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

Uptake of Cancer Genetic Services for Chatbot vs Standard-of-Care Delivery Models: The BRIDGE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Increasing numbers of unaffected individuals could benefit from genetic evaluation for inherited cancer susceptibility. Automated conversational agents (ie, chatbots) are being developed for cancer genetics contexts; however, randomized comparisons with standard of care (SOC) are needed.

Objective

To examine whether chatbot and SOC approaches are equivalent in completion of pretest cancer genetic services and genetic testing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This equivalence trial (Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services [BRIDGE] randomized clinical trial) was conducted between August 15, 2020, and August 31, 2023, at 2 US health care systems (University of Utah Health and NYU Langone Health). Participants were aged 25 to 60 years, had had a primary care visit in the previous 3 years, were eligible for cancer genetic evaluation, were English or Spanish speaking, had no prior cancer diagnosis other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, had no prior cancer genetic counseling or testing, and had an electronic patient portal account.

Intervention

Participants were randomized 1:1 at the patient level to the study groups at each site. In the chatbot intervention group, patients were invited in a patient portal outreach message to complete a pretest genetics education chat. In the enhanced SOC control group, patients were invited to complete an SOC pretest appointment with a certified genetic counselor.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were completion of pretest cancer genetic services (ie, pretest genetics education chat or pretest genetic counseling appointment) and completion of genetic testing. Equivalence hypothesis testing was used to compare the study groups.

Results

This study included 3073 patients (1554 in the chatbot group and 1519 in the enhanced SOC control group). Their mean (SD) age at outreach was 43.8 (9.9) years, and most (2233 of 3063 [72.9%]) were women. A total of 204 patients (7.3%) were Black, 317 (11.4%) were Latinx, and 2094 (75.0%) were White. The estimated percentage point difference for completion of pretest cancer genetic services between groups was 2.0 (95% CI, -1.1 to 5.0). The estimated percentage point difference for completion of genetic testing was -1.3 (95% CI, -3.7 to 1.1). Analyses suggested equivalence in the primary outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of the BRIDGE equivalence trial support the use of chatbot approaches to offer cancer genetic services. Chatbot tools can be a key component of sustainable and scalable population health management strategies to enhance access to cancer genetic services.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03985852.

Clinical and histopathological parameters in transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies associated with tumor upgrading after radical prostatectomy: A comparative analysis of risk groups

BACKGROUND

Thanks to technological advances, prostate cancer (PCa) can be diagnosed at a younger age. It is known that most of these patients are in the low-intermediate risk group, and the histological grade of the tumor increases in half of those undergoing radical prostatectomy (Rp) compared to their diagnostic biopsies. This is especially important in terms of active surveillance (AS) and/or the timely evaluation of curative treatment options in patients diagnosed at an early age. Our aim was to investigate clinical and histopathological parameters that may be associated with an increase in the histological grade of the tumor in patients with acinar adenocarcinoma who were diagnosed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx) and underwent Rp.

METHODS

A total of 205 patients with classical acinar adenocarcinoma diagnosed by TRUS-Bx without metastasis and who underwent Rp were grouped according to the D'Amico risk classification. Age at diagnosis, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, prostate volume, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, clinical stage, Gleason Grade Group (GGG), high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia in tumor-free cores (HGPIN) (single and ≥2 cores), perineural invasion (PNI), and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) was obtained. Additionally, GGG, pathological stage, lymph node metastasis, surgical margin positivity, and tumor volume obtained from Rp were evaluated. Comparisons were made between the case groups in which the tumor grade increased and remained the same, in terms of age, serum PSA, PSA density, HGPIN in tumor-free cores (single and ≥2 cores), PNI, and LVI in all biopsies (with or without tumors), as well as risk groups. In addition, the relationships of HGPIN in tumor-free cores (single and ≥2 cores), PNI, and LVI on TRUS-Bx with age, serum PSA and PSA density, tumor volume, surgical margin positivity, pathological stage, lymph node metastasis, and risk groups were examined separately.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 72 (35.1%) were in the low-risk group, 95 (46.3%) in the intermediate-risk group, and 38 (18.5%) in the high-risk group. Most of the patients with an increased histological grade (n = 38, 48.1%) were in the low-risk group (p < 0.05) and had an advanced median age. HGPIN in single and ≥2 tumor-free cores and PNI were more common in these patients (p < 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.05, respectively). According to the multivariable analysis, advanced age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.087, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.029-1.148, p < 0.05), high serum PSA (OR: 1.047, 95% CI: 1.006-1.090, p < 0.05), HGPIN in ≥2 tumor-free cores (OR: 6.346, 95% CI: 3.136-12.912, p < 0.001), and PNI (OR: 3.138, 95% CI: 1.179-8.356, p < 0.05) were independent risk factors for a tumor upgrade. Furthermore, being in the low-risk group was an independent risk factor when compared to the intermediate- and high-risk groups (OR: 0.187, 95% CI: 0.080-0.437, p < 0.001 and OR: 0.054, 95% CI: 0.013-0.230, p < 0.001, respectively). The HGPIN diagnosis was more common in the low- and intermediate-risk groups. Advanced age at diagnosis, high serum PSA and PSA density values were associated with PNI on TRUS-Bx. High serum PSA and PSA density values were associated with LVI on TRUS-Bx. Surgical margin positivity was higher in cases with PNI and LVI detected by TRUS-Bx. HGPIN in ≥2 tumor-free cores, PNI, and LVI on TRUS-Bx were associated with a higher rate of lymph node metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients diagnosed with acinar adenocarcinoma, the presence of HGPIN even in a single tumor-free core on TRUS-Bx was found to be significant in terms of showing an increase in the histological tumor grade in Rp. The diagnosis of HGPIN in ≥2 tumor-free cores on TRUS-Bx was determined as an independent risk factor for an increased Gleason score after Rp. Furthermore, an advanced age, a high serum PSA value, being in the low-risk group, and the presence of PNI were associated with a tumor upgrade. HGPIN in ≥2 tumor-free cores, PNI, and LVI were also associated with lymph node metastasis. Therefore, the diagnosis of HGPIN should be signed out on pathological reports.

Curcumin inhibits prostate cancer by upregulating miR-483-3p and inhibiting UBE2C

Prostate cancer (PCa) is an extremely common genitourinary malignancy among elderly men. Many evidence have shown the efficacy of curcumin (CUR) in inhibiting the progression of PCa. However, the pharmacological function of CUR in PCa is still not quite clear. In this research, CUR was found to suppress the proliferation and enhance the apoptotic rate in in vitro PCa cell models in a dose- and time-dependent manner. In a xenograft animal model, the administration of CUR contributed to a significant decrease in the growth of the xenograft tumor induced by the transplanted PC-3 cells. Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2 C is implicated in the modulation of multiple types of cancers. In humans, the expression levels of UBE2C are significantly higher in PCa versus benign prostatic hyperplasia. Treatment with CUR decreased the expression of UBE2C, whereas it increased miR-483-3p expression. In contrast with the control mice, the CUR-treated mice showed a significant reduction in UBE2C and Ki-67 in PCa cells. The capability of proliferation, migration, and invasion of PCa cells was inhibited by the knockdown of UBE2C mediated by siRNA. Furthermore, dual luciferase reporter gene assay indicated the binding of miR-483-3p to UBE2C. In summary, CUR exerts its antitumor effects through regulation of the miR-483-3p/UBE2C axis by decreasing UBE2C and increasing miR-483-3p. The findings may also provide new molecular markers for PCa diagnosis and treatment.

