VUS to discern the germline contribution to PCA. Furthermore, tailored genetic counseling for AA men is important to ensure understanding of VUS and promote equitable genetics care delivery.

Hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in the community urology practice setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of integrating a hereditary cancer risk assessment (HCRA) process in the community urology practice setting for patients with prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

In this prospective intervention, an HCRA process was implemented across six different community urology clinics between May 2019 and April 2020. The intervention included a process integration during which the workflow at each site was refined, a post-integration period during which HCRA was conducted in all patients with PCa, and a follow-up period during which healthcare providers and patients reported their satisfaction with the HCRA and genetic testing process.

RESULTS

Among patients who completed a family history assessment during the post-integration period, 23.6% met guideline criteria for genetic testing. Of all patients seen at the clinic during the post-integration period, 8.7% completed genetic testing; this was a twofold increase over the period immediately preceding process integration (4.2%), and a sevenfold increase over the same period 1 year prior (1.2%). The majority of providers reported that the HCRA was as important as other regularly performed assessments (61.0%) and planned to continue using the process in their practice (68.3%). Most patients believed that the genetic test results were important for their future cancer care (84.7%) and had already shared their test results with at least one family member (63.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that implementing an HCRA process in the community urology practice setting was feasible, generally favored by providers and patients, and resulted in an increase in the number of patients with PCa who completed genetic testing.

Germline testing and genetic counselling in prostate cancer

Genetic testing for prostate cancer is rapidly growing and is increasingly being driven by precision medicine. Rates of germline pathogenic variants have been reported in up to 15% of men with prostate cancer, particularly in metastatic disease, and results of genetic testing could uncover options for precision therapy along with a spectrum of hereditary cancer-predisposition syndromes with unique clinical features that have complex management options. Thus, the pre-test discussion, whether delivered by genetic counsellors or by health-care professionals in hybrid models, involves information on hereditary cancer risk, extent of gene testing, purpose of testing, medical history and family history, potential types of results, additional cancer risks that might be uncovered, genetically based management and effect on families. Understanding precision medicine, personalized cancer risk management and syndrome-related cancer risk management is important in order to develop collaborative strategies with genetic counselling for optimal care of patients and their families.

In this Review, Russo and Giri describe and discuss germline testing criteria, genetic testing strategies, genetically informed screening, precision management, delivery of genetic counselling or alternative genetic services and special considerations for men with prostate cancer.

Germline (hereditary) genetic testing is rising in importance for treatment, screening and risk assessment of prostate cancer.

Multiple hereditary cancer syndromes might be associated with prostate cancer, might confer risk of other cancerous and non-cancerous conditions, and can have hereditary cancer implications for family members. The rates of these syndromes can vary based upon the attributed genetic mutations.

Multiple aspects of germline testing should be discussed in the pre-test setting for men to make an informed decision, including the purpose of genetic testing, the benefits and risks of testing, hereditary cancer risk, identification of additional cancer risks, familial implications and the state of genetic discrimination protections.

Genetic evaluation can be conducted by genetic counsellors or a hybrid model can be employed, in which health-care providers deliver pre-test informed consent for testing, order testing and then determine referral to genetic counselling for appropriate patients.

Precision medicine is increasingly driving decisions for germline testing. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors and various other agents now in clinical trials have clinical activity in patients with certain hereditary cancer gene mutations, such as in DNA repair genes.

Patients’ experiences with germline testing can be variable; taking the patient’s current experience into account, considering referral to genetic counselling when needed and offering germline testing for eligible men at repeated intervals if initially declined are important.

