Germline Genetic Testing in Advanced Prostate Cancer; Practices and Barriers: Survey Results from the Germline Genetics Working Group of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium

Utility of pembrolizumab for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer with MMR deficiency

Molecular tumor profiling has become an important diagnostic for prostate cancer, allowing for personalized treatment regimens based on somatic and germline genetic information. We report a 67-year-old patient with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer which was intermittently responsive to androgen-deprivation therapy, docetaxel, abiraterone, radium-223, Sipuleucel-T, and radiotherapy who ultimately demonstrated a remarkable and durable response to pembrolizumab. Our case report underlines the significance of early tumor molecular profiling in aggressive or atypical prostate cancer patients and exhibits the potential for a remarkable clinical response with immunotherapy in candidates with the appropriate tumor profiles.

Germline genetic testing for prostate cancer: Ordering trends in the era of expanded hereditary cancer screening recommendations

PURPOSE

The availability of targeted therapies for advanced prostate cancer led to the expansion of national guidelines recommending germline genetic testing. The aim of this study was to describe recent trends in germline test ordering patterns for patients with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of patients with prostate cancer who underwent germline testing through a single commercial laboratory (Invitae Corporation) between 2015-2020 was performed. Ordering trends between provider medical specialties were compared. Our primary hypothesis was that the proportion of tests ordered by urologists would increase over time.

RESULTS

In total, 17,256 prostate cancer patients underwent germline genetic testing; 14,400 patients had an ordering provider with an associated medical specialty and were included in the final comparison cohort. Total prostate cancer patients undergoing germline testing increased quarterly from 21 in Q2 of 2015 to 1,509 in Q3 of 2020. The proportion of tests ordered by urologists increased from 0% in Q2 2015 to 8.3% in Q3 2020 (P < 0.001). Compared to medical genetics, medical oncology, and other specialties, urology ordered more tests for patients under 70 years old (66% vs 51%-55%, P <0.004) and for patients who reported negative family history (25% vs 12%-20%, P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

As awareness and indications for germline testing continue to expand, aggregate ordering volume is increasing, and urologists are becoming more involved in facilitating testing. This highlights the continued importance of educating urologists on the indications for and implications of germline genetic testing, as well as providing tools to support implementation.

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

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Unfortunately, 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/METHODS

In 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/CONCLUSION

We 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.

Patterns and Frequency of Pathogenic Germline Variants Among Prostate Cancer Patients Utilizing Multi-Gene Panel Genetic Testing

Background

Germline genetic testing (GGT) has significant implications in the management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Herein, we report on patterns and frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (P/LPGVs) among newly diagnosed Arab patients with PCa.

Methods

Patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) eligibility criteria for GGT were offered a 19-gene PCa panel or an expanded 84-gene multi-cancer panel.

Results

During the study period, 231 patients were enrolled; 107 (46.3%) had metastatic disease at diagnosis. In total, 17 P/LPGVs were detected in 17 patients (7.4%). Among the 113 (48.9%) patients who underwent GGT with the 19-gene panel, eight (7.1%) had P/LPGVs, compared to nine (7.6%) of the 118 (51.1%) who did GGT through the expanded 84-gene panel (P = 0.88). Variant of uncertain significance (VUS) rate was higher (n = 73, 61.9%) among the group who underwent expanded 84-gene panel testing compared to those who underwent the 19-gene PCa panel (n = 35, 30.9%) (P = 0.001). P/LPGVs in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes, most frequently BRCA2, CHEK2 and TP53, were the most common P/LPGVs findings.

Conclusion

This study is the first to characterize the germline genetic profile of an Arab population with PCa. All detected P/LPGVs were potentially actionable, with most variants able to be detected with a PCa-specific panel.

BRCA1, BRCA2, and Associated Cancer Risks and Management for Male Patients: A Review

Importance

Half of all carriers of inherited cancer-predisposing variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are male, but the implications for their health are underrecognized compared to female individuals. Germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (also known as pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, referred to here as BRCA1/2 PVs) are well known to significantly increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancers in female carriers, and knowledge of BRCA1/2 PVs informs established cancer screening and options for risk reduction. While risks to male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs are less characterized, there is convincing evidence of increased risk for prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer in males. There has also been a rapid expansion of US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted cancer therapies, including poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, for breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers associated with BRCA1/2 PVs.

Observations

This narrative review summarized the data that inform cancer risks, targeted cancer therapy options, and guidelines for early cancer detection. It also highlighted areas of emerging research and clinical trial opportunities for male BRCA1/2 PV carriers. These developments, along with the continued relevance to family cancer risk and reproductive options, have informed changes to guideline recommendations for genetic testing and strengthened the case for increased genetic testing for males.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite increasing clinical actionability for male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs, far fewer males than female individuals undergo cancer genetic testing. Oncologists, internists, and primary care clinicians should be vigilant about offering appropriate genetic testing to males. Identifying more male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs will maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer.

Impact of barriers and motivators on intention and confidence to undergo hereditary cancer genetic testing

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes can provide lifesaving information allowing for individualized cancer screening, prevention, and treatment. However, the determinants, both barriers and motivators, of genetic testing intention are not well described. A survey of barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to adult patients eligible for genetic testing based on cancer diagnosis who previously have not had genetic testing (n = 201). Associations between barriers/motivators with testing intention and confidence were examined first by correlation followed by multivariable linear regression model holding constant potential covariates. Seven barrier items from two domains (logistics and genetic testing knowledge) were found to significantly negatively correlate with genetic testing intention. Unexpectedly, three barrier items had significant positive correlation with genetic testing intention; these were related to family worry (passing a condition on to future generations) and testing knowledge (needing more information on the genetic testing process and what it has to offer). Ten barrier items had significant negative correlation with confidence to get a genetic test and encompassed four domains: stigma, insurance/genetic discrimination, knowledge, and cost. All motivator items were associated with intention to get a genetic test, while none were associated with confidence. Multivariable analysis yielded six total barriers (five from the knowledge domain, one from cost domain) and two motivators (relieved to know and treatment impact) that were significantly associated with genetic testing intention or confidence when controlling for demographic characteristics. These findings indicate the need for tailored interventions to amplify motivating factors and counter-message barriers to enhance patient motivation and confidence to undergo testing.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 2

Background

Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature.

Materials and Methods

The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators.