Germline mutations in prostate cancer: a systematic review of the evidence for personalized medicine

BACKGROUND

The goal of precision medicine in prostate cancer (PCa) is to individualize the treatment according to the patient's germline mutation status. PCa has a very high rate of genetic predisposition compared with other cancers in men, with an estimated rate of cancers ascribable to hereditary factors of 5-15%.

METHODS

A systematic search (PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) of English literature from 2000 to 2022, using the keywords "prostate cancer", "germline mutations", "family history", and "inheritance" was conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

The search identified 980 publications. Of these, 200 papers were removed before screening (duplicates, non-English literature, and publication year before 2000) and 245 records were excluded after title/abstract screening. Finally, 50 articles were included in the final analysis. We analyze the latest evidence on the genetic basis of PCa predisposition and clinical implications for more personalized screening protocols and therapeutic management of this high-prevalent cancer.

DISCUSSION

Emerging data show that germline mutations in homologous recombination genes (BRCA1/2, ATM, CHECK2), in mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MLH2, MSH6), and other additional genes are associated with the development and aggressiveness of PCa. Germline testing and genetic counseling have increasingly important implications in cancer screening and therapeutic decisions making for patients affected by PCa. Patients with localized PCa and some gene mutations are more likely to develop aggressive cancer, so active treatment may be preferable to active surveillance for these patients. Moreover, in patients with metastatic PCa, these gene alterations may be useful biomarkers for predicting response to specific therapy such as PARP inhibitors, recently approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant PCa. The evidence supports recent guidelines and recommendations considering germline genetic testing for patients with a positive family history of PCa or men with high risk or metastatic disease.

Germline DNA Repair Genes Pathogenic Variants Among Mexican Patients With Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Early identification of germline mutation carriers may be relevant for the optimal management of prostate cancer and to inform cancer risk in relatives. However, population minorities have limited access to genetic testing. The aim of this study was to describe the frequency of DNA repair gene pathogenic variants (PVs) among Mexican men with prostate cancer referred for Genomic Cancer Risk Assessment and testing.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who meet criteria for genetic testing and enrolled in the Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network at the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City were included. Descriptive statistics were performed using frequency and proportions for categorical variables and median and range for quantitative variables. X2 and t test were used for group comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 199 men were enrolled, median age at diagnosis was 66 (range 44-88) years; 45% were de novo metastatic and 44% were high- very high and 10% were intermediate risk group. Four (2%) had a pathogenic germline variant; one each of the following genes: ATM, CHEK2, BRIP1, and MUTYH (all monoallelic). Younger men at diagnosis were more likely to carry a PV than older age at diagnosis (56.7 vs. 66.4 years, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed a low prevalence of known prostate cancer associated PVs and no BRCA PVs in Mexican men with prostate cancer. This suggests that the genetic and/or epidemiologic risk factors for prostate cancer are not well characterized in this specific population.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part I: Prostate Cancer Screening

PURPOSE

The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part I of a two-part series that focuses on prostate cancer screening. Please refer to Part II for discussion of initial and repeat biopsies as well as biopsy technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles.

RESULTS

The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsy, and biopsy technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening in combination with shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. Current data regarding risk from population-based cohorts provide a basis for longer screening intervals and tailored screening, and the use of available online risk calculators is encouraged.

Gender-specific counselling of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma and Lynch syndrome

PURPOSE

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant genetic syndrome resulting in a wide spectrum of malignancies caused by germline mutations in mismatch repair genes (MMR). Gene mutations have different effects and penetrance between the two genders. The aim of this review is to offer a gender-specific evidence-based clinical guide on diagnosis, screening, surveillance, and counselling of UTUC patients with LS.

METHODS

Using MEDLINE, a non-systematic review was performed including articles between 2004 and 2022. English language original articles, reviews, and editorials were selected based on their clinical relevance.

RESULTS

Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is the third most common malignancy in Lynch syndrome. Up to 21% of new UTUC cases may have unrecognized LS as the underlying cause. LS-UTUC does not have a clear gender prevalence, even if it seems to slightly prefer the male gender. The MSH6 variant is significantly associated with female gender (p < 0.001) and with gynecological malignancies. Female MSH2 and MLH1 carriers have higher rates for endometrial and ovarian cancer with respect to the general population, while male MSH2 and MLH1 carriers have, respectively, higher rate of prostate cancer and upper GI tract, or biliary or pancreatic cancers. Conflicting evidence remains on the association of testicular cancer with LS.

CONCLUSION

LS is a polyhedric disease, having a great impact on patients and their families that requires a multidisciplinary approach. UTUC patients should be systematically screened for LS, and urologists have to be aware that the same MMR mutation may lead to different malignancies according to the patient's gender.

Gender bias in shared decision-making among cancer care guidelines: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In cancer care, the promotion and implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and consensus statements may have potential differences by gender.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically analyse recommendations concerning shared decision-making in CPGs and consensus statements for the most frequent cancers exclusively among males (prostate) and females (endometrial).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We prospectively registered the protocol at PROSPERO (ID: RD42021241127). MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and online sources (8 guideline databases and 65 professional society websites) were searched independently by two reviewers, without language restrictions.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

CPGs and consensus statements about the diagnosis or treatment of prostate and endometrial cancers were included from January 2015 to August 2021.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Quality assessment deployed a previously developed 31-item tool and differences between the two cancers analysed.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 176 documents met inclusion criteria, 97 for prostate cancer (84 CPGs and 13 consensus statements) and 79 for endometrial cancer (67 CPGs and 12 consensus statements). Shared decision-making was recommended more often in prostate cancer guidelines compared to endometrial cancer (46/97 vs. 13/79, 47.4% vs. 16.5%; p < .001). Compared to prostate cancer guidelines (mean 2.14 items, standard deviation 3.45), compliance with the shared-decision-making 31-item tool was lower for endometrial cancer guidelines (mean 0.48 items, standard deviation 1.29) (p < .001). Regarding advice on the implementation of shared decision-making, it was only reported in 3 (3.8%) endometrial cancer guidelines and in 16 (16.5%) prostate cancer guidelines (p < .001).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We observed a significant gender bias as shared decision-making was systematically more often recommended in the prostate compared to endometrial cancer guidelines. These findings should encourage new CPGs and consensus statements to consider shared decision-making for improving cancer care regardless of the gender affected.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The findings may inform future recommendations for professional associations and governments to update and develop high-quality clinical guidelines to consider patients' preferences and shared decision-making in cancer care.

Guidelines for genetic testing in prostate cancer: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing, to identify pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in prostate cancer, is valuable in guiding treatment decisions for men with prostate cancer and to inform cancer prevention and early detection options for their immediate blood relatives. There are various guidelines and consensus statements for genetic testing in prostate cancer. Our aim is to review genetic testing recommendations across current guidelines and consensus statements and the level of evidence supporting those recommendations.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Electronic database searches and manual searches of grey literature, including websites of key organisations were conducted. Using the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework, this scoping review included: men with prostate cancer or men at high risk of prostate cancer and their biological families; existing guidelines and consensus statements with supporting evidence for genetic testing of men with prostate cancer from any geographical location worldwide.