Male Breast Cancer: From Molecular Genetics to Clinical Management

MBC is a rare disease accounting for almost 1% of all cancers in men and less than 1% of breast cancer. Emerging data on the genetic drivers of predisposition for MBC are available and different risk factors have been associated with its pathogenesis. Genetic alterations, such as pathogenetic variants in BRCA1/2 and other moderate-/low-penetrance genes, along with non-genetic risk factors, have been recognized as pathogenic factors for MBC. Preventive and therapeutic implications could be related to the detection of alterations in predisposing genes, especially BRCA1/2, and to the identification of oncogenic drivers different from FBC. However, approved treatments for MBC remain the same as FBC. Cancer genetic counseling has to be considered in the diagnostic work-up of MBC with or without positive oncological family history. Here, we review the literature, reporting recent data about this malignancy with a specific focus on epidemiology, and genetic and non-genetic risk factors. We introduce the perspective of cancer genetic counseling for MBC patients and their healthy at-risk family members, with a focus on different hereditary cancer syndromes.

The promising role of new molecular biomarkers in prostate cancer: from coding and non-coding genes to artificial intelligence approaches

Background

Risk stratification or progression in prostate cancer is performed with the support of clinical-pathological data such as the sum of the Gleason score and serum levels PSA. For several decades, methods aimed at the early detection of prostate cancer have included the determination of PSA serum levels. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview about recent advances in the discovery of new molecular biomarkers through transcriptomics, genomics and artificial intelligence that are expected to improve clinical management of the prostate cancer patient.

Methods

An exhaustive search was conducted by Pubmed, Google Scholar and Connected Papers using keywords relating to the genetics, genomics and artificial intelligence in prostate cancer, it includes “biomarkers”, “non-coding RNAs”, “lncRNAs”, “microRNAs”, “repetitive sequence”, “prognosis”, “prediction”, “whole-genome sequencing”, “RNA-Seq”, “transcriptome”, “machine learning”, and “deep learning”.

Results

New advances, including the search for changes in novel biomarkers such as mRNAs, microRNAs, lncRNAs, and repetitive sequences, are expected to contribute to an earlier and accurate diagnosis for each patient in the context of precision medicine, thus improving the prognosis and quality of life of patients. We analyze several aspects that are relevant for prostate cancer including its new molecular markers associated with diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction to therapy and how bioinformatic approaches such as machine learning and deep learning can contribute to clinic. Furthermore, we also include current techniques that will allow an earlier diagnosis, such as Spatial Transcriptomics, Exome Sequencing, and Whole-Genome Sequencing.

Conclusion

Transcriptomic and genomic analysis have contributed to generate knowledge in the field of prostate carcinogenesis, new information about coding and non-coding genes as biomarkers has emerged. Synergies created by the implementation of artificial intelligence to analyze and understand sequencing data have allowed the development of clinical strategies that facilitate decision-making and improve personalized management in prostate cancer.

Breast and prostate cancer risk: The interplay of polygenic risk, rare pathogenic germline variants, and family history

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate to what extent polygenic risk scores (PRS), rare pathogenic germline variants (PVs), and family history jointly influence breast cancer and prostate cancer risk.

METHODS

A total of 200,643 individuals from the UK Biobank were categorized as follows: (1) heterozygotes or nonheterozygotes for PVs in moderate to high-risk cancer genes, (2) PRS strata, and (3) with or without a family history of cancer. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compute the odds ratio across groups and the cumulative incidence through life.

RESULTS

Cumulative incidence by age 70 years among the nonheterozygotes across PRS strata ranged from 9% to 32% and from 9% to 35% for breast cancer and prostate cancer, respectively. Among the PV heterozygotes it ranged from 20% to 48% in moderate-risk genes and from 51% to 74% in high-risk genes for breast cancer, and it ranged from 30% to 59% in prostate cancer risk genes. Family history was always associated with an increased cancer odds ratio.

CONCLUSION

PRS alone provides a meaningful risk gradient leading to a cancer risk stratification comparable to PVs in moderate risk genes, whereas acts as a risk modifier when considering high-risk genes. Including family history along with PV and PRS further improves cancer risk stratification.