Results

This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies.

Conclusions

The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

TARGET: A Randomized, Noninferiority Trial of a Pretest, Patient-Driven Genetic Education Webtool Versus Genetic Counseling for Prostate Cancer Germline Testing

PURPOSE

Germline genetic testing (GT) is important for prostate cancer (PCA) management, clinical trial eligibility, and hereditary cancer risk. However, GT is underutilized and there is a shortage of genetic counselors. To address these gaps, a patient-driven, pretest genetic education webtool was designed and studied compared with traditional genetic counseling (GC) to inform strategies for expanding access to genetic services.

METHODS

Technology-enhanced acceleration of germline evaluation for therapy (TARGET) was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04447703) comparing a nine-module patient-driven genetic education webtool versus pretest GC. Participants completed surveys measuring decisional conflict, satisfaction, and attitudes toward GT at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and after GT result disclosure. The primary end point was noninferiority in reducing decisional conflict between webtool and GC using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. Mixed-effects regression modeling was used to compare decisional conflict between groups. Participants opting for GT received a 51-gene panel, with results delivered to participants and their providers.

RESULTS

The analytic data set includes primary outcome data from 315 participants (GC [n = 162] and webtool [n = 153]). Mean difference in decisional conflict score changes between groups was -0.04 (one-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 2.54; P = .01), suggesting the patient-driven webtool was noninferior to GC. Overall, 145 (89.5%) GC and 120 (78.4%) in the webtool arm underwent GT, with pathogenic variants in 15.8% (8.7% in PCA genes). Satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms; knowledge of cancer genetics was higher but attitudes toward GT were less favorable in the webtool arm.

CONCLUSION

The results of the TARGET study support the use of patient-driven digital webtools for expanding access to pretest genetic education for PCA GT. Further studies to optimize patient experience and evaluate them in diverse patient populations are warranted.

PROMISE Registry: A prostate cancer registry of outcomes and germline mutations for improved survival and treatment effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Recently approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer have created a need for correlated analyses of patient outcomes data via germline genetic mutation status. Genetic registries address these gaps by identifying candidates for recently approved targeted treatments, expanding clinical trial data examining specific gene mutations, and understanding effects of targeted treatments in the real-world setting.

METHODS

The PROMISE Registry is a 20-year (5-year recruitment, 15-year follow-up), US-wide, prospective genetic registry for prostate cancer patients. Five thousand patients will be screened through an online at-home germline testing to identify and enroll 500 patients with germline mutations, including: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in genes of interest. Patients will be followed for 15 years and clinical data with real time patient reported outcomes will be collected. Eligible patients will enter long-term follow-up (6-month PRO surveys and medical record retrieval). As a virtual study with patient self-enrollment, the PROMISE Registry may fill gaps in genetics services in underserved areas and for patients within sufficient insurance coverage.

RESULTS

The PROMISE Registry opened in May 2021. 2114 patients have enrolled to date across 48 US states and 23 recruiting sites. 202 patients have met criteria for long-term follow-up. PROMISE is on target with the study's goal of 5000 patients screened and 500 patients eligible for long-term follow-up by 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMISE Registry is a novel, prospective, germline registry that will collect long-term patient outcomes data to address current gaps in understanding resulting from recently FDA-approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer. Through inclusion of a broad nationwide sample, including underserved patients and those unaffiliated with major academic centers, the PROMISE Registry aims to provide access to germline genetic testing and to collect data to understand disease characteristics and treatment responses across the disease spectrum for prostate cancer with rare germline genetic variants.

Addressing gaps in healthcare provider knowledge regarding germline testing for prostate cancer through development and testing of a virtual genetics board

BACKGROUND

Germline testing is important in prostate cancer and evaluation can be complex.

METHODS

We instituted a monthly multi-disciplinary virtual genetics tumor board (7/2021-3/2022). Participants and panelists were surveyed on usefulness and acceptability.

RESULTS

101 participants attended a session, and 77 follow-up surveys were completed. Over 90% participants and 100% panelists endorsed usefulness of the case discussions and usability of the technology. The majority felt it provided new information they will use.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary genetics board was successfully developed to address complexity in prostate cancer genetics. The virtual platform may enhance dissemination of expertise where there are regional gaps.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent.

METHODS

Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons.

RESULTS

Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4).

CONCLUSION

Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

Characterizing Referrals for Prostate Cancer Genetic Services in a Safety-Net Hospital

PURPOSE

Little is known about the uptake of germline genetic testing for patients with prostate cancer after 2018 guideline changes. This study characterizes genetic service referral patterns and predictors of referrals among patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data was conducted at an urban safety-net hospital. Individuals diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 2011 and March 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome was referral to genetic services after diagnosis. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified patient characteristics associated with referrals. Interrupted time series analysis using a segmented Poisson regression examined whether guideline changes resulted in higher rates of referral after implementation.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1,877 patients. Mean age was 65 years; 44% identified as Black, 32% White; and 17% Hispanic or Latino. The predominant insurance type was Medicaid (34%) followed by Medicare or private insurance (25% each). Most were diagnosed with local disease (65%), while 3% had regional and 9% had metastatic disease. Of the 1,877 patients, 163 (9%) had at least one referral to genetics. In multivariable models, higher age was negatively associated with referral (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.98), while having regional (OR, 4.51; 95% CI, 2.44 to 8.34) or metastatic disease (OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 2.98 to 7.24) versus local only disease at diagnosis was significantly associated with referral. The time series analysis demonstrated a 138% rise in referrals 1 year after guideline implementation (relative risk, 3.992; 97.5% CI, 2.20 to 7.24; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Referrals to genetic services increased after guideline implementation. The strongest predictor of referral was clinical stage, suggesting opportunities to raise awareness about guideline eligibility for patients with advanced local or regional disease who may benefit from genetic services.

