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.

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.

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.

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

PURPOSE: Germline testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is now central to treatment and hereditary cancer assessment. With rising demand for and shortage of genetic counseling (GC), tools to deliver pretest informed consent across practice settings are needed to improve access to GT and precision care. Here, we report on Evaluation and Management for Prostate Oncology, Wellness, and Risk (EMPOWER), a patient-choice study for pretest video-based genetic education (VBGE) versus GC to inform urgent practice needs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with PCA or at risk for PCA (family history of PCA) were eligible and could choose pretest VBGE or GC. Outcomes included decisional conflict for GT, change in genetics knowledge, satisfaction, and intention to share results with family and/or providers. Descriptive statistics summarized results with counts and percentages for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. Data were compared with Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Wilcoxon two-sample tests. Mean change in genetics knowledge was compared with t tests. The significance level was set a priori at .05. RESULTS: Data on the first 127 participants were analyzed. Characteristics were White (85.8%), bachelor's degree (66.9%), and PCA diagnosis (90.6%). The majority chose VBGE (71%) versus GC (29%; P < .001). No differences were observed in decisional conflict for GT or satisfaction. Cancer genetics knowledge improved in both groups without significant difference (+0.9 VBGE, +1.8 GC, P = .056). Men who chose VBGE had higher intention to share GT results (96.4% VBGE v 86.4% GC, P = .02). Both groups had high rates of GT uptake (VBGE 94.4%, GC 92%). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of men opted for pretest VBGE, with comparable patient-reported outcomes and uptake of GT. The results support the use of pretest video to address the critical GC shortage in the precision era.

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

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

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

PURPOSE: Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS: A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS: Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing-initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing-was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION: This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

Hospital-specific antibiograms and antibiotic prophylaxis for prostate biopsies: a reexamination of AUA recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: To assess whether standard American Urological Association (AUA) and other recommendations for prostate biopsy prophylaxis provide sufficient coverage of common urinary organisms responsible for post biopsy infections by comparing local antibiograms in Philadelphia-area hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: De-identified culture results derived from antibiograms were collected from six academic and community hospitals in the Philadelphia region. Analysis specifically focused on four major bacterial causes of urinary tract infection following prostate biopsy (Escherichia coli (E. coli), Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis and Enterococcus faecalis) along with commonly recommended antibiotics including fluoroquinolones (FQ's), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, ceftriaxone, and gentamicin. RESULTS: Bacterial sensitivities to each antibiotic across institutions showed variation in E.coli sensitivities to FQs (p < 0.001), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (p < 0.001), ceftriaxone (p < 0.001) and gentamicin (p < 0.001). Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus mirabilis exhibited similar variations. Sensitivity comparisons for Enterococcus faecalis was unable to be performed due to absent or incomplete data across institutions. CONCLUSION: Institutional antibiograms vary within our regional hospitals. Standardized recommendations for commonly used antibiotic prophylaxis such as fluoroquinolones may be inadequate for peri-procedural prostate biopsy prophylaxis based on local resistance patterns. Valuable information about the potential effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for prostate biopsies can be found in local institutional antibiograms, and should be consulted when considering antibiotic prophylaxis for prostate biopsy procedures.