Clinical Significance of Gene Mutations and Polymorphic Variants and their Association with Prostate Cancer Risk in Polish Men

Objectives: We tested the association of germline variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, CDKN2A, CYP1B1, HOXB13, MLH1, NBS1, NOD2 andPALB2 genes, as well as in 8q24 region, with prostate cancer (PC) risk and estimated their impact on disease clinical course, including overall survival time in Polish men with localized PC qualified for radical treatment.Materials and Methods: DNA of 110 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy (RP), from each age group and with different stages of the disease. DNA samples of the control group consisted of 111 men, volunteers, without PC (age-matched to study group). Sanger sequencing, AS-PCR, RFLP-PCR, and multiplex-PCR were used for  variants detection.Results: The percentage of men with ≥1 germline variant was higher in PC group (52.7%) than in healthy men (37.8%) (P = .03). The presence of ≥2 variants was associated with shorter survival than the presence of one or no variant in the PC group (P = .14, trend). The HOXB13 G84E was detected in 2.9% of PC men and in no healthy men (P = .19, trend, OR = 7.21). A CHEK2 truncating mutation (1100delC or IVS2+1G>A) was detected in 2/110 (1.8%) PC patients and in no healthy men (P = .29, OR=5.14). The NBS1 I171V was detected in 2/110 (1.8%) PC patients and in no men from the control group (OR=5.14, P = .29, NS).Conclusions: We conclude that the presence of more than 2 germline variants was probably associated with shorter survival of patients with localized prostate cancer qualified for radical treatment. The HOXB13 (G84E), CHEK2 (1100delC or IVS2+1G>A) truncating variants and NBS1 (I171V) are associated with PC and hereditary form of the disease. The HOXB13 (G84E) and NOD2 (3020insC) single variants are associated with shorter and CYP1B1 (48CC, 119GG) single genotypes with longer overall survival.

The Role and Significance of Bioumoral Markers in Prostate Cancer

The prostate is one of the most clinically accessible internal organs of the genitourinary tract in men. For decades, the only method of screening for prostate cancer (PCa) has been digital rectal examination of 1990s significantly increased the incidence and prevalence of PCa and consequently the morbidity and mortality associated with this disease. In addition, the different types of oncology treatment methods have been linked to specific complications and side effects, which would affect the patient's quality of life. In the first two decades of the 21st century, over-detection and over-treatment of PCa patients has generated enormous costs for health systems, especially in Europe and the United States. The Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) is still the most common and accessible screening blood test for PCa, but with low sensibility and specificity at lower values (<10 ng/mL). Therefore, in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies, several screening tests (blood, urine, or genetic) have been developed. This review analyzes the most used bioumoral markers for PCa screening and also those that could predict the evolution of metastases of patients diagnosed with PCa.

Association of Inherited Mutations in DNA Repair Genes with Localized Prostate Cancer

Background:

Identification of germline mutations in DNA repair genes has significant implications for the personalized treatment of individuals with prostate cancer (PrCa).

Objective:

To determine DNA repair genes associated with localized PrCa in a diverse academic biobank and to determine genetic testing burden.

Design, setting, and participants:

A cross-sectional study of 2391 localized PrCa patients was carried out.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis:

Genetic ancestry and mutation rates (excluding somatic interference) in 17 DNA repair genes were determined in 1588 localized PrCa patients and 3273 cancer-free males. Burden testing within individuals of genetically determined European (EUR) and African (AFR) ancestry was performed between biobank PrCa cases and cancer-free biobank and gnomAD males.

Results and limitations:

AFR individuals with localized PrCa had lower DNA repair gene mutation rates than EUR individuals (1.4% vs 4.0%, p = 0.02). Mutation rates in localized PrCa patients were similar to those in biobank and gnomAD controls (EUR: 4.0% vs 2.8%, p = 0.15, vs 3.1%, p = 0.04; AFR: 1.4% vs 1.8%, p = 0.8, vs 2.1%, p = 0.5). Gene-based rare variant association testing revealed that only BRCA2 mutations were significantly enriched compared with gnomAD controls of EUR ancestry (1.0% vs 0.28%, p = 0.03). Of the participants, 21% and 11% met high-risk and very-high-risk criteria; of them, 3.7% and 6.2% had any germline genetic mutation and 1.0% and 2.5% had a BRCA2 mutation, respectively. Limitations of this study include an analysis of a relatively small, single-institution cohort.

