Satisfaction With Clinician-Led Germline Genetic Counseling in Patients With Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Indications for germline testing in prostate cancer patients have expanded substantially over the past decade. With a near-universal shortage of genetic counselors and increasing demand, increased access to genetic counseling is crucial. We sought to prospectively implement and assess a clinician-led approach to genetic counseling and testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic or localized prostate cancer meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network® criteria for consideration of genetic testing were offered pre-test genetic counseling by their urologist or medical oncologist as part of their routine clinical care and concurrently approached for enrollment in the Germline Genetics in Prostate Cancer Study. Consented patients filled out a post-counseling survey using validated instruments to assess the quality of counseling. For patients who elected to undergo genetic testing, an additional validated questionnaire was completed following disclosure of results. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing testing, with a target >60% of patients. The secondary outcome was overall satisfaction with counseling, with a target >85% of patients. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients enrolled, and 203 patients elected to undergo genetic testing. Post-counseling surveys were obtained from 265 patients, and post-genetic testing surveys were obtained from 132 patients. Patient satisfaction was high, with 98% of patients reporting being satisfied with the overall quality of pre-test counseling, and 74% of patients elected to undergo genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the effectiveness of clinician-led genetic counseling in prostate cancer. With clinician training, this approach can be utilized to expand access to appropriate germline genetic testing.

Bringing Prostate Cancer Germline Genetics into Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Until recently the role of germline genetics in prostate cancer care was not well defined. While important questions remain, we reviewed the current understanding of germline genetic alterations related to prostate cancer. We discuss the clinical implications for genetic counseling, genetic testing, early detection and treatment in men with these mutations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed® for English language articles published since 2001 with the key words "germline mutations," "BRCA," "family history" or "prostate cancer genetics." We also used relevant data from websites, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Comprehensive Cancer Network®, Bureau of Labor Statistics and National Society of Genetic Counselors websites. RESULTS: A number of germline mutations in DNA damage repair genes ( BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM and PALB2) and in DNA mismatch repair genes ( MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2) can drive the development of prostate cancer. Careful genetic counseling coupled with multipanel gene testing can help identify men with these mutations and provide enhanced understanding of the disease risk. Cascade testing of family members can then have an impact extending well beyond the index patient. In men with a pathogenic germline mutation the optimal early detection paradigm is not well defined. Data from the IMPACT study ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00261456) that the cancer detection rate is substantially elevated in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers at prostate specific antigen greater than 3 ng/ml has helped establish the importance of close prostate specific antigen screening in these men. Additionally, BRCA2 and likely other DNA damage repair mutations are associated with aggressive disease, although it is not yet clear how this impacts localized disease management. However, there is strong evidence that patients with metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer who have DNA damage repair defects respond positively to targeting PARP enzymes. In many cancers there is also evidence that patients with an increased tumor mutational burden, such as in Lynch syndrome, are particularly sensitive to immune checkpoint inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Emerging evidence supports the implementation of germline genetic counseling and testing as a key component of prostate cancer management. Further research is needed to elucidate the clinical significance of lesser known germline mutations and develop optimal screening, early detection and treatment paradigms in this patient population.

DICER1 Mutations in the Era of Expanding Integrative Clinical Sequencing in Pediatric Oncology.

PURPOSE: DICER1 syndrome is a recently described inherited cancer predisposition syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in DICER1. With the recent increase in integrative clinical sequencing for pediatric patients with cancer, our understanding of the DICER1 syndrome continues to evolve, as new and rare pathogenic variants are reported. As the frequency of integrative clinical sequencing increases, discussions regarding challenges encountered in the interpretation of sequencing results are essential to continue to advance the field of cancer predisposition. The purpose of this work was to identify patients with somatic and/or germline DICER1 variants in our patient population and to discuss sequencing interpretation and the clinical recommendations that result from the integrative clinical sequencing results. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in the PEDS-MIONCOSEQ study. This integrative clinical sequencing study includes paired tumor/normal whole-exome sequencing and tumor transcriptome sequencing. Patients identified as having DICER1 variants were included. RESULTS: We report a DICER1 variant of unknown clinical significance in a patient with a highly unusual response to therapy. Two patients had diagnoses clarified once the integrative clinical sequencing revealing a DICER1 variant was available. We also discovered a patient with low-level DICER1 mosaicism and the challenges encountered in the sequencing interpretation for this patient. In addition to the sequencing data and result interpretation, this work also highlights testing and screening recommendations made to patients with DICER1 variants and their families on the basis of these results. CONCLUSION: This work serves to extend the DICER1 phenotype and advance the utility of clinical integrative sequencing in the fields of pediatric oncology and cancer genetic predisposition.