scholarly journals The evolving role of germline genetic testing and management in prostate cancer: Report from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre International Retreat

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roderick Clark ◽  
Miran Kenk ◽  
Kristen McAlpine ◽  
Emily Thain ◽  
Kirsten M. Farncombe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Genetic Risk ◽  
Genetic Disorders ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Policy Action ◽  
Cancer Centre ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
International Experts

Introduction: Prostate cancer is a significant cause of cancer mortality. It has been well-established that certain germline pathogenic variants confer both an increased risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer and dying of prostate cancer.1 There are exciting developments in both the availability of genetic testing and opportunities for improved treatment of patients. On August 19, 2020, the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Ontario, hosted a virtual retreat, bringing together international experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, medical genetics, and translational research, as well as a patient representative. We are pleased to provide this manuscript as a review of those proceedings for Canadian clinicians. Recommendations: We drafted several recommendations for future research and policy action based on this meeting: 1) Need for increased access to funding for germline testing for the common genetic disorders associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. 2) A need for increased research into identifying genetic factors influencing risk stratification, treatment response, and outcomes of prostate cancer within Canadian populations at increased genetic risk for prostate cancer. 3) Need for increased awareness about genetic risk factors among the Canadian public. 4) Need for research on patient perspectives and psychosocial outcomes in individuals identified to be at increased genetic risk of prostate cancer. 5) We support the creation of specialized multidisciplinary clinics that specialize in tailored care for patients at increased genetic risk of prostate cancer.

scholarly journals Germline Genetics of Prostate Cancer: Time to Incorporate Genetics into Early Detection Tools

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J Fantus ◽  
Brian T Helfand
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Family History ◽  
Genetic Risk ◽  
Genetic Risk Score ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Nucleotide Polymorphisms ◽  
Standard Family ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract BACKGROUND Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the most common solid malignancy in men, and its prevalence makes understanding its heritability of paramount importance. To date, the most common factors used to estimate a man's risk of developing PCa are age, race, and family history. Despite recent advances in its utility in multiple malignancies (e.g., breast and colon cancer), genetic testing is still relatively underutilized in PCa. CONTENT Multiple highly penetrant genes (HPGs) and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been show to increase a patient's risk of developing PCa. Mutations in the former, like DNA damage repair genes, can confer a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of developing PCa and can increase the risk of aggressive disease. Similarly, PCa-risk SNPs can be used to create risk scores (e.g., genetic or polygenic risk scores) that can be used to further stratify an individual's disease susceptibility. Specifically, these genetic risk scores can provide more specific estimates of a man's lifetime risk ranging up to >6-fold higher risk of PCa. SUMMARY It is becoming increasingly evident that in addition to the standard family history and race information, it is necessary to obtain genetic testing (including an assessment of HPG mutation status and genetic risk score) to provide a full risk assessment. The additional information derived thereby will improve current practices in PCa screening by risk-stratifying patients before initial prostate-specific antigen testing, determining a patient's frequency of visits, and even help identify potentially at-risk family members.

scholarly journals Rare Germline Pathogenic Variants Identified by Multigene Panel Testing and the Risk of Aggressive Prostate Cancer

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1495
Author(s):  
Tú Nguyen-Dumont ◽  
James G. Dowty ◽  
Robert J. MacInnis ◽  
Jason A. Steen ◽  
Moeen Riaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Prediction ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Risk Prediction Models ◽  
Aggressive Prostate Cancer ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Predisposition Genes ◽  
Rare Genetic Variants

While gene panel sequencing is becoming widely used for cancer risk prediction, its clinical utility with respect to predicting aggressive prostate cancer (PrCa) is limited by our current understanding of the genetic risk factors associated with predisposition to this potentially lethal disease phenotype. This study included 837 men diagnosed with aggressive PrCa and 7261 controls (unaffected men and men who did not meet criteria for aggressive PrCa). Rare germline pathogenic variants (including likely pathogenic variants) were identified by targeted sequencing of 26 known or putative cancer predisposition genes. We found that 85 (10%) men with aggressive PrCa and 265 (4%) controls carried a pathogenic variant (p < 0.0001). Aggressive PrCa odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. Increased risk of aggressive PrCa (OR (95% confidence interval)) was identified for pathogenic variants in BRCA2 (5.8 (2.7–12.4)), BRCA1 (5.5 (1.8–16.6)), and ATM (3.8 (1.6–9.1)). Our study provides further evidence that rare germline pathogenic variants in these genes are associated with increased risk of this aggressive, clinically relevant subset of PrCa. These rare genetic variants could be incorporated into risk prediction models to improve their precision to identify men at highest risk of aggressive prostate cancer and be used to identify men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer who require urgent treatment.

