Healthcare utilization and behavior changes following workplace genetic testing at a large U.S. healthcare system.

PURPOSE: This study explored employee health behavior changes and healthcare utilization following workplace genetic testing (wGT). Wellness program-associated wGT seeks to improve employee health, but related health implications are unknown. METHODS: Employees of a large U.S. healthcare system offering wGT (cancer, heart disease, and pharmacogenomics - PGx) were sent electronic surveys. Self-reported data from those who received test results were analyzed. Descriptive statistics characterized responses, while logistic regression analyses explored correlates of responses to wGT. RESULTS: 53.9% (n=418/776) of respondents (88.3% female, mean age = 44 years) reported receiving wGT results. 12.0% (n=48/399) received results indicating increased risk (IR) of cancer, 9.5% (n=38/398) had IR of heart disease, and 31.4% (n=125/398) received informative PGx results. IR results for cancer and/or heart disease (n=67) were associated with health behavior changes (aOR 3.23; 95% CI 1.75, 6.13; p<0.001) and healthcare utilization (aOR 8.60; 95% CI 4.43, 17.5; p<0.001). Informative PGx results (n=125) were associated with medication changes (PGx - informative: 15.2%; PGx - uninformative: 4.8%; p=0.002). CONCLUSION: This study explored employee responses to wGT, contributing to the understanding of the ethical and social implications of wGT. Receiving IR results from wGT may promote health behavior changes and healthcare utilization in employees.

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

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is important for prostate cancer (PCA) management, clinical trial eligibility, and hereditary cancer risk. However, GT is underutilized and there is a shortage of genetic counselors. To address these gaps, a patient-driven, pretest genetic education webtool was designed and studied compared with traditional genetic counseling (GC) to inform strategies for expanding access to genetic services. METHODS: Technology-enhanced acceleration of germline evaluation for therapy (TARGET) was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04447703) comparing a nine-module patient-driven genetic education webtool versus pretest GC. Participants completed surveys measuring decisional conflict, satisfaction, and attitudes toward GT at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and after GT result disclosure. The primary end point was noninferiority in reducing decisional conflict between webtool and GC using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. Mixed-effects regression modeling was used to compare decisional conflict between groups. Participants opting for GT received a 51-gene panel, with results delivered to participants and their providers. RESULTS: The analytic data set includes primary outcome data from 315 participants (GC [n = 162] and webtool [n = 153]). Mean difference in decisional conflict score changes between groups was -0.04 (one-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 2.54; P = .01), suggesting the patient-driven webtool was noninferior to GC. Overall, 145 (89.5%) GC and 120 (78.4%) in the webtool arm underwent GT, with pathogenic variants in 15.8% (8.7% in PCA genes). Satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms; knowledge of cancer genetics was higher but attitudes toward GT were less favorable in the webtool arm. CONCLUSION: The results of the TARGET study support the use of patient-driven digital webtools for expanding access to pretest genetic education for PCA GT. Further studies to optimize patient experience and evaluate them in diverse patient populations are warranted.

Toward Informed Selection and Interpretation of Clinical Genomic Tests in Prostate Cancer.

Clinical genomic testing of patient germline, tumor tissue, or plasma cell-free DNA can enable a personalized approach to cancer management and treatment. In prostate cancer (PCa), broad genotyping tests are now widely used to identify germline and/or somatic alterations in BRCA2 and other DNA damage repair genes. Alterations in these genes can confer cancer sensitivity to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, are linked with poor prognosis, and can have potential hereditary cancer implications for family members. However, there is huge variability in genomic tests and reporting standards, meaning that for successful implementation of testing in clinical practice, end users must carefully select the most appropriate test for a given patient and critically interpret the results. In this white paper, we outline key pre- and post-test considerations for choosing a genomic test and evaluating reported variants, specifically for patients with advanced PCa. Test choice must be based on clinical context and disease state, availability and suitability of tumor tissue, and the genes and regions that are covered by the test. We describe strategies to recognize false positives or negatives in test results, including frameworks to assess low tumor fraction, subclonal alterations, clonal hematopoiesis, and pathogenic versus nonpathogenic variants. We assume that improved understanding among health care professionals and researchers of the nuances associated with genomic testing will ultimately lead to optimal patient care and clinical decision making.