Potential pathogenic germline variant reporting from tumor comprehensive genomic profiling complements classic approaches to germline testing

Existing guidance regarding clinically informed germline testing for patients with cancer is effective for evaluation of classic hereditary cancer syndromes and established gene/cancer type associations. However, current screening methods may miss patients with rare, reduced penetrance, or otherwise occult hereditary risk. Secondary finding of suspected germline variants that may confer inherited cancer risk via tumor comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) has the potential to help address these limitations. However, reporting practices for secondary finding of germline variants are inconsistent, necessitating solutions for transparent and coherent communication of these potentially important findings. A workflow for improved confidence detection and clear reporting of potential pathogenic germline variants (PPGV) in select cancer susceptibility genes (CSG) was applied to a research dataset from real-world clinical tumor CGP of > 125,000 patients with advanced cancer. The presence and patterns of PPGVs identified across tumor types was assessed with a focus on scenarios in which traditional clinical germline evaluation may have been insufficient to capture genetic risk. PPGVs were identified in 9.7% of tumor CGP cases using tissue- and liquid-based assays across a broad range of cancer types, including in a number of "off-tumor" contexts. Overall, PPGVs were identified in a similar proportion of cancers with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations for germline testing regardless of family history (11%) as in all other cancer types (9%). These findings suggest that tumor CGP can serve as a tool that is complementary to traditional germline genetic evaluation in helping to ascertain inherited susceptibility in patients with advanced cancer.

Personalizing approaches to the management of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: role of advanced imaging, genetics and therapeutics

PURPOSE

To summarize contemporary and emerging strategies for the diagnosis and management of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), focusing on diagnostic testing and therapeutics.

METHODS

Literature review using PUBMED-Medline databases as well as clinicaltrials.gov to include reported or ongoing clinical trials on treatment for mHSPC. We prioritized the findings from phase III randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

There have been significant changes to the diagnosis and staging evaluation of mHSPC with the integration of increasingly accurate positron emission tomography (PET) imaging tracers that exceed the performance of conventional computerized tomography (CT) and bone scan. Germline multigene testing is recommended for the evaluation of patients newly diagnosed with mHSPC given the prevalence of actionable alterations that may create candidacy for specific therapies. Although androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the backbone of treatment for mHSPC, approaches to first-line treatment include the integration of multiple agents including androgen receptor synthesis inhibitors (ARSI; abiraterone) Androgen Receptor antagonists (enzalutamide, darolutamide, apalautamide), and docetaxel chemotherapy. The combination of ADT, ARSI, and docetaxel chemotherapy has recently been evaluated in a randomized trial and was associated with significantly improved overall survival including in patients with a high burden of disease. The role of local treatment to the prostate with radiation has been evaluated in randomized trials with additional studies underway evaluating the role of cytoreductive radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSION

The staging and initial management of patients with mHSPC has undergone significant advances in the last decade with advancements in the diagnosis, treatment and sequencing of therapies.

On-Site Nurse-Led Cancer Genetics Program Increases Cancer Genetic Testing Completion in Black Veterans

PURPOSE

Telegenetics services can expand access to guideline-recommended cancer genetic testing. However, access is often not distributed equitably to all races and ethnicities. We evaluated the impact of an on-site nurse-led cancer genetics service in a diverse Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) oncology clinic on likelihood of germline testing (GT) completion.

METHODS

We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study of patients who were referred for cancer genetics services at the Philadelphia VAMC between October 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022. We evaluated the association between genetics service (on-site v telegenetics) and likelihood of GT completion in a subcohort of new consults, excluding patients with prior consults and those referred for known history of germline mutations.

RESULTS

A total of 238 Veterans, including 108 (45%) seen on site, were identified for cancer genetics services during the study period, with the majority referred for a personal (65%) or family (26%) history of cancer. In the subcohort of new consults, 121 Veterans (54% self-identified race/ethnicity [SIRE]-Black), including 60 (50%) seen on site, were included in the analysis of germline genetic testing completion. In a univariate analysis, patients who were seen by the on-site genetics service had 3.2-fold higher likelihood of completing GT (relative risk, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.89 to 5.48) compared with the telegenetics service. In multivariable regression analysis, the on-site genetics service was associated with higher likelihood of GT completion, but this association was only statistically significant in SIRE-Black compared with SIRE-White Veterans (adjusted RR, 4.78; 95% CI, 1.53 to 14.96; P < .001; P-interaction of race × genetics service = .016).

CONCLUSION

An on-site nurse-led cancer genetics service embedded in a VAMC Oncology practice was associated with higher likelihood of germline genetic testing completion than a telegenetics service among self-identified Black Veterans.

Utilization of genetic testing in men with advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Genetic evaluation of men with advanced prostate cancer is recognized as imperative both to guide treatment decisions and to trigger cascade genetic testing of family members. Here we investigate utilization patterns of genetic testing among a contemporary cohort of men with advanced prostate cancer at our institution.

METHODS

We queried the Northwestern Electronic Data Warehouse from January 2021 to present for all men diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk/very high-risk, regional, or metastatic prostate cancer. Patients were excluded from analyses if treated at an outside institution and/or presented for a second opinion evaluation. Statistics were performed using t-test, Chi-squared test, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression with significance defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Atotal of 320 men (52.5%) had local/regional disease and 290 (47.5%) had metastatic disease, 53 (18.3%) of whom had castrate resistant prostate cancer. Rates of germline genetic testing rate were low in patients with localized disease (9.4%) and metastatic disease (34.1%). Only 19 (35.8%) men diagnosed with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer underwent germline genetic evaluation. Germline testing was most frequently discussed or ordered by medical oncologists (52%) followed by urologists (20%). Men who underwent germline testing were younger (p < 0.001), more likely to have Medicaid or private insurance (p = 0.002), and more likely to have metastatic disease (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline PSA, ethnicity, race, or castration sensitivity status. Age (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.97, p < 0.001) and metastatic disease (OR: 5.71, 95% CI: 3.63-9.22, p < 0.001) were significant independent predictors of genetic testing on multivariable logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

Here we report that utilization of genetic testing is associated with metastatic disease and inversely associated with age. Overall, utilization rates of genetic testing remain low in all patient groups, including in the metastatic castrate resistant setting, where genetic testing can identify patients with homologous recombination repair deficiency who may benefit from use of targeted therapeutics such as PARP inhibitors. Genetic testing in men with aggressive prostate cancer is critical and barriers to routine implementation of testing require further study to develop strategies to improve utilization rates.

Clinical Impact of a Rapid Genetic Testing Model for Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Genetic testing may alter clinical management for individuals with metastatic prostate cancer by identifying additional therapies. Traditional counseling models are unlikely to enable time-sensitive therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and clinical impact of an alternative hereditary genetic testing model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As part of a multicenter, single-arm prospective trial, individuals with advanced prostate cancer were referred by their oncologist for testing of 14 genes associated with hereditary prostate cancer. Pretest education (brochure and video) was provided in the oncology clinic. Questionnaires assessing participant satisfaction with both pretest education and decision to undergo genetic testing were collected. A genetic counselor contacted participants by phone to obtain family history and discuss results. Medical records were queried to determine whether a change in clinical management was discussed.