Conclusions:

DNA repair gene germline mutation rates are low in an academic biobank cohort of localized PrCa patients, particularly among individuals of AFR genetic ancestry. Mutation rates in genes with published evidence of association with PrCa exceed 2.5% only in high-risk, very-high-risk localized, and node-positive PrCa patients. These findings highlight the importance of risk stratification in localized PrCa patients to identify appropriate patients for germline genetic testing.

Patient summary:

In the majority of patients who develop localized prostate cancer, germline genetic testing is unlikely to reveal an inherited DNA repair mutation, regardless of race. High-risk features increase the possibility of a germline DNA repair mutation.

Current Testing Guidelines: A Retrospective Analysis of a Community-Based Hereditary Cancer Program

It is estimated that 5% to 10% of all cancers are related to a hereditary cancer syndrome. However, specific cancers, such as pancreatic and ovarian cancers, are related to hereditary cancer syndromes 15% to 20% of the time. Genetic testing guidelines for hereditary cancer syndromes are frequently reviewed and updated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). The purpose of this retrospective analysis is to identify carriers of pathogenic variants or hereditary cancer syndrome who do not meet NCCN criteria for testing and compare the results with previous studies. The data obtained can be used to provide recommendations to assess current guidelines for testing and evaluate the benefit of comprehensive panel testing vs. standard testing for specific hereditary cancer syndromes. This project is a retrospective review of clinical histories of patients who had multigene panel testing between September 2015 and February 2019 through a cancer outreach and risk assessment (CORA) program. Frequencies analyses were performed to analyze results. A total of 233 individuals were included in the analysis: 171 met BRCA1/2 testing criteria, 66 met Lynch syndrome criteria, and 4 met polyposis criteria. Of the individuals meeting established criteria for testing, 39 were identified with pathogenic variants. However, only 10 of these individuals were identified with a pathogenic variant associated with the criteria for which they met. Genetic testing that is limited to only those patients with genes associated with hereditary cancer syndromes may lead to exclusion of other potentially actionable genes, which may impair a patient's ability to receive additional screening or preventative measures.

A novel germline BRCA2 mutation in a Chinese patient with prostate cancer sensitive to platinum chemotherapy: a case report

Background

Germline BRCA2 mutation is associated with an aggressive prostate cancer phenotype and indicates higher risk for hereditary cancer. Recently, numerous studies have attempted to identify the genomic landscape of prostate cancer to better understand the genomic drivers of this disease and look for the molecular targets to guide treatment selection.

Case presentation

We report a 67-year-old patient diagnosed with prostate cancer who experienced rapid disease progression after androgen deprivation therapy and subsequent docetaxel treatment. The patient had a strong family history of malignancy as his mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and his father was died of lung cancer. Next generation sequencing demonstrated a novel pathogenic germline BRCA2 mutation (p.Gly2181Glufs*10) in the patient. His mother with breast cancer and his son were found to have the same BRCA2 mutation. The patient experienced impressive and durable responses to carboplatin treatment.

Conclusions

This case demonstrated that the carboplatin could have a dramatic antitumor effect on patients with prostate cancer with germline BRCA2 mutations and family history will help to ensure that patients and their families can be provided with proper genetic counseling.

Factors that Influence Intent to Share Genetic Information Related to Cancer Risk with Family Members

We describe factors influencing patient decisions to share positive cancer genetic test results with family members. We focused on patients who were diagnosed with several different cancer types but did not have a family history that was suggestive of an inherited risk. Participants were recruited from Mayo Clinic and had been recently diagnosed with cancer. An 80+ gene panel was performed. Before receiving genetic test results, patients completed a 49-item survey on their intent to share their results with relatives. 1,721 (57.7%) of 2,984 individuals who elected to pursue genetic testing completed the survey. Most patients planned to share cancer-related genetic results with a spouse or partner (97.0%), at least one adult child (92.2%), at least one sibling (86.2%), and with at least one parent (70.3%). Familial support scores and familial communication scores were predictive of intent to share cancer-related genetic test results. Our data highlight differences in family communication capacity and support that are important for clinicians to consider when supporting patients who wish to share cancer-related genetic test results with family members. Our data point to several potential interventional strategies that might increase the likelihood of cancer-related genetic test results being shared with family members at risk.