RESULTS

Of the 660 citations identified, 23 guidelines and consensus statements met the inclusion criteria for the scoping review. Based on different levels of evidence about who should be tested and how, a diverse range of recommendations were identified. There was general consensus among the guidelines and consensus statements that men with metastatic disease be offered genetic testing; however, there was less consensus in relation to genetic testing in localised prostate cancer. While there was some consensus in relation to which genes to test, recommendations varied regarding who to test, testing methods and implementation.

CONCLUSION

While genetic testing in prostate cancer is routinely recommended and numerous guidelines exist, there is still considerable lack of consensus regarding who should be tested and how they should be tested. Further evidence is needed to inform value-based genetic testing strategies for implementation in practice.

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.

CanRisk-Prostate: A Comprehensive, Externally Validated Risk Model for the Prediction of Future Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer (PCa) is highly heritable. No validated PCa risk model currently exists. We therefore sought to develop a genetic risk model that can provide personalized predicted PCa risks on the basis of known moderate- to high-risk pathogenic variants, low-risk common genetic variants, and explicit cancer family history, and to externally validate the model in an independent prospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a risk model using a kin-cohort comprising individuals from 16,633 PCa families ascertained in the United Kingdom from 1993 to 2017 from the UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study, and complex segregation analysis adjusting for ascertainment. The model was externally validated in 170,850 unaffected men (7,624 incident PCas) recruited from 2006 to 2010 to the independent UK Biobank prospective cohort study.

RESULTS

The most parsimonious model included the effects of pathogenic variants in BRCA2, HOXB13, and BRCA1, and a polygenic score on the basis of 268 common low-risk variants. Residual familial risk was modeled by a hypothetical recessively inherited variant and a polygenic component whose standard deviation decreased log-linearly with age. The model predicted familial risks that were consistent with those reported in previous observational studies. In the validation cohort, the model discriminated well between unaffected men and men with incident PCas within 5 years (C-index, 0.790; 95% CI, 0.783 to 0.797) and 10 years (C-index, 0.772; 95% CI, 0.768 to 0.777). The 50% of men with highest predicted risks captured 86.3% of PCa cases within 10 years.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first validated risk model offering personalized PCa risks. The model will assist in counseling men concerned about their risk and can facilitate future risk-stratified population screening approaches.

Implementation of a Telehealth Genetic Testing Station to Deliver Germline Testing for Men With Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Germline testing for men with prostate cancer (PCa) poses numerous implementation barriers. Alternative models of care delivery are emerging, but implementation outcomes are understudied. We evaluated implementation outcomes of a hybrid oncologist- and genetic counselor-delivered model called the genetic testing station (GTS) created to streamline testing and increase access.

METHODS

A prospective, single-institution, cohort study of men with PCa referred to the GTS from October 14, 2019, to October 14, 2021, was conducted. Using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework, we described patients referred to GTS (Reach), the association of GTS with germline testing completion rates within 60 days of a new oncology appointment in a pre- versus post-GTS multivariable logistic regression (Effectiveness), Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance. Because GTS transitioned from an on-site to remote service during the COVID-19 pandemic, we also compared outcomes for embedded versus remote GTS.

RESULTS

Overall, 713 patients were referred to and eligible for GTS, and 592 (83%) patients completed germline testing. Seventy-six (13%) patients had ≥ 1 pathogenic variant. Post-GTS was independently associated with higher odds of completing testing within 60 days than pre-GTS (odds ratio, 8.97; 95% CI, 2.71 to 29.75; P < .001). Black race was independently associated with lower odds of testing completion compared with White race (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.96; P = .042). There was no difference in test completion rates or patient-reported decisional conflict for embedded versus remote GTS. GTS has been adopted by 31 oncology providers across four clinics, and implementation fidelity was high with low patient loss to follow-up, but staffing costs are a sustainability concern.

CONCLUSION

GTS is a feasible, effective model for high-volume germline testing in men with PCa, both in person and using telehealth. GTS does not eliminate racial disparities in germline testing access.

Translational Bioinformatics for Human Reproductive Biology Research: Examples, Opportunities and Challenges for a Future Reproductive Medicine

Since 1978, with the first IVF (in vitro fertilization) baby birth in Manchester (England), more than eight million IVF babies have been born throughout the world, and many new techniques and discoveries have emerged in reproductive medicine. To summarize the modern technology and progress in reproductive medicine, all scientific papers related to reproductive medicine, especially papers related to reproductive translational medicine, were fully searched, manually curated and reviewed. Results indicated whether male reproductive medicine or female reproductive medicine all have made significant progress, and their markers have experienced the progress from karyotype analysis to single-cell omics. However, due to the lack of comprehensive databases, especially databases collecting risk exposures, disease markers and models, prevention drugs and effective treatment methods, the application of the latest precision medicine technologies and methods in reproductive medicine is limited.

A novel signature based on pyroptosis-related genes for predicting prognosis and treatment response in prostate cancer patients

Background: Pyroptosis is a form of programmed cell death accompanied by specific inflammatory and immune responses, and it is closely related to the occurrence and progression of various cancers. However, the roles of pyroptosis-related genes (PRGs) in the prognosis, treatment response, and tumor microenvironment (TME) of prostate cancer (PCa) remain to be investigated. Methods: The mRNA expression data and clinical information of PCa patients were obtained from the Cancer Genome Atlas database (TCGA) and the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics website, and the 52 PRGs were obtained from the published papers. The univariate, multivariate, and LASSO Cox regression algorithms were used to obtain prognostic hub PRGs. Meanwhile, qRT-PCR was used to validate the expression of hub genes between PCa lines and normal prostate epithelial cell lines. We then constructed and validated a risk model associated with the patient's disease-free survival (DFS). Finally, the relationships between risk score and clinicopathological characteristics, tumor immune microenvironment, and drug treatment response of PCa were systematically analyzed. Results: A prognostic risk model was constructed with 6 hub PRGs (CHMP4C, GSDMB, NOD2, PLCG1, CYCS, GPX4), and patients were divided into high and low-risk groups by median risk score. The risk score was confirmed to be an independent prognostic factor for PCa in both the training and external validation sets. Patients in the high-risk group had a worse prognosis than those in the low-risk group, and they had more increased somatic mutations, higher immune cell infiltration and higher expression of immune checkpoint-related genes. Moreover, they were more sensitive to cell cycle-related chemotherapeutic drugs and might be more responsive to immunotherapy. Conclusion: In our study, pyroptosis played a significant role in the management of the prognosis and tumor microenvironment of PCa. Meanwhile, the established model might help to develop more effective individual treatment strategies.

GPX2 predicts recurrence-free survival and triggers the Wnt/β-catenin/EMT pathway in prostate cancer

Objective

This study aimed to establish a prognostic model related to prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence-free survival (RFS) and identify biomarkers.