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

BACKGROUND: Germline testing is important in prostate cancer and evaluation can be complex. METHODS: We instituted a monthly multi-disciplinary virtual genetics tumor board (7/2021-3/2022). Participants and panelists were surveyed on usefulness and acceptability. RESULTS: 101 participants attended a session, and 77 follow-up surveys were completed. Over 90% participants and 100% panelists endorsed usefulness of the case discussions and usability of the technology. The majority felt it provided new information they will use. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary genetics board was successfully developed to address complexity in prostate cancer genetics. The virtual platform may enhance dissemination of expertise where there are regional gaps.

Liver Transplantation in a Woman with Mahvash Disease.

Mahvash disease is an exceedingly rare genetic disorder of glucagon signaling characterized by hyperglucagonemia, hyperaminoacidemia, and pancreatic α-cell hyperplasia. Although there is no known definitive treatment, octreotide has been used to decrease systemic glucagon levels. We describe a woman who presented to our medical center after three episodes of small-volume hematemesis. She was found to have hyperglucagonemia and pancreatic hypertrophy with genetically confirmed Mahvash disease and also had evidence of portal hypertension (recurrent portosystemic encephalopathy and variceal hemorrhage) in the absence of cirrhosis. These findings established a diagnosis of portosinusoidal vascular disease, a presinusoidal type of portal hypertension previously known as noncirrhotic portal hypertension. Liver transplantation was followed by normalization of serum glucagon and ammonia levels, reversal of pancreatic hypertrophy, and resolution of recurrent encephalopathy and bleeding varices.

Attitudes, Perceptions, and Use of Cancer-based Genetic Testing Among Healthy U.S. Adults and Those With Prostate or Breast/Ovarian Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Differences in public awareness and uptake of genetic testing among patients with inheritable cancers are not well understood. The purpose of this study is to examine self-reported rates of undergoing cancer-specific genetic testing in patients with breast/ovarian cancer vs prostate cancer from a nationally representative sample of U.S. PATIENTS: Secondary objectives include examining sources of genetic testing information and perceptions of genetic testing for both patient populations as well as the general public. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 5, Cycle 4 were used to generate nationally representative estimates of adults living in the U.S. Our exposure of interest was patient reported cancer history categorized as having: (1) either breast or ovarian cancer, (2) prostate cancer, or (3) no history of cancer. χ2 testing was used to compare differences among categorical variables. RESULTS: In a nationally representative sample of 231.7 million adults, 3.7 million adults reported a history of breast/ovarian cancer while 1.5 million patients reported a history of prostate cancer; 52.3% of patients with breast/ovarian cancer vs 1.0% with prostate cancer reported undergoing cancer-specific genetic testing (P = .001). Patients with prostate cancer were less aware of cancer-specific genetic testing than either individuals with breast/ovarian cancer or adults without a cancer history (19.7% vs 64.7% vs 35.8%, respectively; P = .003). Health care professionals were the most common source of genetic testing information for patients with breast/ovarian cancer whereas the Internet was the most common source for patients with prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a lack of awareness and limited utilization of genetic testing among patients with prostate cancer relative to breast/ovarian cancer. Patients with prostate cancer cite the Internet and social media as sources of information, which may be an avenue for more optimal dissemination of evidence-based information.

A generalizable machine learning framework for classifying DNA repair defects using ctDNA exomes.