Genetic Counseling for Men with Prostate Cancer

Germline genetic testing is becoming more prevalent in urology clinics because of precision medicine for prostate cancer treatment. Genetic testing results can also influence cancer screening discussions for patients and/or their families. An important part of germline genetic testing is genetic counseling. This article provides an overview of the historical aspects of genetic counseling, discusses the components needed to provide proper genetic counseling, summarizes genes related to hereditary prostate cancer risk, and reviews genetic privacy and genetic discrimination concerns related to germline genetic testing.

Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer Prognosis: Implications for Active Surveillance

Available evidence supports routine implementation of germline genetic testing for many aspects of prostate cancer (PCa) decision making. The purpose of obtaining genetic testing for newly diagnosed men would be focused on identifying mutations that predispose to aggressive PCa. Based on an evidence-based review, the authors review germline rare pathogenic mutations in several genes that are significantly associated with aggressiveness, metastases, and mortality. Then recent studies of these germline mutations in predicting tumor grade reclassification among patients undergoing active surveillance are discussed. Single nucleotide polymorphisms-based polygenic risk scores in differentiating PCa aggressiveness and prognosis are reviewed.

Exploring the most stable aptamer/target molecule complex by the stochastic tunnelling-basin hopping-discrete molecular dynamics method

The stochastic tunnelling-basin hopping-discrete molecular dynamics (STUN-BH-DMD) method was applied to the search for the most stable biomolecular complexes in water by using the MARTINI coarse-grained (CG) model. The epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM, PDB code: 4MZV) was used as an EpCAM adaptor for an EpA (Apt_EpA) benchmark target molecule. The effects of two adsorption positions on the EpCAM were analysed, and it is found that the Apt_EpA adsorption configuration located within the EpCAM pocket-like structure is more stable and the energy barrier is lower due to the interaction with water. By the root mean square deviation (RMSD), the configuration of EpCAM in water is more conservative when the Apt_EpA binds to EpCAM by attaching to the pocket space of the EpCAM dimer. For Apt_EpA, the root mean square fluctuation (RMSF) analysis result indicates Nucleobase 1 and Nucleobase 2 display higher flexibility during the CGMD simulation. Finally, from the binding energy contour maps and histogram plots of EpCAM and each Apt_EpA nucleobase, it is clear that the binding energy adsorbed to the pocket-like structure is more continuous than that energy not adsorbed to the pocket-like structure. This study has proposed a new numerical process for applying the STUN-BH-DMD with the CG model, which can reduce computational details and directly find a more stable Apt_EpA/EpCAM complex in water.

Family history and pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants in prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Recent literature highlights the importance of germline genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Surprisingly, a literature review indicates that family history (FH) records are incomplete in the major published studies from prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

Prospective family history data were gathered from 496 men in a single institution with a personal history of PCa who underwent germline genetic testing using a panel of at least 79 genes. Comprehensive first degree FH were obtained in all PCa of patients and analysis of prevalent FH was assessed at the time of sample collection.

RESULTS

Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) were not associated with age at diagnosis, race, or presence of metastasis. One or more first degree relatives (FDR) with any cancer was not predictive for germline PV/LPVs for men with PCa (p = .96). Separate analysis of patients with one or more FDR with breast, prostate, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer revealed that only FDR with breast or ovarian cancer was predictive for PV/LPVs (p = .028, p = .015 respectively). Patients with a FDR with breast cancer had 1.8 increased risk of PV/LPVs, and patients with a FDR with ovarian cancer had 2.9 increased risk of PV/LPV.

