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.

Initial Findings from a High Genetic Risk Prostate Cancer Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To improve prostate cancer screening for high-risk men, we developed an early detection clinic for patients at high genetic risk of developing prostate cancer. Despite the rapidly growing understanding of germline variants in driving aggressive prostate cancer and the increased availability of genetic testing, there is little evidence surrounding how best to screen these men. METHODS: We are reporting on the first 45 patients enrolled, men between the ages of 35-75, primarily with known pathogenic germline variants in prostate cancer susceptibility genes. Screening consists of an intake lifestyle survey, PSA, DRE, and SelectMDx urine assay. A biopsy was recommended for any of the following indications: 1) abnormal DRE, 2) PSA above threshold, or 3) SelectMDx above threshold. The primary outcomes were number needed to screen, and number needed to biopsy to diagnose a patient with prostate cancer. RESULTS: Patients enrolled in the clinic included those with BRCA1 (n=7), BRCA2 (n=16), Lynch Syndrome (n=6), and CHEK2 (n = 4) known pathogenic germline variants. The median age and PSA were 58 (range 35-71) and 1.4 ng/ml (range 0.1-11.4 ng/ml), respectively. 12 patients underwent a prostate needle biopsy and there were 4positive biopsies for prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: These early data support the feasibility of opening a dedicated clinic for men at high genetic risk of prostate cancer. This early report on the initial enrollment of our long-term study will help optimize early detection protocols and provide evidence for personalized prostate cancer screening in men with key pathogenic germline variants.