RESULTS

Of 501 participants consented to germline analysis, 51 (10.2%) had at least 1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant. Change in treatment was discussed with 22/48 (45.8%) of eligible participants who tested positive. Feasibility of this model was assessed by participant satisfaction and turnaround time. Average±SD satisfaction with the pretest education (15.5±2.2, 4-20 scale) and with the decision to undergo genetic testing (17.1±2.9, 4-20 scale) were both high. Results were returned 20 days (median) after sample collection.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologist-initiated germline genetic testing in collaboration with a genetic counselor is a feasible approach to testing advanced prostate cancer patients with impactful clinical actionability. The testing model and educational material serve as resources to clinicians treating prostate cancer patients.

Psychosocial factors impacting barriers and motivators to cancer genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Only a small proportion of patients who qualify for clinical genetic testing for cancer susceptibility get testing. Many patient-level barriers contribute to low uptake. In this study, we examined self-reported patient barriers and motivators for cancer genetic testing.

METHODS

A survey comprised of both new and existing measures related to barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to patients with a diagnosis of cancer at a large academic medical center. Patients who self-reported receiving a genetic test were included in these analyses (n = 376). Responses about emotions following testing as well as barriers and motivators prior to getting testing were examined. Group differences in barriers and motivators by patient demographic characteristics were examined.

RESULTS

Being assigned female at birth was associated with increased emotional, insurance, and family concerns as well as increased health benefits compared to patients assigned male at birth. Younger respondents had significantly higher emotional and family concerns compared to older respondents. Recently diagnosed respondents expressed fewer concerns about insurance implications and emotional concerns. Those with a BRCA-related cancer had higher scores on social and interpersonal concerns scale than those with other cancers. Participants with higher depression scores indicated increased emotional, social and interpersonal, and family concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported depression emerged as the most consistent factor influencing report of barriers to genetic testing. By incorporating mental health resources into clinical practice, oncologists may better identify those patients who might need more assistance following through with a referral for genetic testing and the response afterwards.

An approach to genetic testing in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Singapore

Introduction

There has been a rapid evolution in the treatment strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following the identification of targetable mutations, making genetic testing essential for patient selection. Although several international guidelines recommend genetic testing for patients with mCRPC, there is a lack of locally endorsed clinical practice guidelines in Singapore.

Method

A multidisciplinary specialist panel with representation from medical and radiation oncology, urology, pathology, interventional radiology, and medical genetics discussed the challenges associated with patient selection, genetic counselling and sample processing in mCRPC.

Results

A clinical model for incorporating genetic testing into routine clinical practice in Singapore was formulated. Tumour testing with an assay that is able to detect both somatic and germline mutations should be utilised. The panel also recommended the "mainstreaming" approach for genetic counselling in which pre-test counselling is conducted by the managing clinician and post-test discussion with a genetic counsellor, to alleviate the bottlenecks at genetic counselling stage in Singapore. The need for training of clinicians to provide pre-test genetic counselling and educating the laboratory personnel for appropriate sample processing that facilitates downstream genetic testing was recognised. Molecular tumour boards and multidisciplinary discussions are recommended to guide therapeutic decisions in mCRPC. The panel also highlighted the issue of reimbursement for genetic testing to reduce patient-borne costs and increase the reach of genetic testing among this patient population.

Conclusion

This article aims to provide strategic and implementable recommendations to overcome the challenges in genetic testing for patients with mCRPC in Singapore.

Genetic Testing Among Patients with High-Risk Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate Cancers

BACKGROUND

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends genetic testing in patients with potentially hereditary breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers (HBOPP). Knowledge of genetic mutations impacts decisions about screening and treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 28,586 HBOPP patients diagnosed from 2013 to 2019 was conducted using a linked administrative-cancer database in the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER area. Guideline-concordant testing (GCT) was assessed annually according to guideline updates. Frequency of testing according to patient/cancer characteristics was evaluated using chi-squared tests, and factors associated with receipt of genetic testing were identified using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Testing occurred in 17% of HBOPP patients, increasing from 9% in 2013 to 21% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Ovarian cancer had the highest testing (40%) and prostate cancer the lowest (4%). Age < 50, female sex, non-Hispanic White race, commercial insurance, urban location, family history of HBOPP, and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) were associated with increased testing (all p < 0.05). GCT increased from 38% in 2013 to 44% in 2019, and was highest for early age at breast cancer diagnosis, TNBC, male breast cancer, and breast cancer with family history of HBOPP (all > 70% in 2019), and lowest for metastatic prostate cancer (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of genetic testing for HBOPP cancer has increased over time. Though GCT is high for breast cancer, there are gaps in concordance among patients with other cancers. Increasing provider and patient education, genetic counseling, and insurance coverage for testing among HBOPP patients may improve guideline adherence.

Internet-Based Germline Genetic Testing for Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Germline mutations in DNA repair genes are present in approximately 10% of men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), and guidelines recommend genetic germline testing. Notable barriers exist, including access to genetic counseling, insurance coverage, and out-of-pocket costs. The GENTleMEN study was designed to determine the feasibility of an Internet-based, patient-driven germline genetic testing approach for men with mPC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, men with mPC provided informed consent via an Internet-based platform and completed a questionnaire including demographics and family cancer history. Supporting medical data were also collected. Genetic testing was performed using the Color Genomics 30-gene targeted panel of cancer predisposition genes on a mailed saliva sample. Men whose test results identified a germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant received results by phone or telehealth genetic counseling; other participants received results by email with an option for phone-based or telehealth genetic counseling.

RESULTS

As of August 18, 2021, 816 eligible men were consented, of whom 68% (551) completed genetic testing, and 8.7% (48 of 551) were found to carry a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a germline DNA repair gene: CHEK2 (17), BRCA2 (15), ATM (6), NBN1 (3), BRCA1 (2), PALB2 (2), PMS2 (2), and MSH6 (1). Participants were more likely to complete the testing process if they were non-Hispanic White, married, highly educated, or from a higher-income bracket.