Specific classes of DNA damage repair (DDR) defect can drive sensitivity to emerging therapies for metastatic prostate cancer. However, biomarker approaches based on DDR gene sequencing do not accurately predict DDR deficiency or treatment benefit. Somatic alteration signatures may identify DDR deficiency but historically require whole-genome sequencing of tumour tissue. We assembled whole-exome sequencing data for 155 high ctDNA fraction plasma cell-free DNA and matched leukocyte DNA samples from patients with metastatic prostate or bladder cancer. Labels for DDR gene alterations were established using deep targeted sequencing. Per sample mutation and copy number features were used to train XGBoost ensemble models. Naive somatic features and trinucleotide signatures were associated with specific DDR gene alterations but insufficient to resolve each class. Conversely, XGBoost-derived models showed strong performance including an area under the curve of 0.99, 0.99 and 1.00 for identifying BRCA2, CDK12, and mismatch repair deficiency in metastatic prostate cancer. Our machine learning approach re-classified several samples exhibiting genomic features inconsistent with original labels, identified a metastatic bladder cancer sample with a homozygous BRCA2 copy loss, and outperformed an existing exome-based classifier for BRCA2 deficiency. We present DARC Sign (DnA Repair Classification SIGNatures); a public machine learning tool leveraging clinically-practical liquid biopsy specimens for simultaneously identifying multiple types of metastatic prostate cancer DDR deficiencies. We posit that it will be useful for understanding differential responses to DDR-directed therapies in ongoing clinical trials and may ultimately enable prospective identification of prostate cancers with phenotypic evidence of DDR deficiency.

Usefulness of podcasts to provide public education on prostate cancer genetics.

BACKGROUND: Podcasts, or episodic digital audio recordings, represent a novel way to reach large audiences for public education. Genetic evaluation has important implications for prostate cancer (PCa) care but is underutilized. We created a series of five podcasts about PCa genetics and tested their usefulness in raising awareness and providing education to lay audiences. METHODS: We recruited 157 men and women from the general public and 100 patients with PCa from across the U.S., who listened to a podcast and completed an online survey. The primary outcome was the perceived usefulness of the podcast (score ≥5 on a published 7-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were relevance to informational needs, satisfaction and ease of use, as well as genetic knowledge and attitudes toward genetic testing after listening to the podcasts. RESULTS: The podcasts were associated with high mean scores for perceived usefulness (5.6/7), relevance to informational needs (5.6/7), satisfaction (5.8/7), and ease of use (5.9/7). After listening to the podcasts, 80-100% correctly answered most key knowledge questions about PCa genetics, and 85% had a positive attitude toward genetic testing. On multivariable analysis, the perceived usefulness of the podcasts was higher among Black/Hispanic adults (p = 0.05) and those with a family history of PCa (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A podcast series on PCa genetics was perceived as useful and associated with high rates of knowledge for patients with PCa and the general public. Podcasts represent a promising new educational tool to raise awareness about PCa genetic evaluation, particularly for high-risk groups.

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.

Insight into how patients with prostate cancer interpret and communicate genetic test results: implications for families.

Patients with prostate cancer (PCA) are increasingly being offered germline genetic testing for precision therapy, precision management, and clinical trial options. Genetic test results also have implications for family members. How men with PCA perceive their genetic test results and decide whether to share recommendations with family members is not well studied. We interviewed 12 patients who had PCA and genetic testing and received a positive variant/likely positive variant (PV/LPV) (n = 7) or a variant of unknown significance (VUS) (n = 5) result. The semi-structured interview had five sections: genetic testing experience, impact, and interpretation of the test result, deciding whether to communicate test results to family members, impact of communication on family members, and suggestions for genetic counselors and other PCA patients. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was completed using NVivo software v10. Receipt of PV/LPV or VUS genetic test results was not as emotional as receiving the diagnosis of PCA itself. Seven of the 12 participants chose to share their test results with all relevant family members, 4 chose to share with select family members, and one chose to not disclose to any family members. The majority of family members who were aware of participants' genetic results have not undergone cascade genetic testing or sought cancer screening. Participants with PCA and positive or VUS genetic test results typically share their results with at least immediate family members, but some communication barriers exist. Understanding the best way to provide actionable and relevant information about genetic testing to family members remains a challenge.

Technology-enhanced AcceleRation of Germline Evaluation for Therapy (TARGET): A randomized controlled trial of a pretest patient-driven webtool vs. genetic counseling for prostate cancer germline testing.