CONCLUSION

In men with a personal history of PCa, germline PV/LPVs were associated with a FDR with breast or ovarian cancer. Notably having FDRs with PCa does not predict for PV/LPVs. These data emphasize the contribution of FH in a data set with complete ascertainment of FH.

Physical activity assessment among men undergoing genetic counseling for inherited prostate cancer: a teachable moment for improved survivorship

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling (GC) presents an opportunity to address modifiable cancer risk factors, such as obesity, which is impacted by non-adherence to physical activity (PA) guidelines. Adherence to PA guidelines has not been assessed among men undergoing GC for prostate cancer (PCA). We conducted a targeted analysis of men undergoing PCA GC to assess adherence to PA recommendations.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional design, a total of 158 men from the Genetic Evaluation of Men (GEM) study at two academic cancer centers with a diagnosis or at risk for PCA completed a structured lifestyle survey, including questions about the number of days and intensity of PA over the past year. One-sample t tests assessed adherence of participants to PA recommendations. Chi-square analyses compared differences in PA adherence by PCA status, aggressiveness, family history, and body mass index. Logistic regression analyses identified predictors of PA adherence.

RESULTS

High proportions of GEM participants were overweight (44.9%) or obese (38.0%, p = 0.002). Men with PCA engaged in less moderate (p = 0.019) and vigorous (p = 0.005) aerobic activity than men without PCA. Higher education was predictive of adherence to light (p = 0.008), moderate (p = 0.019), and vigorous (p = 0.002) intensity PA. Older age (p = 0.015) and higher education (p = 0.001) were predictive of adherence to strength-based recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

High proportions of men receiving PCA GC were overweight/obese and lacked adherence to PA recommendations. GC represents a teachable moment to address PA to reduce cancer risk and promote cancer survivorship.

Rare Germline Pathogenic Variants Identified by Multigene Panel Testing and the Risk of Aggressive Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

Identifying which men at the time of prostate cancer diagnosis have, or will progress to, an aggressive fatal disease will allow clinicians to assist men in making better informed treatment decisions. This will not only be important for those men whose disease is likely to remain indolent and who are currently undergoing unnecessary treatment procedures, but also for those who may need to be targeted with immediate and potentially life-saving therapy. Our case-control study confirms that men who carry BRCA1, BRCA2 and ATM germline pathogenic variants are at increased risk of aggressive disease and provides risk estimates that will be used by clinicians to improve counselling.

Abstract

While gene panel sequencing is becoming widely used for cancer risk prediction, its clinical utility with respect to predicting aggressive prostate cancer (PrCa) is limited by our current understanding of the genetic risk factors associated with predisposition to this potentially lethal disease phenotype. This study included 837 men diagnosed with aggressive PrCa and 7261 controls (unaffected men and men who did not meet criteria for aggressive PrCa). Rare germline pathogenic variants (including likely pathogenic variants) were identified by targeted sequencing of 26 known or putative cancer predisposition genes. We found that 85 (10%) men with aggressive PrCa and 265 (4%) controls carried a pathogenic variant (p < 0.0001). Aggressive PrCa odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. Increased risk of aggressive PrCa (OR (95% confidence interval)) was identified for pathogenic variants in BRCA2 (5.8 (2.7–12.4)), BRCA1 (5.5 (1.8–16.6)), and ATM (3.8 (1.6–9.1)). Our study provides further evidence that rare germline pathogenic variants in these genes are associated with increased risk of this aggressive, clinically relevant subset of PrCa. These rare genetic variants could be incorporated into risk prediction models to improve their precision to identify men at highest risk of aggressive prostate cancer and be used to identify men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer who require urgent treatment.