CONCLUSION

Here, we show the feasibility of delivering germline (inherited) genetic testing by a voluntary, patient-driven, Internet-based platform to men with mPC. Preliminary results show rates of germline DNA repair mutations, consistent with other cohorts. Although feasible for some, reduced steps for participation, more dedicated diverse outreach and participant support, and identification and addressing of additional barriers is needed to ensure equitable access and optimization.

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.

Delivering Genetic Testing for Patients with Prostate Cancer: Moving Beyond Provider Knowledge as a Barrier to Care

INTRODUCTION

The 2018 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for prostate cancer genetic testing expanded access to genetic services. Few studies have examined how this change has affected provider practice outside of large cancer centers.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study of multi-disciplinary health care providers treating patients with prostate cancer at a safety-net hospital. Participants completed an interview that addressed knowledge, practices, and contextual factors related to providing genetic services to patients with prostate cancer. A thematic analysis using both inductive and deductive coding was undertaken.

RESULTS

Seventeen providers completed interviews. Challenges in identifying eligible patients for genetic testing stemmed from a lack of a) systems that facilitate routine patient identification, and b) readily available family history data for eligibility determination. Providers identified non-medical patient characteristics that influenced their referral process, including health literacy, language, cultural beliefs, patient distress, and cost. Providers who see patients at different times along the cancer care continuum viewed benefits of testing differently.

CONCLUSION

The use of digital technologies that systematically identify those eligible for genetic testing referrals may mitigate some but not all challenges identified in this study. Further research should determine how individual provider perceptions influence referral practices and patient access to genetics both within and across cancer specialties.

Satisfaction With Clinician-Led Germline Genetic Counseling in Patients With Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Indications for germline testing in prostate cancer patients have expanded substantially over the past decade. With a near-universal shortage of genetic counselors and increasing demand, increased access to genetic counseling is crucial. We sought to prospectively implement and assess a clinician-led approach to genetic counseling and testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with metastatic or localized prostate cancer meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network® criteria for consideration of genetic testing were offered pre-test genetic counseling by their urologist or medical oncologist as part of their routine clinical care and concurrently approached for enrollment in the Germline Genetics in Prostate Cancer Study. Consented patients filled out a post-counseling survey using validated instruments to assess the quality of counseling. For patients who elected to undergo genetic testing, an additional validated questionnaire was completed following disclosure of results. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing testing, with a target >60% of patients. The secondary outcome was overall satisfaction with counseling, with a target >85% of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 275 patients enrolled, and 203 patients elected to undergo genetic testing. Post-counseling surveys were obtained from 265 patients, and post-genetic testing surveys were obtained from 132 patients. Patient satisfaction was high, with 98% of patients reporting being satisfied with the overall quality of pre-test counseling, and 74% of patients elected to undergo genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the effectiveness of clinician-led genetic counseling in prostate cancer. With clinician training, this approach can be utilized to expand access to appropriate germline genetic testing.

Addition of Germline Testing to Tumor-Only Sequencing Improves Detection of Pathogenic Germline Variants in Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend somatic and germline testing for men with advanced prostate cancer (PCa). Barriers to widespread implementation result in underutilization of germline testing. Somatic testing alone risks missing pathogenic germline variants (PGVs). We sought to determine whether the addition of germline testing to tumor-only sequencing improves detection of PGVs in men with advanced PCa. Secondarily, we sought to define the added value of combining somatic and germline testing to optimize detection of clinically actionable alterations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed results of independent germline testing and tumor-only sequencing from 100 men with advanced PCa from a prospective clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03328091). The primary outcome was the proportion of PGVs not reported with tumor-only sequencing. The secondary outcome was the association of locus-specific loss of heterozygosity for PGVs in homologous recombination genes with clinical-genomic features.

RESULTS

In the 100 men who underwent germline testing and tumor-only sequencing, 24 PGVs were identified, 17 of which were clinically actionable, in 23 patients. Tumor-only sequencing failed to report four (17%) of the PGVs. One additional PGV (4.2%) had variant allele frequency on tumor-sequencing below the threshold for follow-up germline testing. When integrating tumor-only sequencing with germling testing results, 33% of patients harbored clinically actionable alterations. Rates of locus-specific loss of heterozygosity were higher for BRCA2 PGVs in castration-resistant PCa than PGVs in other homologous recombination genes in hormone-sensitive PCa (P = .029).

CONCLUSION

Tumor-only sequencing failed to report more than 20% of PGVs in men with advanced PCa. These findings strongly support guideline recommendations for universal germline and somatic testing in this population. Combining tumor and germline sequencing doubled the chance of detecting a clinically actionable alteration.

Genetic Testing and Its Clinical Application in Prostate Cancer Management: Consensus Statements from the Hong Kong Urological Association and Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology

Background

In recent years, indications for genetic testing in prostate cancer (PC) have expanded from patients with a family history of prostate and/or related cancers to those with advanced castration-resistant disease, and even to early PC patients for determination of the appropriateness of active surveillance. The current consensus aims to provide guidance to urologists, oncologists and pathologists working with Asian PC patients on who and what to test for in selected populations.

Methods

A joint consensus panel from the Hong Kong Urological Association and Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology was convened over a series of 5 physical and virtual meetings. A background literature search on genetic testing in PC was performed in PubMed, ClinicalKey, EBSCOHost, Ovid and ProQuest, and three working subgroups were formed to review and present the relevant evidence. Meeting agendas adopted a modified Delphi approach to ensure that discussions proceed in a structured, iterative and balanced manner, which was followed by an anonymous voting on candidate statements. Of 5 available answer options, a consensus statement was accepted if ≥ 75% of the panelists chose “Accept Completely” (Option A) or “Accept with Some Reservation” (Option B).

Results

The consensus was structured into three parts: indications for testing, testing methods, and therapeutic implications. A list of 35 candidate statements were developed, of which 31 were accepted. The statements addressed questions on the application of PC genetic testing data and guidelines to Asian patients, including patient selection for germline testing, selection of gene panel and tissue sample, provision of genetic counseling, and use of novel systemic treatments in metastatic castration-resistant PC patients.

Conclusion

This consensus provides guidance to urologists, oncologists and pathologists working with Asian patients on indications for genetic testing, testing methods and technical considerations, and associated therapeutic implications.