scholarly journals Extended gene panel testing in lobular breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke M. van Veen ◽  
D. Gareth Evans ◽  
Elaine F. Harkness ◽  
Helen J. Byers ◽  
Jamie M. Ellingford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Lobular Breast Cancer ◽  
Germline Variants ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Increased Risk

AbstractPurpose: Lobular breast cancer (LBC) accounts for ~ 15% of breast cancer. Here, we studied the frequency of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in an extended panel of genes in women affected with LBC. Methods: 302 women with LBC and 1567 without breast cancer were tested for BRCA1/2 PGVs. A subset of 134 LBC affected women who tested negative for BRCA1/2 PGVs underwent extended screening, including: ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, PTEN, RAD50, RAD51D, and TP53.Results: 35 PGVs were identified in the group with LBC, of which 22 were in BRCA1/2. Ten actionable PGVs were identified in additional genes (ATM(4), CDH1(1), CHEK2(1), PALB2(2) and TP53(2)). Overall, PGVs in three genes conferred a significant increased risk for LBC. Odds ratios (ORs) were: BRCA1: OR = 13.17 (95%CI 2.83–66.38; P = 0.0017), BRCA2: OR = 10.33 (95%CI 4.58–23.95; P < 0.0001); and ATM: OR = 8.01 (95%CI 2.52–29.92; P = 0.0053). We did not detect an increased risk of LBC for PALB2, CDH1 or CHEK2. Conclusion: The overall PGV detection rate was 11.59%, with similar rates of BRCA1/2 (7.28%) PGVs as for other actionable PGVs (7.46%), indicating a benefit for extended panel genetic testing in LBC. We also report a previously unrecognised association of pathogenic variants in ATM with LBC.

scholarly journals Current recommendations for clinical surveillance and genetic testing in rhabdoid tumor predisposition: a report from the SIOPE Host Genome Working Group

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. C. Frühwald ◽  
K. Nemes ◽  
H. Boztug ◽  
M. C. A. Cornips ◽  
D. G. Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Group ◽  
Soft Part ◽  
Genetic Disorders ◽  
Panel Discussion ◽  
Rhabdoid Tumor ◽  
Host Genome ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Malignant Neoplasms ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Increased Risk

AbstractThe rhabdoid tumor (RT) predisposition syndromes 1 and 2 (RTPS1 and 2) are rare genetic conditions rendering young children vulnerable to an increased risk of RT, malignant neoplasms affecting the kidney, miscellaneous soft-part tissues, the liver and the central nervous system (Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid Tumors, ATRT). Both, RTPS1&2 are due to pathogenic variants (PV) in genes encoding constituents of the BAF chromatin remodeling complex, i.e. SMARCB1 (RTPS1) and SMARCA4 (RTPS2). In contrast to other genetic disorders related to PVs in SMARCB1 and SMARCA4 such as Coffin-Siris Syndrome, RTPS1&2 are characterized by a predominance of truncating PVs, terminating transcription thus explaining a specific cancer risk. The penetrance of RTPS1 early in life is high and associated with a poor survival. However, few unaffected carriers may be encountered. Beyond RT, the tumor spectrum may be larger than initially suspected, and cancer surveillance offered to unaffected carriers (siblings or parents) and long-term survivors of RT is still a matter of discussion. RTPS2 exposes female carriers to an ill-defined risk of small cell carcinoma of the ovaries, hypercalcemic type (SCCOHT), which may appear in prepubertal females. RT surveillance protocols for these rare families have not been established. To address unresolved issues in the care of individuals with RTPS and to propose appropriate surveillance guidelines in childhood, the SIOPe Host Genome working group invited pediatric oncologists and geneticists to contribute to an expert meeting. The current manuscript summarizes conclusions of the panel discussion, including consented statements as well as non-evidence-based proposals for validation in the future.

scholarly journals Germline Pathogenic Variants in 7636 Japanese Patients With Prostate Cancer and 12 366 Controls

2019 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yukihide Momozawa ◽  
Yusuke Iwasaki ◽  
Makoto Hirata ◽  
Xiaoxi Liu ◽  
Yoichiro Kamatani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Liver Cancers ◽  
Genetics And Genomics ◽  
Genetic Testing Guidelines ◽  
And Control