Clinical Germline Testing Results of Men With Prostate Cancer: Patient-Level Factors and Implications of NCCN Guideline Expansion

Germline likely pathogenic or pathogenic variants (PVs) have been identified in up to 17% of men with prostate cancer (PC) and may drive disease severity or be targetable by novel therapies. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines encouraging germline testing in metastatic PC were recently expanded to include all men with high-risk, very high-risk, or regional PC. Our aim was to assess the impact of expanded NCCN guidelines on the detection rate of germline PVs and to determine patient-level factors associated with a PV germline testing result.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men with PC underwent multigene germline genetic testing for PVs from June 2016 to December 2018, and trends were compared. The association of patient-level factors with a PV germline testing result, where ≥ 1 PV was identified, was assessed using analysis of variance and univariate logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were limited to clinically actionable variants and those associated with disease severity or progression (BRCA1/2 and ATM).

RESULTS

Of 408 men undergoing germline testing, 42 (10.3%) men had PVs and 366 (89.7%) men did not have PVs identified. The proportion of men identified with a germline PV remained stable following testing criteria expansion (9.4% v 10.6%, P = .73). No patient-level factors were significantly associated with increased odds of a PV germline testing result, including age at diagnosis, race, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, Gleason grade group, NCCN risk group, and family history of cancer (breast and/or ovarian, prostate, or any cancer).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated a stable PV detection rate in men with PC using expanded criteria aligned to the updated NCCN testing guidelines. However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that patient-level factors are associated with PV germline testing results. These findings support the recent expansion of NCCN germline testing guidelines in PC.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.

Genetic counseling in prostate cancer: How to implement it in daily clinical practice?

Prostate cancer plays an undeniably prominent role in public health in our days and health systems. Its epidemiological impact is quantitatively very close to that of other tumors such as colon cancer and breast cancer, in which genetic counseling is part of their routine clinical practice, both in the initial evaluation and in the selection of therapeutic strategies. Hereditary cancer syndromes, breast/ovarian and Lynch syndrome are part of genetic counseling in these tumors. Currently, we also know that they can be associated to prostate cancer. The time has come to implement genetic counseling in prostate cancer from the earliest stages of its approach, from initial suspicion to the most advanced tumors. We present an updated review carried out by our interdisciplinary working group on scientific literature, clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents, aimed at the creation and drafting of a'Protocol for genetic counseling in prostate cancer' for the study of germline, with easy application in different healthcare settings. This protocol is currently being implemented in our routine practice and provides answers to 3 specific questions: Who should receive genetic counseling for prostate cancer? Which gene panel should be analyzed? How should counseling be done according to the results obtained? Other aspects about who should perform genetic counseling, ethical considerations and regulations are also collected.

Clinical Implications of Germline Testing in Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Germline testing (GT) is increasingly impacting prostate cancer (PCa) management and screening, with direct effects in urology, medical oncology, and radiation oncology. The majority of testing indications and recommendations center on men with metastatic disease, although guidelines now encompass newly diagnosed, early-stage PCa and entail assessment of personal history, pathologic features, and family history to determine eligibility for testing.

OBJECTIVE

To describe current guidelines on GT for men with PCa and the impact on management. An additional objective was to review the literature on current uptake of GT across practice settings.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A nonsystematic review was performed of current guidelines on GT in PCa from professional societies and consensus conferences, detailing supporting evidence for these recommendations. This was supplemented by a literature review of uptake of GT and precision medicine in practice.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Multiple guidelines and consensus panels recommend GT for men with metastatic PCa. Guidelines endorse BRCA2 testing in metastatic PCa because of strong evidence for PCa risk, aggressiveness, and PARP inhibitor candidacy. Testing of additional DNA repair genes in metastatic disease is also endorsed across guidelines. Immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is an option in some guidelines for men with DNA mismatch repair deficiency. In localized disease, GT is recommended on the basis of histologic features and family history; criteria vary between guidelines. GT for localized disease informs hereditary cancer risk and will probably impact future PCa management. Practice gaps exist regarding utilization of GT.