Methods

The RFS prognostic model and key genes associated with PCa were established using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) and Cox regression from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)-PRAD and the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) GSE46602 datasets. The weighted gene co-expression network (WGCNA) was used to analyze the obtained key modules and genes, and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was performed. The phenotype and mechanism were verified in vitro.

Results

A total of 18 genes were obtained by LASSO regression, and an RFS model was established and verified (TCGA, AUC: 0.774; GSE70768, AUC: 0.759). Three key genes were obtained using multivariate Cox regression. WGCNA analysis obtained the blue module closely related to the Gleason score (cor = -0.22, P = 3.3e - 05) and the unique gene glutathione peroxidase 2 (GPX2). Immunohistochemical analysis showed that the expression of GPX2 was significantly higher in patients with PCa than in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (P < 0.05), but there was no significant correlation with the Gleason score (GSE46602 and GSE6919 verified), which was also verified in the GSE46602 and GSE6919 datasets. The GSEA results showed that GPX2 expression was mainly related to the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and Wnt pathways. Additionally, GPX2 expression significantly correlated with eight kinds of immune cells. In human PCa cell lines LNCaP and 22RV1, si-GPX2 inhibited proliferation and invasion, and induced apoptosis when compared with si-NC. The protein expression of Wnt3a, glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β), phosphorylated (p)-GSK3β, β-catenin, p-β-catenin, c-myc, cyclin D1, and vimentin decreased; the expression of E-cadherin increased; and the results for over-GPX2 were opposite to those for over-NC. The protein expression of GPX2 decreased, and β-catenin was unchanged in the si-GPX2+ SKL2001 group compared with the si-NC group.

Conclusion

We successfully constructed the PCa RFS prognostic model, obtained RFS-related biomarker GPX2, and found that GPX2 regulated PCa progression and triggered Wnt/β-catenin/EMT pathway molecular changes.

Controversies and Open Questions in Management of Cancer-Free Carriers of Germline Pathogenic Variants in BRCA1/BRCA2

Females harboring germline BRCA1/BRCA2 (BRCA) P/LPV are offered a tight surveillance scheme from the age of 25−30 years, aimed at early detection of specific cancer types, in addition to risk-reducing strategies. Multiple national and international surveillance guidelines have been published and updated over the last two decades from geographically diverse countries. We searched for guidelines published between 1 January 2015 and 1 May 2022. Differences between guidelines on issues such as primary prevention, mammography screening in young (<30 years) carriers, MRI screening in carriers above age 65 years, breast imaging (if any) after risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, during pregnancy, and breastfeeding, and hormone-replacement therapy, are just a few notable examples. Beyond formal guidelines, BRCA carriers’ concerns also focus on the timing of risk-reducing surgeries, fertility preservation, management of menopausal symptoms in cancer survivors, and pancreatic cancer surveillance, issues that, for some, there are no data to support evidence-based recommendations. This review discusses these unsettled issues, emphasizing the importance of future studies to enable global guideline harmonization for optimal surveillance strategies. Moreover, it raises the unmet need for personalized risk stratification and surveillance in BRCA P/LPV carriers.

Significance of prostate/pancreatic/skin cancer family history for detecting BRCA2 pathogenic variant careers among patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

When considering BRCA1/2 genetic testing for diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), family history (FH) of breast and ovarian cancer is commonly considered. However, FH of other HBOC-related cancers, such as prostate, pancreatic, and skin cancer (malignant melanoma), is often overlooked.

METHODS

Among 945 patients who received genetic testing of BRCA1/2 at our hospital between October 2010 and September 2021, we compared the FH of 123 patients diagnosed with HBOC and 669 other patients who had breast cancer and had a documented FH. This study focused on the FH of HBOC-related cancers such as breast, ovarian, prostate, pancreatic, and skin cancer, as well as colorectal, gastric, liver, lung, and uterine cancers, which are common among Japanese, and other cancers.

RESULTS

FH of prostate, pancreatic, and skin cancer was significantly higher in the BRCA2 pathogenic variant (PV) cases than in the wild-type (WT) cases. The mean number of family members are as follows: BRCA1 PV/ BRCA2 PV/ WT; prostate cancer: 0.05/ 0.34/ 0.09 (P < 0.0001, Kruskal-Wallis multiple comparisons test), pancreatic cancer: 0.13/ 0.21/ 0.10 (P = 0.01637), and skin cancer: 0.03/ 0.07/ 0.01 (P = 0.00129), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering BRCA1/2 genetic testing, FH of prostate, pancreatic, and skin cancers may also be examined as HBOC-related cancers to provide testing for patients who would benefit from it. However, further studies for the association between skin cancer and HBOC will be required because it has not been reported in Japan.

BRCA Mutations in Ovarian and Prostate Cancer: Bench to Bedside

Simple Summary

DNA damage is one of the hallmarks of cancer. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) —especially the high-grade serous subtype—harbors a defect in at least one DNA damage response (DDR) pathway. Defective DDR results from a variety of lesions affecting homologous recombination (HR) and nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) for double strand breaks, base excision repair (BER), and nucleotide excision repair (NER) for single strand breaks and mismatch repair (MMR). Apart from the EOC, mutations in the DDR genes, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, are common in prostate cancer as well. Among them, BRCA2 lesions are found in 12% of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers, but very rarely in primary prostate cancer. Better understanding of the DDR pathways is essential in order to optimize the therapeutic choices, and has led to the design of biomarker-driven clinical trials. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are now a standard therapy for EOC patients, and more recently have been approved for the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with alterations in DDR genes. They are particularly effective in tumours with HR deficiency.

Abstract

DNA damage repair (DDR) defects are common in different cancer types, and these alterations can be exploited therapeutically. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is among the tumours with the highest percentage of hereditary cases. BRCA1 and BRCA2 predisposing pathogenic variants (PVs) were the first to be associated with EOC, whereas additional genes comprising the homologous recombination (HR) pathway have been discovered with DNA sequencing technologies. The incidence of DDR alterations among patients with metastatic prostate cancer is much higher compared to those with localized disease. Genetic testing is playing an increasingly important role in the treatment of patients with ovarian and prostate cancer. The development of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors offers a therapeutic strategy for patients with EOC. One of the mechanisms of PARP inhibitors exploits the concept of synthetic lethality. Tumours with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are highly sensitive to PARP inhibitors. Moreover, the synthetic lethal interaction may be exploited beyond germline BRCA mutations in the context of HR deficiency, and this is an area of ongoing research. PARP inhibitors are in advanced stages of development as a treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. However, there is a major concern regarding the need to identify reliable biomarkers predictive of treatment response. In this review, we explore the mechanisms of DDR, the potential for genomic analysis of ovarian and prostate cancer, and therapeutics of PARP inhibitors, along with predictive biomarkers.

Race and prostate cancer: genomic landscape

In the past 20 years, new insights into the genomic pathogenesis of prostate cancer have been provided. Large-scale integrative genomics approaches enabled researchers to characterize the genetic and epigenetic landscape of prostate cancer and to define different molecular subclasses based on the combination of genetic alterations, gene expression patterns and methylation profiles. Several molecular drivers of prostate cancer have been identified, some of which are different in men of different races. However, the extent to which genomics can explain racial disparities in prostate cancer outcomes is unclear. Future collaborative genomic studies overcoming the underrepresentation of non-white patients and other minority populations are essential.