BACKGROUND: Germline testing has an increasingly important role in prostate cancer care. However, a relative shortage of genetic counselors necessitates alternate strategies for delivery of pre-test education for germline testing. This study, funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, seeks to address the need for novel methods of delivery of pre-test germline education beyond traditional germline counseling to facilitate informed patient decision-making for germline testing. METHODS: This is a two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a target enrollment of 173 participants with prostate cancer per study arm (total anticipated n = 346). Patients who meet criteria for germline testing based on tumor features, family history or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry are being recruited from 5 US sites including academic, private practice and Veterans healthcare settings. Consenting participants are randomized to the interactive pretest webtool or germline counseling with assessment of key patient-reported outcomes involved in informed decision-making for germline testing. RESULTS: Participants complete surveys at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and following disclosure of germline results. The primary outcome of the study is decisional conflict for germline testing. Secondary outcomes include genetic knowledge, satisfaction, uptake of germline testing, and understanding of results. CONCLUSION: Our hypothesis is that the web-based genetic education tool is non-inferior to traditional genetic counseling regarding key patient-reported outcomes involved in informed decision-making for germline testing. If proven, the results would support deploying the webtool across various practice settings to facilitate pre-test genetic education for individuals with prostate cancer and developing collaborative care strategies with genetic counseling. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT04447703.

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

PURPOSE: Guidelines for prostate cancer (PCA) germline testing (GT) have expanded, with impact on clinical management and hereditary cancer assessment. African American (AA) men have lower engagement in GT, with concern for widening disparities in genetically informed care. We evaluated the germline spectrum in a cohort of men with PCA enriched for AA men who underwent GT to inform tailored genetic evaluation strategies. METHODS: Participants included AA and White men with PCA tested with a 14-gene PCA panel: ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, EPCAM, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PALB2, PMS2, RAD51D, and TP53. Germline analysis was performed per standard clinical testing and variant classification protocols. Data were compared with Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or two sample t-tests, as appropriate. Multivariable analysis was conducted using Akaike's Information Criterion. The significance level was set a priori at .05. RESULTS: The data set included 427 men all tested using the 14-gene PCA panel: AA (n = 237, 56%) and White (n = 190, 44%). Overall, the pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant rate was 8.2%, with AA men having lower rates of P/LP variants then White men (5.91% v 11.05%, respectively; P = .05). Borderline associations with P/LP variant status were observed by race (AA v White; odds ratio = 0.51; P = .07) and age (> 50 v ≤ 50 years; odds ratio = 0.48; P = .06). The P/LP spectrum was narrower in AA men (BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and BRCA1) than White men (BRCA2, ATM, HOXB13, CHEK2, TP53, and NBN). A significant difference was noted in rates of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) between AA men and White men overall (25.32% v 16.32%; P = .02) and for carrying multiple VUSs (5.1% v 0.53%, P = .008). CONCLUSION: Germline evaluation in a cohort enriched for AA men highlights the narrower spectrum of germline contribution to PCA with significantly higher rates of multiple VUSs in DNA repair genes. These results underscore the imperative to engage AA men in GT, the need for larger panel testing in AA men, and the necessity to incorporate novel genomic technologies to clarify VUS to discern the germline contribution to PCA. Furthermore, tailored genetic counseling for AA men is important to ensure understanding of VUS and promote equitable genetics care delivery.

Germline testing and genetic counselling in prostate cancer.

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCA) germline testing (GT) is now standard-of-care for men with advanced PCA. Thousands of men may consider GT due to clinical and family history (FH) features. Identifying and consenting men for GT can be complex. Here we identified barriers and facilitators of GT across a spectrum of providers which informed the development of Helix - an educational and clinical/FH collection tool to facilitate GT in practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-question survey assessing knowledge of genetics PCA risk and FH was administered December 2017 to March 2018 in the Philadelphia area and at the Mid-Atlantic AUA meeting (March 2018). Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and urologists across practice settings from March-October 2020 as part of a larger study based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases framework. Helix was then developed followed by user testing. RESULTS: Fifty-six providers (50% urologists) responded to the survey. Multiple FH and genetic knowledge gaps were identified: only 66% collected maternal FH and 43% correctly identified BRCA2 and association to aggressive PCA. Genetic counseling gaps included low rates of discussing genetic discrimination laws (45%). Provider interviews (n = 14) identified barriers to FH intake including access to details and time needed. In user testing (n = 10), providers found Helix helpful for FH collection. All providers found Helix easy to use, suggesting expanded clinical use. CONCLUSION: Helix addressed multiple GT knowledge and practice gaps across a spectrum of providers. This tool will become publicly available soon to facilitate PCA GT in clinical practice.