CONCLUSIONS

Germline evaluation is increasingly important in the management of men with metastatic PCa and may also affect the prognosis for men with localized disease. The presence of germline mutations has important hereditary cancer implications for men and their families. Uptake of germline evaluation may be underutilized in some practice settings, so strategies for optimization are required.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Patients with prostate cancer should talk to their doctor about the pros and cons of genetic testing, with attention to family history and cancer features. Genetic testing can have important implications for treatment, cancer screening, and family cancer risk.

CHEK2 Germline Variants in Cancer Predisposition: Stalemate Rather than Checkmate

Germline alterations in many genes coding for proteins regulating DNA repair and DNA damage response (DDR) to DNA double-strand breaks (DDSB) have been recognized as pathogenic factors in hereditary cancer predisposition. The ATM-CHEK2-p53 axis has been documented as a backbone for DDR and hypothesized as a barrier against cancer initiation. However, although CHK2 kinase coded by the CHEK2 gene expedites the DDR signal, its function in activation of p53-dependent cell cycle arrest is dispensable. CHEK2 mutations rank among the most frequent germline alterations revealed by germline genetic testing for various hereditary cancer predispositions, but their interpretation is not trivial. From the perspective of interpretation of germline CHEK2 variants, we review the current knowledge related to the structure of the CHEK2 gene, the function of CHK2 kinase, and the clinical significance of CHEK2 germline mutations in patients with hereditary breast, prostate, kidney, thyroid, and colon cancers.

Validation of a prostate cancer polygenic risk score

BACKGROUND

Genome-wide association studies have identified over 100 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with prostate cancer (PrCa), and polygenic risk scores (PRS) based on their combined genotypes have been developed for risk stratification. We aimed to assess the contribution of PRS to PrCa risk in a large multisite study.

METHODS

The sample included 1972 PrCa cases and 1919 unaffected controls. Next-generation sequencing was used to assess pathogenic variants in 14 PrCa-susceptibility genes and 72 validated PrCa-associated SNPs. We constructed a population-standardized PRS and tested its association with PrCa using logistic regression adjusted for age and family history of PrCa.

RESULTS

The mean age of PrCa cases at diagnosis and age of controls at testing/last clinic visit was 59.5 ± 7.2 and 57.2 ± 13.0 years, respectively. Among 1740 cases with pathology data, 57.4% had Gleason score ≤ 6, while 42.6% had Gleason score ≥ 8. In addition, 39.6% cases and 20.1% controls had a family history of PrCa. The PRS was significantly higher in cases than controls (mean ± SD: 1.42 ± 1.11 vs 1.02 ± 0.76; P < .0001). Compared with men in the 1st quartile of age-adjusted PRS, those in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quartile were 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-1.90), 2.36 (95% CI: 1.96-2.84), and 3.98 (95% CI: 3.29-4.82) times as likely to have PrCa (all P < .0001). Adjustment for family history yielded similar results. PRS predictive performance was consistent with prior literature (area under the receiver operating curve = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.62-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that a 72-SNP PRS is predictive of PrCa, supporting its potential use in clinical risk assessment.

A novel germline EGFR variant p.R831H causes predisposition to familial CDK12-mutant prostate cancer with tandem duplicator phenotype

5-10% of total prostate cancer (PCa) cases are hereditary. Particularly, immune checkpoint inhibitor-sensitive tandem duplicator phenotype (TDP) accounts for 6.9% of PCa cases, whereas genetic susceptibility genes remain completely unknown. We identified a Chinese family with two PCa patients, in which the PCa phenotype co-segregated with a rare germline variant EGFRR831H. Patient-derived conditionally reprogrammed cells (CRC) exhibited increased EGFR and AKT phosphorylation, and a sensitivity to EGFR antagonist Afatinib in migration assays, suggesting the EGFR allele was constitutively active. Both EGFRR831H-mutant tumours contained biallelic CDK12 inactivation, together with prominent tandem duplication across the genome. These somatic mutations could be detected in urine before surgery. Analysis of public databases showed a significant correlation between the mutation status of EGFR and CDK12. Taken together, our genetic and functional analyses identified a previously undescribed link between EGFR and PCa.