Return of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling results to advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study

Purpose

The introduction of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling (CGP) into clinical oncology allows the identification of molecular therapeutic targets. However, the potential complexity of genomic results and their implications may cause confusion and distress for patients undergoing CGP. We investigated the experience of advanced cancer patients receiving CGP results in a research setting.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with 37 advanced cancer patients were conducted within two weeks of patients receiving CGP results. Interviewees were purposively sampled based on CGP result, cancer type, age and gender to ensure diversity. Themes were derived from interview transcripts using a framework analysis approach.

Results

We identified six themes: (1) hoping against the odds; (2) managing expectations; (3) understanding is cursory; (4) communication of results is cursory; (5) genomics and incurable cancer; and (6) decisions about treatment.

Conclusion

Despite enthusiasm regarding CGP about the hope it provides for new treatments, participants experienced challenges in understanding results, and acceptance of identified treatments was not automatic. Support is needed for patients undergoing CGP to understand the implications of testing and cope with non-actionable results.

Genetic testing in prostate cancer management: Considerations informing primary care

Inherited genetic mutations can significantly increase the risk for prostate cancer (PC), may be associated with aggressive disease and poorer outcomes, and can have hereditary cancer implications for men and their families. Germline genetic testing (hereditary cancer genetic testing) is now strongly recommended for patients with advanced/metastatic PC, particularly given the impact on targeted therapy selection or clinical trial options, with expanded National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and endorsement from multiple professional societies. Furthermore, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend genetic testing for men with PC across the stage and risk spectrum and for unaffected men at high risk for PC based on family history to identify hereditary cancer risk. Primary care is a critical field in which providers evaluate men at an elevated risk for PC, men living with PC, and PC survivors for whom germline testing may be indicated. Therefore, there is a critical need to engage and educate primary care providers regarding the role of genetic testing and the impact of results on PC screening, treatment, and cascade testing for family members of affected men. This review highlights key aspects of genetic testing in PC, the role of clinicians, with a focus on primary care, the importance of obtaining a comprehensive family history, current germline testing guidelines, and the impact on precision PC care. With emerging evidence and guidelines, clinical pathways are needed to facilitate integrated genetic education, testing, and counseling services in appropriately selected patients. There is also a need for providers to understand the field of genetic counseling and how best to collaborate to enhance multidisciplinary patient care.

The Homologous Recombination Deficiency Scar in Advanced Cancer: Agnostic Targeting of Damaged DNA Repair

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are the most recognized tumor-suppressor genes involved in double-strand DNA break repair through the homologous recombination (HR) system. Widely known for its role in hereditary cancer, HR deficiency (HRD) has turned out to be critical beyond breast and ovarian cancer: for prostate and pancreatic cancer also. The relevance for the identification of these patients exceeds diagnostic purposes, since results published from clinical trials with poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) have shown how this type of targeted therapy can modify the long-term evolution of patients with HRD. Somatic aberrations in other HRD pathway genes, but also indirect genomic instability as a sign of this DNA repair impairment (known as HRD scar), have been reported to be relevant events that lead to more frequently than expected HR loss of function in several tumor types, and should therefore be included in the current diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm. However, the optimal strategy to identify HRD and potential PARPi responders in cancer remains undefined. In this review, we summarize the role and prevalence of HRD across tumor types and the current treatment landscape to guide the agnostic targeting of damaged DNA repair. We also discuss the challenge of testing patients and provide a special insight for new strategies to select patients who benefit from PARPi due to HRD scarring.

Understanding the Uptake and Challenges of Genetic Testing Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have confirmed a high prevalence of prognostic germline mutations in prostate cancer. In recognition, the NCCN guidelines and recommendations for genetic counselling (GC) in prostate cancer patients were expanded.

METHODS

Data on prostate cancer patients at a single tertiary cancer center from January 2019 - June 2019 were queried. The cohort of patients from the queried list were evaluated for their eligibility for genetic testing. From the patients that were eligible for testing, the rate of referrals was ascertained. A 10-item questionnaire was concurrently sent to providers to understand germline genetic testing patterns and potential barriers.

RESULTS

Only 39% of the eligible prostate cancer patients were referred, with testing completed in 11% with indications. 30% of providers reported they would be comfortable completing genetic counseling themselves. The identified barriers to provide genetic testing themselves were lack of time and expertise (50%). Other barriers included: lack of genetic counselor workforce (70%), lack of knowledge of genetic testing and the inadequate co-ordination of referrals (60%).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, many patients met the criteria for GC, however, the referrals for this patient population are inconsistent, and only a handful of the eligible patients completed testing. Identified barriers were provider's knowledge and comfort with guidelines and testing, systemic bottlenecks such as limited capacity of genetic counsellors, and the creation of improved workflows.

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.

The prostate cancer landscape in Europe: Current challenges, future opportunities

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in men in Europe and is predicted to exhibit declining mortality in the European Union (EU) due to various recent improvements in treatment. The goal of this short review is to give insight into the European treatment landscape of PCa, while focusing on improvements in care.

The evolving role of germline genetic testing and management in prostate cancer: Report from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre international retreat

Prostate cancer is a significant cause of cancer mortality. It has been well-established that certain germline pathogenic variants confer both an increased risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer and dying of prostate cancer.1 There are exciting developments in both the availability of genetic testing and opportunities for improved treatment of patients.On August 19, 2020, the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Ontario, hosted a virtual retreat, bringing together international experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, medical genetics, and translational research, as well as a patient representative. We are pleased to provide this manuscript as a review of those proceedings for Canadian clinicians.We highlighted several needs for future research and policy action based on this meeting:Increased access to funding for germline testing for the common genetic disorders associated with increased risk of prostate cancer.More research into identifying genetic factors influencing risk stratification, treatment response, and outcomes of prostate cancer within Canadian populations at higher genetic risk for prostate cancer.Added awareness about genetic risk factors among the Canadian public.Development of patient-specific and reported outcomes research in tailored care for patients at increased genetic risk of prostate cancer.Creation of multidisciplinary clinics that specialize in tailored care for patients at increased genetic risk of prostate cancer.

