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.

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.

Health care utilization and behavior changes after workplace genetic testing at a large US health care system.

PURPOSE: This study explored employee health behavior changes and health care utilization after workplace genetic testing (wGT). Wellness-program-associated wGT seeks to improve employee health, but the related health implications are unknown. METHODS: Employees of a large US health care 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, whereas 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 (adjusted odds ratio: 3.23; 95% CI 1.75, 6.13; P < .001) and health care utilization (adjusted odds ratio: 8.60; 95% CI 4.43, 17.5; P < .001). Informative PGx results (n = 125) were associated with medication changes (PGx-informative: 15.2%; PGx-uninformative: 4.8%; P = .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 health care utilization in employees.

Barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling and germline testing have an increasingly important role for patients with prostate cancer (PCa); however, recent data suggests they are underutilized. Our objective was to perform a qualitative study of the barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation among physicians who manage PCa. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and urologists from different U.S. practice settings until thematic saturation was achieved at n = 14. The interview guide was based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases Framework to identify key determinants of practice. Interview transcripts were independently coded by ≥2 investigators using a constant comparative method. RESULTS: The decision to perform or refer for germline genetic evaluation is affected by factors at multiple levels. Although patient factors sometimes play a role, the dominant themes in the decision to conduct germline genetic evaluation were at the physician and organizational level. Physician knowledge, coordination of care, perceptions of the guidelines, and concerns about cost were most frequently discussed as the main factors affecting utilization of germline genetic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently numerous barriers to implementation of germline genetic evaluation for PCa. Efforts to expand physician education, to develop tools to enhance genetics in practice, and to facilitate coordination of care surrounding genetic evaluation are important to promote guideline-concordant care.

Physical activity assessment among men undergoing genetic counseling for inherited prostate cancer: a teachable moment for improved survivorship.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling (GC) presents an opportunity to address modifiable cancer risk factors, such as obesity, which is impacted by non-adherence to physical activity (PA) guidelines. Adherence to PA guidelines has not been assessed among men undergoing GC for prostate cancer (PCA). We conducted a targeted analysis of men undergoing PCA GC to assess adherence to PA recommendations. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, a total of 158 men from the Genetic Evaluation of Men (GEM) study at two academic cancer centers with a diagnosis or at risk for PCA completed a structured lifestyle survey, including questions about the number of days and intensity of PA over the past year. One-sample t tests assessed adherence of participants to PA recommendations. Chi-square analyses compared differences in PA adherence by PCA status, aggressiveness, family history, and body mass index. Logistic regression analyses identified predictors of PA adherence. RESULTS: High proportions of GEM participants were overweight (44.9%) or obese (38.0%, p = 0.002). Men with PCA engaged in less moderate (p = 0.019) and vigorous (p = 0.005) aerobic activity than men without PCA. Higher education was predictive of adherence to light (p = 0.008), moderate (p = 0.019), and vigorous (p = 0.002) intensity PA. Older age (p = 0.015) and higher education (p = 0.001) were predictive of adherence to strength-based recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: High proportions of men receiving PCA GC were overweight/obese and lacked adherence to PA recommendations. GC represents a teachable moment to address PA to reduce cancer risk and promote cancer survivorship.

Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Genetic Consensus Conference 2019 and implications for military medicine.

INTRODUCTION The objective of our review is to summarize the 2019 Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Genetic Consensus recommendations and discuss their implications to the US Military Health System. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: Our fighting force and retired service members will significantly benefit from the Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Genetic Consensus recommendations. Moreover, the experience of the equal access US Military Health System may help advancing genetic testing for cancer at national levels. CONCLUSIONS: Priorities recommended by the 2019 Consensus for more research on genetic predisposition to prostate cancer in racially diverse populations is a promising step. The US Military Health System has the ability of providing equal access to implement advanced germline testing for its racially diverse population.

