Men with metastatic prostate cancer carrying a pathogenic germline variant in breast cancer genes: disclosure of genetic test results to relatives.

Some patients with metastatic prostate cancer carry a pathogenic germline variant (PV) in a gene, that is mainly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in women. If they test positive for such a PV, prostate cancer patients are encouraged to disclose the genetic test result to relatives who are at risk in case the carrier status changes the relatives' medical care. Our study aimed to investigate how men who learned they carry a PV in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2 or ATM disclosed their carrier status to at-risk relatives and to assess the possible psychological burden for the carrier and their perception of the burden for relatives. In total, 23 men with metastatic prostate cancer carrying a PV completed the IRI questionnaire about family communication; 14 also participated in a semi-structured interview. Patients felt highly confident in discussing the genetic test result with relatives. The diagnosis of prostate cancer was experienced as a burden, whereas being informed about genetic testing results did in most cases not add to this burden. Two patients encountered negative experiences with family communication, as they considered the genetic test result to be more urgent than their relatives. This mixed-methods study shows that metastatic prostate cancer patients with a PV in genes mainly associated with increased risk of breast cancer feel well-equipped to communicate about this predisposition in their families. Carriers felt motivated to disclose their genetic test result to relatives. Most of them indicated that the disclosure was not experienced as a psychological burden.

Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting.

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined. Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa. Design setting and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline. Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa. Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

Mainstream germline genetic testing in men with metastatic prostate cancer: design and protocol for a multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: In international guidelines, germline genetic testing is recommended for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Before undergoing germline genetic testing, these patients should receive pre-test counseling. In the standard genetic care pathway, pre-test counseling is provided by a healthcare professional of a genetics department. Because the number of patients with metastatic prostate cancer is large, the capacity in the genetics departments might be insufficient. Therefore, we aim to implement so-called mainstream genetic testing in the Netherlands for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, non-genetic healthcare professionals discuss and order germline genetic testing. In our DISCOVER study, we will assess the experiences among patients and non-genetic healthcare professionals with this new pathway. METHODS: A multicenter prospective observational cohort study will be conducted in 15 hospitals, in different regions of the Netherlands. We developed an online training module on genetics in prostate cancer and the counseling of patients. After completion of this module, non-genetic healthcare professionals will provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic testing in metastatic prostate cancer patients. Both non-genetic healthcare professionals and patients receive three questionnaires. We will determine the experience with mainstream genetic testing, based on satisfaction and acceptability. Patients with a pathogenic germline variant will also be interviewed. We will determine the efficacy of the mainstreaming pathway, based on time investment for non-genetic healthcare professionals and the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants. DISCUSSION: This study is intended to be one of the largest studies on mainstream genetic testing in prostate cancer. The results of this study can improve the mainstream genetic testing pathway in patients with prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) under number NL9617.

Multicentric validation of diagnostic tests based on BC-116 and BC-106 urine peptide biomarkers for bladder cancer in two prospective cohorts of patients.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive urine-based biomarkers can potentially improve current diagnostic and monitoring protocols for bladder cancer (BC). Here we assess the performance of earlier published biomarker panels for BC detection (BC-116) and monitoring of recurrence (BC-106) in combination with cytology, in two prospectively collected patient cohorts. METHODS: Of the 602 patients screened for BC, 551 were found eligible. For the primary setting, 73 patients diagnosed with primary BC (n = 27) and benign urological disorders, including patients with macroscopic haematuria, cystitis and/or nephrolithiasis (n = 46) were included. In total, 478 patients under surveillance were additionally considered (83 BC recurrences; 395 negative for recurrence). Urine samples were analysed with capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry. The biomarker score was estimated via support vector machine-based software. RESULTS: Validation of BC-116 biomarker panel resulted in 89% sensitivity and 67% specificity (AUCBC-116 = 0.82). A diagnostic score based on cytology and BC-116 resulted in good (AUCNom116 = 0.85) but not significantly better performance (P = 0.5672). A diagnostic score including BC-106 and cytology was evaluated (AUCNom106 = 0.82), significantly outperforming both cytology (AUCcyt = 0.72; P = 0.0022) and BC-106 (AUCBC-106 = 0.67; P = 0.0012). CONCLUSIONS: BC-116 biomarker panel is a useful test for detecting primary BC. BC-106 classifier integrated with cytology showing >95% negative predictive value, might be useful for decreasing the number of cystoscopies during surveillance.

The Feasibility of Implementing Mainstream Germline Genetic Testing in Routine Cancer Care-A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Non-genetic healthcare professionals can provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic tests themselves, which is called mainstream genetic testing. In this systematic review, we determined whether mainstream genetic testing was feasible in daily practice while maintaining quality of genetic care. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for articles describing mainstream genetic testing initiatives in cancer care. RESULTS: Seventeen articles, reporting on 15 studies, met the inclusion criteria. Non-genetic healthcare professionals concluded that mainstream genetic testing was possible within the timeframe of a routine consultation. In 14 studies, non-genetic healthcare professionals completed some form of training about genetics. When referral was coordinated by a genetics team, the majority of patients carrying a pathogenic variant were seen for post-test counseling by genetic healthcare professionals. The number of days between cancer diagnosis and test result disclosure was always lower in the mainstream genetic testing pathway than in the standard genetic testing pathway (e.g., pre-test counseling at genetics department). CONCLUSIONS: Mainstream genetic testing seems feasible in daily practice with no insurmountable barriers. A structured pathway with a training procedure is desirable, as well as a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments.

Survival after radical cystectomy: Progressive versus De novo muscle invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite treatment with radical cystectomy, patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) have a poor survival. It has been reported that survival is worse in NMIBC patients who progressed to MIBC in comparison to patients with de novo MIBC. The objective of this study was to compare survival of progressive versus de novo MIBC. Secondary objective was to explain this difference in survival by clinicopathological factors. METHODS: 431 patients with MIBC who underwent radical cystectomy between 1998 and 2016 in the Radboudumc, Nijmegen, were retrospectively analyzed. 313 patients were identified with de novo MIBC and 118 with progressive MIBC. RESULTS: 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS) of patients with progressive MIBC was 37% and 20%, respectively. Patients with de novo MIBC had significantly better survival, with a 5- and 10-year OS of 49% and 39%, respectively. Patients with progressive MIBC were more frequently diagnosed with concomitant carcinoma in situ and positive surgical margins in bladder, ureters or urethra. In multivariable analysis that adjusted for these factors, progressive MIBC was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.40 (0.99 - 1.98). Kaplan-Meier survival curves show a detrimental effect of progressive MIBC in patients with pT2 versus pT3-4 tumors and in patients with negative versus positive surgical margins. In multivariable analysis, this effect modification disappeared. CONCLUSIONS: Progressive MIBC is associated with poorer survival than de novo MIBC. Because most patients with progressive MIBC had a history of high risk NMIBC, considering radical cystectomy is most important in the highest risk NMIBC.