Association of Family History of Cancer with Clinical and Pathological Outcomes for Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance

PURPOSE

The impact of germline mutations associated with hereditary cancer syndromes in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is poorly defined. We examined the association between family history of prostate cancer (FHP) or family history of cancer (FHC) and risk of progression or adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients on AS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients on AS at a single tertiary-care center between 2000-2019 were categorized by family history. Disease progression was defined as an increase in Gleason grade on biopsy. Adverse pathology was defined as upgrading/upstaging at RP. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess association between family history and time to progression or adverse pathology, respectively.

RESULTS

Among 3,211 evaluable patients, 669 (21%) had FHP, 34 (1%) had FHC and 95 (3%) had both; 753 progressed on AS and 481 underwent RP. FHP was associated with increased risk of progression (HR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.55; p=0.002) but FHC (HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30-1.50; p=0.3) or family history of both (HR 1.22; 95% CI, 0.81-1.85; p=0.3) were not. FHP, FHC or both were not associated with adverse pathology at RP (p >0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

While FHP was associated with an increased risk of progression on AS, wide confidence intervals render this outcome of unclear clinical significance. FHC was not associated with risk of progression on AS. In the absence of known genetically defined hereditary cancer syndrome, we suggest FHP and/or FHC should not be used as a sole trigger to preclude patients from enrolling on AS.

The role of prophylactic prostatectomy as a primary prevention strategy in high-risk germline mutation carriers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Men with high-risk germline mutations are at significantly higher risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer. Current screening and treatment paradigms may lead to missed opportunities for cure. Herein we review the current literature on prevention, screening and treatment of these carriers and explore the potential role of prophylactic prostatectomy in primary prevention of prostate cancer mortality.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening has demonstrated marginal benefits in prostate cancer (PCa) survival and uncertainty remains on its true benefit among high-risk carriers. Recent results indicate that PCa in BRCA 2 carriers occurs at a higher incidence, younger age and progresses more rapidly compared with noncarriers. An intensified screening protocol of MRI and PSA in young carriers demonstrated how using PSA values alone may be insufficient. Current evidence indicates that high-risk carriers have worse survival outcomes after undergoing radical treatment for screening detected disease when compared with noncarriers.

SUMMARY

Prophylactic prostatectomy within the context of a clinical trial is a reasonable primary prevention option for discussion with high-risk carriers, especially BRCA2 carriers during the shared decision-making process. Limitations exist in the current strategies of early PSA screening followed by radical treatment in this group.

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.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results from APCCC 2021.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.

Homologous Recombination Deficiency in Ovarian, Breast, Colorectal, Pancreatic, Non-Small Cell Lung and Prostate Cancers, and the Mechanisms of Resistance to PARP Inhibitors

Homologous recombination (HR) is a highly conserved DNA repair mechanism that protects cells from exogenous and endogenous DNA damage. Breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2 (BRCA2) play an important role in the HR repair pathway by interacting with other DNA repair proteins such as Fanconi anemia (FA) proteins, ATM, RAD51, PALB2, MRE11A, RAD50, and NBN. These pathways are frequently aberrant in cancer, leading to the accumulation of DNA damage and genomic instability known as homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). HRD can be caused by chromosomal and subchromosomal aberrations, as well as by epigenetic inactivation of tumor suppressor gene promoters. Deficiency in one or more HR genes increases the risk of many malignancies. Another conserved mechanism involved in the repair of DNA single-strand breaks (SSBs) is base excision repair, in which poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzymes play an important role. PARP inhibitors (PARPIs) convert SSBs to more cytotoxic double-strand breaks, which are repaired in HR-proficient cells, but remain unrepaired in HRD. The blockade of both HR and base excision repair pathways is the basis of PARPI therapy. The use of PARPIs can be expanded to sporadic cancers displaying the “BRCAness” phenotype. Although PARPIs are effective in many cancers, their efficacy is limited by the development of resistance. In this review, we summarize the prevalence of HRD due to mutation, loss of heterozygosity, and promoter hypermethylation of 35 DNA repair genes in ovarian, breast, colorectal, pancreatic, non-small cell lung cancer, and prostate cancer. The underlying mechanisms and strategies to overcome PARPI resistance are also discussed.

PARP Inhibitors: A New Horizon for Patients with Prostate Cancer

The introduction of PARP inhibitors (PARPi) in prostate cancer is a milestone and provides a pathway to hope in fighting this disease. It is the first time that drugs, based on the concept of synthetic lethality, have been approved for prostate cancer. In addition, it is also the first time that genetic mutation tests have been included in the therapeutic algorithm of this disease, representing a significant step forward for precision and personalized treatment of prostate cancer. The objectives of this review are: (1) understanding the mechanism of action of PARPi in monotherapy and combinations; (2) gaining insights on patient selection for PARPi; (3) exposing the pivotal studies that have allowed its approval, and; (4) offering an overview of the ongoing trials. Nevertheless, many unsolved questions remain, such as the number of patients who could potentially benefit from PARPi, whether to use PARPi in monotherapy or in combination, and when is the best time to use them in advanced or localized disease. To answer these and other questions, many clinical trials are underway. Some of them have recently demonstrated promising results that may favor the introduction of new combinations in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

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.

Identification of novel biomarkers in prostate cancer diagnosis and prognosis

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a common urinary malignancy. The lack of specific and sensitive biomarkers for the early diagnosis and prognosis of PCa makes it important to seek alternatives. R software was used to analyze the PCa expression profile from data sets in Gene Expression Omnibus. Core differential genes were identified by String and Cytoscape and further validated by Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis (GEPIA) and The Human Protein Atlas (HPA). Gene Ontology analysis was done in the DIVID database and visualization analysis was conducted by Hiplot. Pathway enrichment was analyzed by IPA. To identify potential competitive endogenous RNAs (ceRNA) networks, the experimentally validated microRNA-target interactions database (miRTarBase), The Encyclopedia of RNA Interactomes (StarBase), lncBase, and GEPIA were used. The lncLocator was utilized to perform subcellular localization of long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs). Both miRTarBase and StarBase were used to find the binding site of mRNAs-miRNAs and miRNAs-lncRNAs. Visualization of the ceRNA network was performed with Cytoscape. Nine genes closely related to the diagnosis and prognosis of PCa were obtained, including four identified biomarkers by HPA, CENPF, TPX2, TK1, and CCNB1, and five novel PCa biomarkers, RRM2, UBE2C, TOP2A, BIRC5, and ZWINT. Pathway analysis indicated that PCa carcinogenesis was highly correlated with liver fibrosis pathways, ILK signaling, and NRF2-mediated oxidative stress response. Two sets of ceRNA networks, BIRC5/hsa-miR-218-5p/NEAT1 and UBE2C/hsa-miR-483-3p/NEAT1 were found to be novel biomarkers for the identification of PCa. The quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction results verified that UBE2C, BIRC5, and NEAT1 were upregulated and hsa-miR-218-5p and hsa-miR-483-3p were downregulated in human PCa cells compared with normal prostate epithelial cells. The novel identified biomarkers in this study would be valuable for the diagnosis and prognosis of PCa.