Diet assessment among men undergoing genetic counseling and genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer: Exploring a teachable moment to support diet intervention.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is a rapidly growing, affording opportunity for healthy lifestyle promotion in men aligned with cancer survivorship and cancer prevention goals. We conducted a targeted dietary analysis of men undergoing GC/GT for PCA for adherence to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Pattern recommendations which align with preventing cancer and recurrences in the Genetic Evaluation of Men (GEM) study at two academic centers to inform future strategies for diet intervention. METHODS: Participants of GEM with PCA or at-risk for PCA completed a structured food frequency questionnaire indicating number of servings consumed per day or per week of fruits, vegetables, red meat, seafood, processed meat, and foods high in saturated fat. Adherence to the USDA recommendations was assessed for the total sample and by PCA status and aggressiveness, family history, and body mass index (BMI) through χ 2 contingency analyses. One-sample t tests were used to compare the dietary behaviors of men to USDA Recommendations. Levels of α were set a priori at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Of 239 males undergoing GC on the study, surveys were completed by 197 men (82.4%), and complete survey data was available on 113 men (47.3%). By the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention BMI classification, 82.3% of the cohort was overweight (45.1%) or obese (37.2%). GEM participants reported consuming less fruits (P = 0.015), less vegetables ( P < 0.001), less seafood ( P < 0.001), more processed meats ( P < 0.001), and more foods high in saturated fats ( P < 0.001) than recommended. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of men receiving GC/GT for PCA were overweight and/or obese with lack of adherence to national diet recommendations for cancer risk and recurrence, affording a teachable moment and supporting the systematic focus of introducing nutrition intervention during GC to promote survivorship.

Germline genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer in practice: Implications for genetic testing, precision therapy, and cascade testing.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing capability and guidelines are rapidly expanding to assess inherited prostate cancer (PCA). Clinical genetic data from multigene testing can provide insights into the germline pathogenic variant (PV) spectrum and correlates in men with PCA unselected for metastatic disease to optimize identification of men for genetic evaluation and management. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted of de-identified clinical genetic testing data from a large commercial genetic testing laboratory in the US. ICD-10 claims codes were used to identify men with PCA, along with family history data. Gleason score was abstracted from test request forms. Overall PV rate among men with PCA was estimated, along with PVs in DNA repair genes. Family history and Gleason score association to germline DNA repair PVs was assessed using Fisher's exact test with correction for false-discovery. RESULTS: As of August 2017, genetic results were available on 1328 men with PCA. Overall PV rate was 15.6%, with 10.9% of PV in DNA repair genes. PVs were most commonly identified in BRCA2 (4.5%), CHEK2 (2.2%), ATM (1.8%), and BRCA1 (1.1%). Breast cancer family history was significantly associated with germline DNA repair PVs (OR 1.89, [95%CI 1.33, 2.68], P = 0.003). Among men with Gleason score>= 6 (n = 706), Gleason> = 8 was significantly associated with DNA repair PVs (OR 1.85 [95%CI 1.22, 2.80], P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of men with PCA unselected for metastatic disease carry germline DNA repair PVs. Breast cancer family history and high Gleason score are important predictors to identify men with PCA who may carry germline DNA repair PVs. Our findings support current NCCN guidelines and have implications for genetic assessment, therapeutic management, and cascade testing for men with PCA and their families.

Genetic education and practice considerations of non-genetic providers.

Germline testing for inherited prostate cancer is revolutionizing prostate cancer treatment for advanced and metastatic disease and is beginning to inform management for early-stage disease as well as prostate cancer screening discussions. Increasingly, non-genetic providers are performing genetic testing in their practices, necessitating focused efforts to address genetic education and working knowledge of genetic testing for responsible delivery of testing to men with or at risk for prostate cancer.

Introduction to the 2019 Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Program: 'Implementation of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer'.

In 2017 the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center of Thomas Jefferson University held the first international consensus conference on the role of genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer risk. This article outlines the key elements of our 2017 consensus meeting and discusses the rationale and design of our follow up 2019 Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus titled the 'Implementation of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer.'

Understanding of multigene test results among males undergoing germline testing for inherited prostate cancer: Implications for genetic counseling.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is rising, with limited insights regarding genetic counseling (GC) needs of males. Genetic Evaluation of Men (GEM) is a prospective multigene testing study for inherited PCA. Men undergoing GC were surveyed on knowledge of cancer risk and genetics (CRG) and understanding of personal GT results to identify GC needs. METHODS: GEM participants with or high-risk for PCA were recruited. Pre-test GC was in-person, with video and handout, or via telehealth. Post-test disclosure was in-person, by phone, or via telehealth. Clinical and family history data were obtained from participant surveys and medical records. Participants completed measures of knowledge of CRG, literacy, and numeracy pre-test and post-test. Understanding of personal genetic results was assessed post-test. Factors associated with knowledge of CRG and understanding of personal genetic results were examined using multivariable linear regression or McNemar's test. RESULTS: Among 109 men who completed pre- and post-GT surveys, multivariable analysis revealed family history meeting hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) criteria was significantly predictive of higher baseline knowledge (P = 0.040). Of 101 men who responded definitively regarding understanding of results, 13 incorrectly reported their result (McNemar's P < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with discordance between reported and actual results included having a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) (P < 0.001) and undergoing GC via pre-test video and post-test phone disclosure (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: While meeting criteria for HCS was associated with higher knowledge of CRG, understanding of personal GT results was lacking among a subset of males with VUS. A more exploratory finding was lack of understanding of results among men who underwent GC utilizing video and phone. Studies optimizing GC strategies for males undergoing multigene testing for inherited PCA are warranted.

