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

Utilization of a Third-party Partnership in Tele-genetic Risk Assessment Program in Genitourinary Oncology

OBJECTIVE

To meet the increasing demands of genetic risk assessment for genitourinary cancers due to expanded clinical guidelines, we established an academic/industry partnership to create a streamlined workflow to overcome the barriers to access to care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Genome Medical offers multilingual genetic counseling. A pilot program evaluated patients at risk for hereditary genitourinary syndromes. Between January 1, 2020 and January 07, 2022, all patients in need of germline testing were offered hybrid in-clinic telehealth pre-test counseling and when indicated, genetic testing. Post-test counseling was offered based on results and encouraged if positive. Testing results, patient satisfaction, and costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 146 of 182 (80.0%) patients agreed to participate, with 130 (89.0%) completing pre-test counseling. Median age was 65 (range 22-95), with 91% being male and approximately 60% having prostate cancer. The median time from referral to pre-test counseling was 11 days (IQR 7-20). After assessment, testing was recommended for 127 (97.7%) of which 123 (96.8%) completed testing. The median time from testing to result release was 15 days (IQR 10-20.8). Forty (32.5%) had post-test counseling. Reimbursement by private insurers increased annually from $17.2 to $52.4. Patient satisfaction was high with a mean Genetic Counselor Satisfaction Scale of 27.9 out of 30.

CONCLUSION

Our program provided high patient satisfaction, rapid access to genetic counseling, prompt genetic testing, timely release of results, and was cost-effective compared to traditional models. This approach is scalable across community and academic settings and across cancer types.

Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: a review of barriers and breakthroughs

Germline genetic sequencing is now at the forefront of cancer treatment and preventative medicine. Cascade genetic testing, or the testing of at-risk relatives, is extremely promising as it offers genetic testing and potentially life-saving risk-reduction strategies to a population exponentially enriched for the risk of carrying a cancer-associated pathogenic variant. However, many relatives do not complete cascade testing due to barriers that span individual, relationship, healthcare community, and societal/policy domains. We have reviewed the published research on cascade testing. Our aim is to evaluate barriers to cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and explore strategies to mitigate these barriers, with the goal of promoting increased uptake of cascade genetic testing.

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.

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.

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.

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.