A Narrative Review of Implementing Precision Oncology in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in Emerging Countries

The therapeutic landscape of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has evolved considerably with the introduction of newer agents, such as poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors targeting DNA damage repair mutations. Combining and sequencing novel and existing therapies appropriately is necessary for optimizing the management of mCRPC and ensuring better treatment outcomes. The purpose of this review is to provide evidence-based answers to key clinical questions on treatment selection, treatment sequencing patterns, and factors influencing treatment decisions in the management of mCRPC in the era of PARP inhibitors. This article can also serve as a comprehensive guide to clinicians for optimizing genetic testing and counseling and management of patients with mCRPC. Although the PROfound study has validated the concept of PARP sensitivity across multiple genes associated with homologous recombination repair (HRR) in mCRPC and highlighted the importance of genomic testing in this at-risk patient population, it still remains unclear how patients with rarer HRR mutations will respond to PARP inhibitors. Therefore, real-world data obtained through registry-based randomized controlled trials in the future may help produce robust scientific evidence for supporting optimal clinician decision-making in the management of mCRPC.

Helix: A Digital Tool to Address Provider Needs for Prostate Cancer Genetic Testing in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCA) germline testing (GT) is now standard-of-care for men with advanced PCA. Thousands of men may consider GT due to clinical and family history (FH) features. Identifying and consenting men for GT can be complex. Here we identified barriers and facilitators of GT across a spectrum of providers which informed the development of Helix - an educational and clinical/FH collection tool to facilitate GT in practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 12-question survey assessing knowledge of genetics PCA risk and FH was administered December 2017 to March 2018 in the Philadelphia area and at the Mid-Atlantic AUA meeting (March 2018). Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and urologists across practice settings from March-October 2020 as part of a larger study based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases framework. Helix was then developed followed by user testing.

RESULTS

Fifty-six providers (50% urologists) responded to the survey. Multiple FH and genetic knowledge gaps were identified: only 66% collected maternal FH and 43% correctly identified BRCA2 and association to aggressive PCA. Genetic counseling gaps included low rates of discussing genetic discrimination laws (45%). Provider interviews (n = 14) identified barriers to FH intake including access to details and time needed. In user testing (n = 10), providers found Helix helpful for FH collection. All providers found Helix easy to use, suggesting expanded clinical use.

CONCLUSION

Helix addressed multiple GT knowledge and practice gaps across a spectrum of providers. This tool will become publicly available soon to facilitate PCA GT in clinical practice.

Pathogenic BRCA Variants as Biomarkers for Risk in Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

Historically, the treatment of prostate cancer was a blanket approach for all. Prostate cancer has not benefitted from targeted treatments based on specific tumour characteristics (ie. Particular genetic or molecular patterns) the way other cancers have. This is important as studies have shown that prostate cancer patients with certain errors in their genes, such as BRCA2 or BRCA1, are more likely to have worse disease and poorer outcome. These patients can be treated successfully with a group of drugs called ‘PARP inhibitors’. This paper examines the prognostic, clinical and therapeutic role of BRCA2/BRCA1 mutations across the evolution of PCa. The impact of the inclusion of BRCA genes on genetic screening will also be outlined.

Abstract

Studies have demonstrated that men with Prostate Cancer (PCa) harboring BRCA2/BRCA1 genetic aberrations, are more likely to have worse disease and a poorer prognosis. A mutation in BRCA2 is known to confer the highest risk of PCa for men (8.6 fold in men ≤65 years) making BRCA genes a conceivable genomic biomarker for risk in PCa. These genes have attracted a lot of research attention however their role in the clinical assessment and treatment of PCa remains complex. Multiple studies have been published examining the relationship between prostate cancer and BRCA mutations. Here BRCA mutations are explored specifically as a biomarker for risk in PCa. It is in this context, we examined the prognostic, clinical and therapeutic role of BRCA2/BRCA1 mutations across the evolution of PCa. The impact of the inclusion of BRCA genes on genetic screening will also be outlined.

Pretest Genetic Education Video Versus Genetic Counseling for Men Considering Prostate Cancer Germline Testing: A Patient-Choice Study to Address Urgent Practice Needs

PURPOSE

Germline testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is now central to treatment and hereditary cancer assessment. With rising demand for and shortage of genetic counseling (GC), tools to deliver pretest informed consent across practice settings are needed to improve access to GT and precision care. Here, we report on Evaluation and Management for Prostate Oncology, Wellness, and Risk (EMPOWER), a patient-choice study for pretest video-based genetic education (VBGE) versus GC to inform urgent practice needs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men with PCA or at risk for PCA (family history of PCA) were eligible and could choose pretest VBGE or GC. Outcomes included decisional conflict for GT, change in genetics knowledge, satisfaction, and intention to share results with family and/or providers. Descriptive statistics summarized results with counts and percentages for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. Data were compared with Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Wilcoxon two-sample tests. Mean change in genetics knowledge was compared with t tests. The significance level was set a priori at .05.

RESULTS

Data on the first 127 participants were analyzed. Characteristics were White (85.8%), bachelor's degree (66.9%), and PCA diagnosis (90.6%). The majority chose VBGE (71%) versus GC (29%; P < .001). No differences were observed in decisional conflict for GT or satisfaction. Cancer genetics knowledge improved in both groups without significant difference (+0.9 VBGE, +1.8 GC, P = .056). Men who chose VBGE had higher intention to share GT results (96.4% VBGE v 86.4% GC, P = .02). Both groups had high rates of GT uptake (VBGE 94.4%, GC 92%).

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of men opted for pretest VBGE, with comparable patient-reported outcomes and uptake of GT. The results support the use of pretest video to address the critical GC shortage in the precision era.

Barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling and germline testing have an increasingly important role for patients with prostate cancer (PCa); however, recent data suggests they are underutilized. Our objective was to perform a qualitative study of the barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation among physicians who manage PCa.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and urologists from different U.S. practice settings until thematic saturation was achieved at n = 14. The interview guide was based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases Framework to identify key determinants of practice. Interview transcripts were independently coded by ≥2 investigators using a constant comparative method.

RESULTS

The decision to perform or refer for germline genetic evaluation is affected by factors at multiple levels. Although patient factors sometimes play a role, the dominant themes in the decision to conduct germline genetic evaluation were at the physician and organizational level. Physician knowledge, coordination of care, perceptions of the guidelines, and concerns about cost were most frequently discussed as the main factors affecting utilization of germline genetic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

There are currently numerous barriers to implementation of germline genetic evaluation for PCa. Efforts to expand physician education, to develop tools to enhance genetics in practice, and to facilitate coordination of care surrounding genetic evaluation are important to promote guideline-concordant care.