Decision Support and Shared Decision Making About Active Surveillance Versus Active Treatment Among Men Diagnosed with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: a Pilot Study.

This study aimed to explore the effects of a decision support intervention (DSI) and shared decision making (SDM) on knowledge, perceptions about treatment, and treatment choice among men diagnosed with localized low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). At a multidisciplinary clinic visit, 30 consenting men with localized low-risk PCa completed a baseline survey, had a nurse-mediated online DS session to clarify preference for active surveillance (AS) or active treatment (AT), and met with clinicians for SDM. Participants also completed a follow-up survey at 30 days. We assessed change in treatment knowledge, decisional conflict, and perceptions and identified predictors of AS. At follow-up, participants exhibited increased knowledge (p < 0.001), decreased decisional conflict (p < 0.001), and more favorable perceptions of AS (p = 0.001). Furthermore, 25 of the 30 participants (83 %) initiated AS. Increased family and clinician support predicted this choice (p < 0.001). DSI/SDM prepared patients to make an informed decision. Perceived support of the decision facilitated patient choice of AS.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Patients with Suspected Inherited Renal Cell Cancer: Application of the ACMG/NSGC Genetic Referral Guidelines to Patient Cohorts.

Patients with suspected hereditary renal cell cancer (RCC) are under-referred for genetic evaluation. Characterizing the prevalence and characteristics of suspected inherited RCC is a crucial step toward advancing personalized, genetically-based cancer risk management for patients and their families. To evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of suspected inherited RCC syndromes based on consensus criteria, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of patients with a diagnosis of RCC in SEER (2001-2011, n = 105,754) and in our institutional cancer registry (2004-2013, n = 998). Consensus criteria for referral of patients with RCC for genetic evaluation from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and National Society of Genetic Counselors (ACMG/NSGC) were applied to the two cohorts. The associations between meeting referral criteria with demographic characteristics were assessed with chi-square tests. Overall, 24.0 % of the SEER cohort and 33.7 % of our institutional cohort met ACMG/NSGC referral criteria for genetic counseling. While white patients more commonly met early onset clear cell RCC criteria, black patients met papillary RCC criteria at twice the rate of whites in both cohorts (p < 0.0001). As many as 1 in 5 individuals with RCC meet referral criteria for genetic evaluation based on newly emerging guidelines, with differences in pathology noted by race. Prospective genetic testing studies utilizing emerging referral guidelines should help to refine the genetic spectrum of inherited kidney cancer. This study supports efforts to increase awareness of referral of patients with RCC for genetic counseling particularly among urologic providers.

How I Do It: Genetic counseling and genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer has a substantial heritable component, which is often under-appreciated in the urologic community. Inherited prostate cancer which may account for up to 10% of cases has been associated with genetic mutations which are also linked with other hereditary cancer syndromes. Therefore, family history indicating inherited prostate cancer predisposition may extend beyond prostate cancer to include other cancers such as breast, ovarian and others. Genetic counseling and genetic testing guidelines for prostate cancer are slowly emerging, which emphasizes the need for urologists and other providers involved in the care of prostate cancer patients to consider referring appropriate prostate cancer patients for genetic counseling. Here we will highlight the key elements involved in prostate cancer risk assessment, current knowledge of genetic contribution to prostate cancer, and factors for urologists and other providers to consider when referring prostate cancer patients for genetic counseling.

Lessons Learned from Implementing a Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Program for Underserved High-Risk Men in the Community: the Prostate REACH Project.

