RESUMO

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.

Assuntos

RESUMO

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.

Assuntos

RESUMO

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.

Assuntos

RESUMO

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.

Assuntos

Assuntos