AbstractBackgroundGenetic testing has been conducted in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) using multigene panels, but no centralized guidelines for genetic testing exist. To overcome this limitation, we investigated the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with pathogenic variants.MethodsWe sequenced eight genes associated with hereditary PCa in 7636 unselected Japanese patients with PCa and 12 366 male, cancer-free control individuals. We assigned clinical significance for all 1456 variants using the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines and ClinVar. We compared the frequency of carriers bearing pathogenic variants between cases and control participants with calculated PCa risk in each gene and documented the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients bearing pathogenic variants. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsWe identified 136 pathogenic variants, and 2.9% of patients and 0.8% of control individuals had a pathogenic variant. Association with PCa risk was statistically significant for variants in BRCA2 (P &lt; .001, odds ratio [OR] = 5.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.55 to 9.32), HOXB13 (P &lt; .001, OR = 4.73, 95% CI = 2.84 to 8.19), and ATM (P &lt; .001, OR = 2.86, 95% CI = 1.63 to 5.15). We detected recurrent new pathogenic variants such as p.Gly132Glu of HOXB13. Patients with pathogenic variants were 2.0 years younger at diagnosis and more often had smoking and alcohol drinking histories as well as family histories of breast, pancreatic, lung, and liver cancers.ConclusionsThis largest sequencing study of PCa heredity provides additional evidence supporting the latest consensus among clinicians for developing genetic testing guidelines for PCa.

scholarly journals Exploring Prostate Cancer Patients’ Interest and Preferences for Receiving Genetic Risk Information About Cancer Aggressiveness

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 155798832091962
Author(s):  
Siddhartha Roy ◽  
Clement K. Gwede ◽  
Teri L. Malo ◽  
Courtney L. Scherr ◽  
Selina Radlein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Option ◽  
Genetic Risk ◽  
Risk Information ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Aggressive Prostate Cancer ◽  
Genetic Risk Information ◽  
Cancer Aggressiveness ◽  
To Receive

The number of cases of aggressive prostate cancer is increasing. Differentiating between aggressive and indolent cases has resulted in increased difficulty for the physician and patient to decide on the best treatment option. Due to this challenge, efforts are underway to profile genetic risk for prostate cancer aggressiveness, which may help physicians and patients at risk for developing aggressive prostate cancer to select an appropriate treatment option. This study explores patients’ interest in receiving genetic results, preference for how genetic risk information should be communicated, and willingness to share results with adult male first-degree relatives (FDRs). A nine-item survey was adapted to assess their beliefs and attitudes about genetic testing for prostate cancer aggressiveness. In addition, participants ( n = 50) responded to hypothetical scenarios and questions associated with perceived importance of risk disclosure, preferences for receiving genetic risk information, and sharing of results with FDRs. As the hypothetical risk estimate for aggressive prostate cancer increased, patients’ willingness to receive genetic risk information increased. This study found that most patients preferred receiving genetic risk education in the form of a DVD (76%), one-page informational sheet (75%), or educational booklet (70%). Almost all patients (98%) reported that they would be willing to share their test results with FDRs. The results of this study highlight prostate cancer patients’ desire to receive and share genetic risk information. Future research should focus on assessing the long-term benefits of receiving genetic information for prostate cancer patients and implications of sharing this information with FDRs.

Inherited germline mutations in men with prostate cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16564-e16564
Author(s):  
Robert Reid ◽  
Marcie DiGiovanni ◽  
Ryan Bernhisel ◽  
Krystal Brown ◽  
Jennifer Saam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Family History ◽  
Hereditary Cancer ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Commercial Laboratory ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Age Of Diagnosis ◽  
History Of