Prostate cancer disproportionately affects Black men, who may also encounter barriers to participation in prostate cancer risk assessment. The Prostate Risk, Education and Assessment in the Community with Help (REACH) project was a community-based extension of a comprehensive prostate cancer risk assessment program at a comprehensive cancer center. The goals of the REACH project were the following: (1) establish a community prostate cancer risk assessment clinic, (2) conduct targeted recruitment, and (3) provide navigation services including follow-up for uninsured men. Key implementation steps included the following: (1) choosing a clinic site, (2) establishing patient access procedures, (3) establishing navigator services, (4) developing subsidy fund use guidelines, and (5) designing recruitment and promotion. Through community-based promotion, 64 men inquired about the program and 26 (41 %) participated. Of those screened, 46 % had abnormal results, and 2 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Here, we describe a unique demonstration project to implement a comprehensive prostate cancer risk assessment program in an underserved Black community and describe successes and challenges to inform future efforts to promote access to underserved men.

Interest in genomic SNP testing for prostate cancer risk: a pilot survey.

BACKGROUND: Advancements in genomic testing have led to the identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with prostate cancer. The clinical utility of SNP tests to evaluate prostate cancer risk is unclear. Studies have not examined predictors of interest in novel genomic SNP tests for prostate cancer risk in a diverse population. METHODS: Consecutive participants in the Fox Chase Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Program (PRAP) (n = 40) and unselected men from surgical urology clinics (n = 40) completed a one-time survey. Items examined interest in genomic SNP testing for prostate cancer risk, knowledge, impact of unsolicited findings, and psychosocial factors including health literacy. RESULTS: Knowledge of genomic SNP tests was low in both groups, but interest was higher among PRAP men (p < 0.001). The prospect of receiving unsolicited results about ancestral genomic markers increased interest in testing in both groups. Multivariable modeling identified several predictors of higher interest in a genomic SNP test including higher perceived risk (p = 0.025), indicating zero reasons for not wanting testing (vs ≥1 reason) (p = 0.013), and higher health literacy (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of genomic SNP testing was low in this sample, but higher among high-risk men. High-risk status may increase interest in novel genomic tests, while low literacy may lessen interest.

Validation of association of genetic variants at 10q with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in men at high risk for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To validate six previously identified markers among men at increased risk of prostate cancer (African-American men and those with a family history of prostate cancer) enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Program (PRAP), a prostate cancer screening study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria for PRAP include age 35-69 years with a family history of prostate cancer, African-American ethnicity regardless of family history, and known BRCA gene mutations. The genome-wide association study markers assessed included rs2736098 (5p15.33), rs10993994 (10q11), rs10788160 (10q26), rs11067228 (12q24), rs4430796 (17q12) and rs17632542 (19q13.33). Genotyping methods included either the Taqman(®) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping assay (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) or pyrosequencing. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between individual markers and log-transformed baseline PSA levels, while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 707 participants (37% Caucasian, 63% African-American) with clinical and genotype data were included in the analysis. Rs10788160 (10q26) was strongly associated with PSA levels among Caucasian participants in the high-risk group (P < 0.01), with a 33.2% increase in PSA level with each A-allele carried. Furthermore, rs10993994 (10q11) was found to be associated with PSA level (P = 0.03) in Caucasian men in the high-risk group, with a 15% increase in PSA level with each T-allele carried. A PSA adjustment model based on allele carrier status at rs10788160 and rs10993994 was proposed, specific to high-risk Caucasian men. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation at 10q may be particularly important in personalizing the interpretation of PSA level for Caucasian men in the high-risk group. Such information may have clinical relevance in shared decision-making and individualized prostate cancer screening strategies for Caucasian men in the high-risk group, although further study is warranted.

Gene panel testing for inherited cancer risk.

Next-generation sequencing technologies have ushered in the capability to assess multiple genes in parallel for genetic alterations that may contribute to inherited risk for cancers in families. Thus, gene panel testing is now an option in the setting of genetic counseling and testing for cancer risk. This article describes the many gene panel testing options clinically available to assess inherited cancer susceptibility, the potential advantages and challenges associated with various types of panels, clinical scenarios in which gene panels may be particularly useful in cancer risk assessment, and testing and counseling considerations. Given the potential issues for patients and their families, gene panel testing for inherited cancer risk is recommended to be offered in conjunction or consultation with an experienced cancer genetic specialist, such as a certified genetic counselor or geneticist, as an integral part of the testing process.