Guidelines on Germline Testing for Urologic Tumor Syndromes

In the expanding precision medicine landscape, along with improvements in and the availability of testing, the use of genetics in the evaluation and treatment of patients has increased significantly. Multiple urologic cancers in different organ systems associated with an inherited gene mutation have been described. As these mutations can impact screening and treatment decisions for patients and their families, it is important for providers to be familiar with the current guidelines for germline testing. Here we summarize the current guidelines regarding germline testing for patients with suspected urologic tumor syndromes. PATIENT SUMMARY: Several cancers of the genitourinary tract can be associated with inherited genetic mutations. Knowledge of when to test for these mutations has implications for both treatment and screening of patients and their family members at risk of genitourinary cancers.

Considerations on the identification and management of metastatic prostate cancer patients with DNA repair gene alterations in the Canadian context

Olaparib is the first Health Canada-approved agent in metastatic prostate cancer to use a companion diagnostic to identify alterations in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM. As olaparib is introduced, clinicians must learn to access and interpret germline and somatic next-generation sequencing (NGS) results, and how to manage affected patients who appear to have distinct clinical features. The traditional model of referring patients to a hereditary cancer clinic (HCC) for germline testing is likely impractical in this disease, as the metastatic prostate cancer patient population would be overwhelming. Alternate approaches to this are clinician-ordered genetic testing (so-called “mainstreaming”), out-of-pocket payment for third-party private company genetic testing, or germline testing done in conjunction with somatic testing, particularly cell free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Germline testing alone is not sufficient for identifying Olaparib-eligible patients, as less than half of BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM alterations are germline in origin, but it is critically important to identify family members who are carriers so that risk-reduction measures can be undertaken. Somatic testing is not widely available in Canada, but some patients can access it through research protocols or by paying out-of-pocket. Somatic testing can be performed on archival or fresh solid tissue biopsy samples, or through whole blood samples to access plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Both testing approaches have relative advantages and disadvantages, but neither may be informative in all patients and, therefore, ideal somatic NGS pathways should provide options for both tissue and ctDNA testing. We advocate that clinicians begin discussions with their provincial lab formularies, HCC, and molecular pathology labs to highlight the importance of germline and somatic testing in this population and identify pathways for patient access. While olaparib has approval for use in BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM-altered mCRPC, emerging evidence suggests that PARP inhibitors have variable activity in these three genes, with BRCA2 alterations appearing to be the most responsive. Retrospective and prospective series have reported varying outcomes to standard of care therapies, such as ARATs and taxane-based chemotherapy, in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with DNA damage repair (DDR) gene alterations, such as BRCA2. In the absence of high-level evidence showing a lack of benefit, we believe this patient population should still be considered for these treatments. In addition, platinum-based chemotherapy appears to have activity in DDR gene-altered mCRPC and should be considered another option when access to olaparib is not possible. At present, there is no evidence to support an optimal treatment sequence in this patient population, therefore, physician and patient preferences will need to be taken into consideration when selecting therapies. As olaparib and other PARP inhibitors are tested in different disease states and in combination with other therapies, we will likely see a more refined approach to use of these agents and management of this new biomarker-defined patient population.

Genetic Evaluation for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes Among African Americans: A Critical Review

While hereditary cancer syndromes have been described and studied for centuries, the completion of the human genome project fueled accelerated progress in precision medicine due to the introduction of genetic testing in the 1990s, creating avenues for tailored treatments and medical management options. However, genetic testing has not benefited everyone equitably, with nearly all of the published work based on individuals of non-Hispanic White/European ancestry. There remains a gap in knowledge regarding the prevalence, penetrance, and manifestations of common hereditary cancer syndromes in the African-American population due to significant disparities in access and uptake of genetic testing. This review summarizes the available literature on genetic testing for breast, colon, and prostate cancers in the African-American population and explores the disparities in access to genetic testing between non-Hispanic White and African-American patients. This article also addresses the barriers to genetic testing and discrepancies in the uptake of recommendations for hereditary cancer syndromes in the African-American population when compared with non-Hispanic Whites. The review offers practice implications for many healthcare providers and demonstrates gaps in the existing knowledge to be addressed in future studies to help eliminate the persisting health disparities faced by the African-American population.

Clinical Management of Prostate Cancer in High-Risk Genetic Mutation Carriers

Simple Summary

Men with certain genetic differences are at much higher risks of developing metastatic and lethal prostate cancer. With the recent introduction of a new class of medications specifically targeted to these gene repair pathways (PARP inhibitors), it is critical to review the state of the literature surrounding the management of men with prostate cancer who have these genetic differences. We review the existing literature to address common clinical questions pertaining to this population. There is an urgent need for further research regarding clinical management in these scenarios as patients are increasingly seeking out genetic testing and consulting healthcare professionals for guidance.

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer is a leading cause of death. Approximately one in eight men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer will die of it. Since there is a large difference in mortality between low- and high-risk prostate cancers, it is critical to identify individuals who are at high-risk for disease progression and death. Germline genetic differences are increasingly recognized as contributing to risk of lethal prostate cancer. The objective of this paper is to review prostate cancer management options for men with high-risk germline mutations. Methods: We performed a review of the literature to identify articles regarding management of prostate cancer in individuals with high-risk germline genetic mutations. Results: We identified numerous publications regarding the management of prostate cancer among high-risk germline carriers, but the overall quality of the evidence is low. Conclusions: We performed a review of the literature and compiled clinical considerations for the management of individuals with high-risk germline mutations when they develop prostate cancer. The quality of the evidence is low, and there is an immediate need for further research and the development of consensus guidelines to guide clinical practice for these individuals.

Recommendations on Weight Loss and Healthy Lifestyle in Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines: A Systematic Review

Obesity is associated with negative prostate cancer outcomes (e.g., specific mortality, all-cause mortality, biochemical recurrence, etc.), according to the current scientific literature. Nevertheless, recommendations on weight loss and healthy lifestyles are poorly covered by clinicians. We aimed at identifying these recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for prostate cancer. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, guideline databases and online sources for CPGs updated from January 2015 to August 2021. The searches were independently conducted by two researchers, without language restrictions. A total of 97 prostate cancer guidelines, including 84 (86.6%) CPGs and 13 (13.4%) consensus statements, were included. Recommendations on reaching and maintaining a healthy weight or healthy lifestyles were provided by 7 (7.2%) and 13 (13.4%) documents, respectively. No differences regarding recommendations were found by type of document, year of publication or country. Our results suggest that professional societies and governments should update prostate cancer guidelines to include these recommendations for improving prostate cancer prognosis.

Lynch Syndrome-Associated Cancers Beyond Colorectal Cancer

Lynch syndrome (LS) is a common form of inherited cancer susceptibility, which predisposes to colorectal cancer (CRC) along with a wide array of other extracolonic malignancies, including other gastrointestinal cancers, cancers of the gynecologic and genitourinary tracts, and other organ sites. Recent data have provided novel insights into patient-specific factors that can help clinicians understand an individual LS carrier's risk of extracolonic cancers, including sex, specific LS gene, age, family history of cancer, and other factors. This summary seeks to provide an update on extracolonic cancer risks in LS and provide recommendations for surveillance and risk reduction.