Predictors of Population Awareness of Cancer Genetic Tests: Implications for Enhancing Equity in Engaging in Cancer Prevention and Precision Medicine.

Racial and ethnic disparities in genetic awareness (GA) can diminish the impact of personalized cancer treatment and risk assessment. We assessed factors predictive of GA in a diverse population-based sample to inform awareness strategies and reduce disparities in genetic testing. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from July 2019 to August 2019, with the survey e-mailed to 7,575 adult residents in southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Constructs from National Cancer Institute Health Information and National Trends Survey assessed cancer attitudes or beliefs, health literacy, and numeracy. Characteristics were summarized with mean ± standard deviation for numeric variables and frequency counts and percentages for categorical variables. Comparison of factors by race or ethnicity (non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black) and sex was conducted by t-tests, chi-square, or Fisher's exact tests. Multivariate logistic regression models were conducted to identify factors independently predictive of GA. RESULTS: Of 1,557 respondents, data from 940 respondents (the mean age was 45 ± 16.2 years, 35.5% males, and 23% non-Hispanic Blacks) were analyzed. Factors associated with higher GA included female gender (P < .001), non-Hispanic White (P < .001), college education (P < .001), middle-higher income (P < .001), stronger belief in genetic basis of cancer (P < .001), lower cancer fatalism (P = .004), motivation for cancer information (P < .001), and higher numeracy (P = .002). On multivariate analysis, college education (odds ratio [OR] 1.79; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.63), higher motivation for cancer information (OR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.09), stronger belief in genetics of cancer (OR 2.21; 95% CI, 1.48 to 3.30), and higher medical literacy (OR 2.21; 95% CI, 1.34 to 3.65) predicted greater GA. CONCLUSION: This population-based study conducted in the precision medicine era identified novel modifiable factors, importantly perceptions of cancer genetics and medical literacy, as predictive of GA, which informs strategies to promote equitable engagement in genetically based cancer care.

Adopting Consensus Terms for Testing in Precision Medicine.

Despite the well-understood benefits of biomarker and genetic testing in precision medicine, uptake remains low, particularly for patients with low socioeconomic status and minority ethnic backgrounds. Patients report having limited familiarity with testing terminology and may not be able to accurately explain testing's role in treatment decisions. Patient confusion and lack of understanding is exacerbated by a multiplicity of overlapping terms used in communicating about testing. A LUNGevity Foundation-led working group composed of five professional societies, 23 patient advocacy groups, and 19 industry members assessed and recommended specific terms for communicating with patients on testing for tumor characteristics and germline mutations. METHODS: Members completed a precision oncology testing framework analysis (biomarkers, germline variants, testing modalities, biospecimen, and commonly used testing terms) for nine solid tumors and blood cancers. The evaluation was segmented into terms that distinguish between somatic and germline testing. Additional data were captured in a comprehensive survey (1,650 respondents) led by FORCE (Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered) on patient preferences on germline testing terms. RESULTS: Thirty-three terms were noted in patient education related to biomarker, genetic, and genomic testing. Biomarker testing was selected as the preferred term for testing for somatic (acquired) alterations and other biomarkers. Genetic testing for an inherited mutation and genetic testing for inherited cancer risk were selected as the preferred terms for testing for germline variants. CONCLUSION: Democratizing comprehension about precision oncology testing through intentional use of plain language and common umbrella terminology by oncology health care providers and others in the oncology ecosystem may help improve understanding and communication, and facilitate shared decision making about the role of appropriate testing in treatment decisions and other aspects of oncology care.