Genetic Testing Guidelines and Education of Health Care Providers Involved in Prostate Cancer Care

Germline testing for prostate cancer (PCA) is revolutionizing PCA care. Two PARP inhibitors are FDA approved for men with metastatic, castration-resistant disease after progression on first-line therapies. In the screening setting, genetic test results may inform initiation and screening strategies. For men with early-stage disease, literature is emerging on the possible role of germline testing in active surveillance discussions. As such, urologists and oncologists must gain working knowledge of the principles and practice of germline testing and hereditary cancer implications for responsible implementation. Here the authors outline key learning areas and practice strategies for responsible dissemination of PCA germline testing.

Progress in gene therapy treatments for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is one of the predominant cancers affecting men and has been widely reported. In the past, various therapies and drugs have been proposed to treat prostate cancer. Among these treatments, gene therapy has been considered to be an optimal and widely applicable treatment. Furthermore, due to the increased specificity of gene sequence complementation, the targeted delivery of complementary gene sequences may represent a useful treatment in certain instances. Various gene therapies, including tumor-suppressor gene therapy, suicide gene therapy, immunomodulation gene therapy and anti-oncogene therapies, have been established to treat a wide range of diseases, such as cardiac disease, cystic fibrosis, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, hemophilia, and cancers. To this end, several gene therapy clinical trials at various phases are underway. This overview describes the developments and progress in gene therapy, with a special focus being placed on prostate cancer.

Germline Genetics of Prostate Cancer: Prevalence of Risk Variants and Clinical Implications for Disease Management

Prostate cancer has entered into the era of precision medicine with the recent approvals of targeted therapeutics (olaparib and rucaparib). The presence of germline mutations has important hereditary cancer implications for patients with prostate cancer, and germline testing is increasingly important in cancer screening, risk assessment, and the overall treatment and management of the disease. In this review, we discuss germline variants associated with inherited predisposition, prostate cancer risk and outcomes. We review recommendations for germline testing, available testing platforms, genetic counseling as well as discuss the therapeutic implications of germline variants relevant to prostate cancer treatments. Understanding the role of germline (heritable) mutations that affect prostate cancer biology and risk as well as the subsequent effect of these alterations on potential therapies is critical as the treatment paradigm shifts towards precision medicine. Furthermore, enhancing patient education tactics and healthcare system infrastructure is essential for the utilization of relevant predictive biomarkers and the improvement of clinical outcomes of patients with prostate cancer or at high risk of developing the disease.

Real-world genetic testing patterns in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Aim: To assess the patterns of genetic testing for homologous recombination repair mutations in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) pre-PARP inhibitors approval. Patients & methods: mCRPC patients were selected in an oncology electronic medical records database. Patterns and predictors of testing for ATM, BRCA1/2, CDK12, PALB2 and FANCA gene alterations were assessed. Results: Of 5213 mCRPC patients, 674 (13%) had a documented genetic test. The number of tested patients increased from 1 in 2013 to 313 in 2018 (out of 3161 and 3010 clinically active patients, respectively). Receiving care in an academic oncology center (versus a community-based center) strongly predicted genetic testing (hazard ratio = 2.41). Conclusion: The use of and access to genetic testing pre-PARP inhibitor approval was suboptimal.

DNA damage repair gene mutation testing and genetic counseling in men with/without prostate cancer: a systematic review

Background: Ongoing clinical trials are investigating PARP inhibitors to target the DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway in prostate cancer. DDR mutation screening will guide treatment strategy and assess eligibility for clinical trials. Materials & methods: This systematic review estimated the rate of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling among men with or at risk of prostate cancer. Results: From 6856 records, one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria and described men undiagnosed with prostate cancer with a family history of BRCA1/2 mutation who received DDR mutation testing. Conclusion: With only one study included in this first systematic review of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling in men with or at risk of prostate cancer, more research is warranted.

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.

Practical Considerations and Challenges for Germline Genetic Testing in Patients With Prostate Cancer: Recommendations From the Germline Genetics Working Group of the PCCTC

Germline genetic testing is now routinely recommended for patients with prostate cancer (PCa) because of expanded guidelines and options for targeted treatments. However, integrating genetic testing into oncology and urology clinical workflows remains a challenge because of the increased number of patients with PCa requiring testing and the limited access to genetics providers. This suggests a critical unmet need for genetic services outside of historical models. This review addresses current guidelines, considerations, and challenges for PCa genetic testing and offers a practical guide for genetic counseling and testing delivery, with solutions to help address potential barriers and challenges for both providers and patients. As genetic and genomic testing become integral to PCa care, developing standardized systems for implementation in the clinic is essential for delivering precision oncology to patients with PCa and realizing the full scope and impact of genetic testing.

Knowledge and practice regarding prostate cancer germline testing among urologists: Gaps to address for optimal implementation✰,✰✰

BACKGROUND

Germline testing is recommended for all men with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), and for some with localized PCa meeting specific histologic or family history criteria. Germline genetic evaluation has important implications for PCa prognosis and management, as well as implications for family members and cancer screening. Despite the importance of germline evaluation, its utilization in urologic practice is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a 32-item survey of U.S. urologists to examine knowledge of germline testing guidelines and practice patterns. It was shared through email to 6 American Urological Association sections, the Veterans Affairs Urology Mailgroup, and social media.

RESULTS

Among 132 total respondents from diverse practice settings across the U.S., 12% perform germline testing, 44% refer to a genetic counselor, 11% do both, and 33% do not test/refer. Only 4% had formal education in genetics. While 98% ask about PCa family history, only 76% and 52% ask about breast and ovarian cancer. When presented with hypothetical case scenarios where germline testing is indicated, many respondents indicated they would not offer genetic counseling or testing. Younger age (p = 0,03), academic practice (p = 0.04), and specializing in PCa/oncology (p = 0.007) were significantly associated with performing or referring for germline testing. Specializing in PCa/oncology was significantly associated with recommending germline testing for all case scenarios involving metastatic PCa (p = 0.0009) CONCLUSION: Our results suggest significant gaps in knowledge of germline testing and alignment of practice with national guidelines among urologists. Germline testing education and facilitation of genetic evaluation in urologic practice is warranted.

Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

PURPOSE

Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider).

RESULTS

Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing-initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing-was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches.

CONCLUSION

This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.