Genetic predisposition to prostate cancer: an update

Improvements in DNA sequencing technology and discoveries made by large scale genome-wide association studies have led to enormous insight into the role of genetic variation in prostate cancer risk. High-risk prostate cancer risk predisposition genes exist in addition to common germline variants conferring low-moderate risk, which together account for over a third of familial prostate cancer risk. Identifying men with additional risk factors such as genetic variants or a positive family history is of clinical importance, as men with such risk factors have a higher incidence of prostate cancer with some evidence to suggest diagnosis at a younger age and poorer outcomes. The medical community remains in disagreement on the benefits of a population prostate cancer screening programme reliant on PSA testing. A reduction in mortality has been demonstrated in many studies, but at the cost of significant amounts of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Developing targeted screening strategies for high-risk men is currently the subject of investigation in a number of prospective studies. At present, approximately 38% of the familial risk of PrCa can be explained based on published SNPs, with men in the top 1% of the risk profile having a 5.71-fold increase in risk of developing cancer compared with controls. With approximately 170 prostate cancer susceptibility loci now identified in European populations, there is scope to explore the clinical utility of genetic testing and genetic-risk scores in prostate cancer screening and risk stratification, with such data in non-European populations eagerly awaited. This review will focus on both the rare and common germline genetic variation involved in hereditary and familial prostate cancer, and discuss ongoing research in exploring the role of targeted screening in this high-risk group of men.

Genomic Features and Clinical Implications of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is a rare and unique form of aggressive prostate carcinoma, which is characterized by an expansile proliferation of malignant prostatic epithelial cells within prostatic ducts or acini and the preservation of basal cell layers around the involved glands. The vast majority of IDC-P tumors result from adjacent high-grade invasive cancer via the retrograde spreading of tumor cells into normal prostatic ducts or acini. A subset of IDC-P tumors is rarely derived from the de novo intraductal proliferation of premalignant cells. The presence of IDC-P in biopsy or surgical specimens is significantly associated with aggressive pathologic features, such as high Gleason grade, large tumor volume, and advanced tumor stage, and with poor clinical courses, including earlier biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis, and worse survival outcomes. These architectural and behavioral features of IDC-P may be driven by specific molecular properties. Notably, IDC-P possesses distinct genomic profiles, including higher rates of TMPRSS2–ERG gene fusions and PTEN loss, increased percentage of genomic instability, and higher prevalence of germline BRCA2 mutations. Considering that IDC-P tumors are usually resistant to conventional therapies for prostate cancer, further studies should be performed to develop optimal therapeutic strategies based on distinct genomic features, such as treatment with immune checkpoint blockades or poly (adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibitors for patients harboring increased genomic instability or BRCA2 mutations, as well as genetic counseling with genetic testing. Patient-derived xenografts and tumor organoid models can be the promising in vitro platforms for investigating the molecular features of IDC-P tumor.

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.

Genetics in prostate cancer: implications for clinical practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent advances in our understanding of prostate cancer genetics have transformed the field. However, challenges in implementation and clinical application remain. The aim of this review is to discuss recent noteworthy publications in prostate cancer germline testing, genetically informed treatment, and polygenetic risk.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of two poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) for the treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with mutations in DNA damage repair genes and updates to the National Cancer Center Network testing guidelines that expand the eligibility criteria for germline and somatic genetic testing in men with prostate cancer provide an opportunity for a larger portion of the prostate cancer population to access genetic testing and targeted therapies. Due to this, clinicians have needed to rapidly adapt their clinical workflows. Further, the field has renewed efforts to evaluate polygenetic risk profiles to better understand the complex genetic landscape beyond single genes.

SUMMARY

This review highlights advances in the understanding of prostate cancer genetics, and areas that remain less well defined. Collaboration between multidisciplinary team members is necessary to move this field forward and provide quality, optimal care.

Genetics of prostate cancer and its utility in treatment and screening

Prostate cancer heritability is attributed to a combination of rare, moderate to highly penetrant genetic variants as well as commonly occurring variants conferring modest risks [single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)]. Some of the former type of variants (e.g., BRCA2 mutations) predispose particularly to aggressive prostate cancer and confer poorer prognoses compared to men who do not carry mutations. Molecularly targeted treatments such as PARP inhibitors have improved outcomes in men carrying somatic and/or germline DNA repair gene mutations. Ongoing clinical trials are exploring other molecular targeted approaches based on prostate cancer somatic alterations. Genome wide association studies have identified >250 loci that associate with prostate cancer risk. Multi-ancestry analyses have identified shared as well as population specific risk SNPs. Prostate cancer risk SNPs can be used to estimate a polygenic risk score (PRS) to determine an individual's genetic risk of prostate cancer. The odds ratio of prostate cancer development in men whose PRS lies in the top 1% of the risk profile ranges from 9 to 11. Ongoing studies are investigating the utility of a prostate cancer PRS to target population screening to those at highest risk. With the advent of personalized medicine and development of DNA sequencing technologies, access to clinical genetic testing is increasing, and oncology guidelines from bodies such as NCCN and ESMO have been updated to provide criteria for germline testing of "at risk" healthy men as well as those with prostate cancer. Both germline and somatic prostate cancer research have significantly evolved in the past decade and will lead to further development of precision medicine approaches to prostate cancer treatment as well as potentially developing precision population screening models.

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.

BRCA Mutations in Prostate Cancer: Assessment, Implications and Treatment Considerations

Prostate cancer ranks fifth in cancer-related mortality in men worldwide. DNA damage is implicated in cancer and DNA damage response (DDR) pathways are in place against this to maintain genomic stability. Impaired DDR pathways play a role in prostate carcinogenesis and germline or somatic mutations in DDR genes have been found in both primary and metastatic prostate cancer. Among these, BRCA mutations have been found to be especially clinically relevant with a role for germline or somatic testing. Prostate cancer with DDR defects may be sensitive to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors which target proteins in a process called PARylation. Initially they were used to target BRCA-mutated tumor cells in a process of synthetic lethality. However, recent studies have found potential for PARP inhibitors in a variety of other genetic settings. In this review, we explore the mechanisms of DNA repair, potential for genomic analysis of prostate cancer and therapeutics of PARP inhibitors along with their safety profile.

A prospective prostate cancer screening programme for men with pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes (IMPACT): initial results from an international prospective study

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants.

METHODS

The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0).

INTERPRETATION

After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer.

Genetic risk assessment for hereditary renal cell carcinoma: Clinical consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Although renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is believed to have a strong hereditary component, there is a paucity of published guidelines for genetic risk assessment. A panel of experts was convened to gauge current opinions.

METHODS

A North American multidisciplinary panel with expertise in hereditary RCC, including urologists, medical oncologists, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, and patient advocates, was convened. Before the summit, a modified Delphi methodology was used to generate, review, and curate a set of consensus questions regarding RCC genetic risk assessment. Uniform consensus was defined as ≥85% agreement on particular questions.

RESULTS

Thirty-three panelists, including urologists (n = 13), medical oncologists (n = 12), genetic counselors and clinical geneticists (n = 6), and patient advocates (n = 2), reviewed 53 curated consensus questions. Uniform consensus was achieved on 30 statements in specific areas that addressed for whom, what, when, and how genetic testing should be performed. Topics of consensus included the family history criteria, which should trigger further assessment, the need for risk assessment in those with bilateral or multifocal disease and/or specific histology, the utility of multigene panel testing, and acceptance of clinician-based counseling and testing by those who have experience with hereditary RCC.

CONCLUSIONS

In the first ever consensus panel on RCC genetic risk assessment, 30 consensus statements were reached. Areas that require further research and discussion were also identified, with a second future meeting planned. This consensus statement may provide further guidance for clinicians when considering RCC genetic risk assessment.

LAY SUMMARY

The contribution of germline genetics to the development of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has long been recognized. However, there is a paucity of guidelines to define how and when genetic risk assessment should be performed for patients with known or suspected hereditary RCC. Without guidelines, clinicians struggle to define who requires further evaluation, when risk assessment or testing should be done, which genes should be considered, and how counseling and/or testing should be performed. To this end, a multidisciplinary panel of national experts was convened to gauge current opinion on genetic risk assessment in RCC and to enumerate a set of recommendations to guide clinicians when evaluating individuals with suspected hereditary kidney cancer.

Massive parallel sequencing in individuals with multiple primary tumours reveals the benefit of re-analysis

Multiple primary cancers, defined as three or more primary tumours, are rare, and there are few genetic studies concerning them. There is a need for increased knowledge on the heritability of multiple primary cancers and genotype-phenotype correlations. We have performed whole-genome/exome sequencing (WGS/WES) in ten individuals with three or more primary tumours, with no previous findings on standard clinical genetic investigations. In one individual with a clinical diagnosis of MEN1, a likely pathogenic cryptic splice site variant was detected in the MEN1 gene. The variant (c.654C > A) is synonymous but we showed in a cDNA analysis that it affects splicing and leads to a frameshift, with the theoretical new amino acid sequence p.(Gly219Glufs*13). In one individual with metachronous colorectal cancers, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, we found a likely pathogenic variant in the MLH1 gene (c.27G > A), and two risk factor variants in the genes CHEK2 and HOXB13. The MLH1 variant is synonymous but has previously been shown to be associated to constitutional low-grade hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter, and segregates with disease in families with colorectal and endometrial cancer. No pathogenic single nucleotide or structural variants were detected in the remaining eight individuals in the study. The pathogenic variants found by WGS/WES were in genes already sequenced by Sanger sequencing and WES in the clinic, without any findings. We conclude that, in individuals with an unequivocal clinical diagnosis of a specific hereditary cancer syndrome, where standard clinical testing failed to detect a causative variant, re-analysis may lead to a diagnosis.

Inherited Mutations in Chinese Men With Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Although China accounts for 7.8% of worldwide new prostate cancer (PCa) cases and 14.5% of new deaths according to GLOBOCAN 2020, the risk of PCa associated with germline mutations is poorly defined, hampered in part by lack of nationwide evidence. Here, we sequenced 19 PCa predisposition genes in 1,836 Chinese patients with PCa and estimated disease risk associated with inherited mutations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were recruited from 4 tertiary cancer centers (n=1,160) and a commercial laboratory (n=676). Germline DNA was sequenced using a multigene panel, and pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) mutation frequencies in patients with PCa were compared with populations from the gnomAD (Genome Aggregation Database) and ChinaMAP (China Metabolic Analytics Project) databases. Clinical characteristics and progression-free survival were assessed by mutation status.

RESULTS

Of 1,160 patients from hospitals, 89.7% had Gleason scores ≥8, and 65.6% had metastases. P/LP mutations were identified in 8.49% of Chinese patients with PCa. Association with PCa risk was significant for mutations in ATM (odds ratio [OR], 5.9; 95% CI, 3.1-11.1), BRCA2 (OR, 15.3; 95% CI, 10.0-23.2), MSH2 (OR, 15.8; 95% CI, 4.2-59.6), and PALB2 (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.7-13.2). Compared with those without mutations, patients with mutations in ATM, BRCA2, MSH2, or PALB2 showed a poor outcome with treatment using androgen deprivation therapy and abiraterone (hazard ratio, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.34-3.58] and 2.47 [95% CI, 1.23-4.96], respectively) but similar benefit from docetaxel.

CONCLUSIONS

The present multicenter study confirmed that a significant proportion of Chinese patients with PCa had inherited mutations and identified predisposition genes in this underreported ethnicity. These data provide empirical evidence for precision prevention and prognostic estimation in Chinese patients with PCa.

Updates in Prostate Cancer Research and Screening in Men at Genetically Higher Risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer (PrCa) is the most common cancer in men in the western world and is a major source of morbidity and mortality. Currently, general population PrCa screening is not recommended due to the limitations of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. As such, there is increasing interest in identifying and screening higher-risk groups. The only established risk factors for PrCa are age, ethnicity, and having a family history of PrCa. A significant proportion of PrCa cases are caused by genetic factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several rare germline variants have been identified that moderately increase risk of PrCa, and targeting screening to these men is proving useful at detecting clinically significant disease. The use of a "polygenic risk score" (PRS) that can calculate a man's personalized risk based on a number of lower-risk, but common genetic variants is the subject of ongoing research. Research efforts are currently focusing on the utility of screening in specific at-risk populations based on ethnicity, such as men of Black Afro-Caribbean descent. Whilst most screening studies have focused on use of PSA testing, the incorporation of additional molecular and genomic biomarkers alongside increasingly sophisticated imaging modalities is being designed to further refine and individualise both the screening and diagnostic pathway. Approximately 10% of men with advanced PrCa have a germline genetic predisposition leading to the opportunity for novel, targeted precision treatments.

SUMMARY

The mainstreaming of genomics into the PrCa screening, diagnostic and treatment pathway will soon become standard practice and this review summarises current knowledge on genetic predisposition to PrCa and screening studies that are using genomics within their algorithms to target screening to higher-risk groups of men. Finally, we evaluate the importance of germline genetics beyond screening and diagnostics, and its role in the identification of lethal PrCa and in the selection of targeted treatments for advanced disease.

Prostate cancer

The management of prostate cancer continues to evolve rapidly, with substantial advances being made in understanding the genomic landscape and biology underpinning both primary and metastatic prostate cancer. Similarly, the emergence of more sensitive imaging methods has improved diagnostic and staging accuracy and refined surveillance strategies. These advances have introduced personalised therapeutics to clinical practice, with treatments targeting genomic alterations in DNA repair pathways now clinically validated. An important shift in the therapeutic framework for metastatic disease has taken place, with metastatic-directed therapies being evaluated for oligometastatic disease, aggressive management of the primary lesion shown to benefit patients with low-volume metastatic disease, and with several novel androgen pathway inhibitors significantly improving survival when used as a first-line therapy for metastatic disease. Research into the molecular characterisation of localised, recurrent, and progressive disease will undoubtedly have an impact on clinical management. Similarly, emerging research into novel therapeutics, such as targeted radioisotopes and immunotherapy, holds much promise for improving the lives of patients with prostate cancer.