e16564 Background: Recent studies have demonstrated a high prevalence of pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes that confer hereditary cancer risk among men with metastatic prostate cancer (PC); however, PC does not currently receive attention as an indication for genetic testing. We assessed the clinical features of men with PC who received clinical testing as well as the distribution of PVs identified. Methods: A commercial laboratory database was queried to identify men with PC who underwent testing with a multi-gene hereditary cancer panel from September 2013–September 2016. Clinical information was obtained from provider-completed test request forms. Individuals with PC only were evaluated separately from those who had ≥1 additional malignancy. Personal/family history was evaluated relative to the 2013 NCCN guidelines for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) testing. Results: Overall, 700 men with a personal history of PC were identified: 384 (54.9%) with only PC and 316 (45.1%) with PC and ≥1 additional malignancy. The most common additional malignancies were colorectal (115) and breast cancer (105). The median age of diagnosis in men with only PC was 57.5, which is younger than tested men who had an additional malignancy (62) and the SEER data (2009-2013) for all men with PC (66). HBOC testing criteria were met by 75.9% of men, including 44 (6.3%) who met based only on a personal/family history of PC and 202 (28.9%) who met in part due to a personal/family history of PC. PVs were identified in 14.0% of all men: 11.5% of men with PC only and 17.1% of men with PC and a second malignancy (see Table). Conclusions: PC patients selected for genetic testing here were younger than men diagnosed with PC from the general population (SEER), and almost half had a diagnosis of an additional malignancy. They also have a high positive mutation rate across a broad spectrum of genes. [Table: see text]

Inherited germline mutations in men with prostate cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 357-357
Author(s):  
Robert Reid ◽  
Marcie DiGiovanni ◽  
Ryan Bernhisel ◽  
Krystal Brown ◽  
Jennifer Saam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Family History ◽  
Hereditary Cancer ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Seer Data ◽  
Age Of Diagnosis ◽  
History Of

357 Background: Recent studies have demonstrated a high prevalence of pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes that confer hereditary cancer risk among men with metastatic prostate cancer (PC); however, PC does not currently receive attention as an indication for genetic testing. We assessed the clinical features of men with PC who received clinical testing as well as the distribution of PVs identified. Methods: Men with PC who underwent testing with a multi-gene hereditary cancer panel (Myriad Genetic Laboratories) from September 2013–September 2017 were included. Clinical information was obtained from provider-completed test request forms. Individuals with PC only were evaluated separately from those who had ≥1 additional malignancy. Personal/family history was evaluated relative to the 2013 NCCN guidelines for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) testing. Results: Overall, 1004 men with a personal history of PC were identified: 606 (60.4%) with only PC and 398 (39.6%) with PC and ≥1 additional malignancy. The most common additional malignancies were breast (136) and colorectal cancer (134). The median age of diagnosis in men with only PC was 59, which is younger than tested men who had an additional malignancy (63) and the SEER data (2009-2013) for all men with PC (66). HBOC testing criteria were met by 78.0% of men, including 68 (6.8%) who met based only on a personal/family history of PC and 330 (32.9%) who met in part due to a personal/family history of PC. PVs were identified in 12.9% of all men: 11.2% of men with PC only and 15.4% of men with PC and a second malignancy (Table). Conclusions: PC patients selected for genetic testing here were younger than men diagnosed with PC from the general population (SEER), and about a third had a diagnosis of an additional malignancy. They also have a high positive mutation rate across a broad spectrum of genes. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Detection of Pathogenic Variants With Germline Genetic Testing Using Deep Learning vs Standard Methods in Patients With Prostate Cancer and Melanoma

JAMA ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 324 (19) ◽  
pp. 1957
Author(s):  
Saud H. AlDubayan ◽  
Jake R. Conway ◽  
Sabrina Y. Camp ◽  
Leora Witkowski ◽  
Eric Kofman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Deep Learning ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Standard Methods ◽  
Pathogenic Variants

Evaluation of a mainstream model of genetic testing for men with prostate cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1521-1521
Author(s):  
Tahlia Scheinberg ◽  
Annabel Goodwin ◽  
Emilia Ip ◽  
Anthony Linton ◽  
Blossom Mak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Patient Acceptability ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Inherited Cancer ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants

1521 Background: In order to identify the ∼12% with inherited cancer predisposition, it is recommended that all men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) be offered testing. This has implications for treatment choices and cancer prevention in family. Limited geneticists/genetic counsellors globally present a major barrier to testing. We tested a potential solution, mainstreaming, where testing is performed by the patient’s oncologist. Methods: Men with mPC at three Australian sites were offered germline genetic testing at their medical oncology appointment. Panel testing ( ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CHEK2, EPCAM, FANCA, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PALB2, PMS2, RAD51D and TP53) was performed on saliva/blood (Invitae). Primary outcomes were clinician and patient acceptability (modified Royal Marsden Satisfaction Questionnaires). Secondary outcomes included mutation rates and cost-effectiveness. A sample size of 44 provided 90% power, with a one-sided alpha of 5%, to distinguish a proportion of men happy with mainstreaming of 80% vs. 60% or less. Allowing for 25% drop-out, we aimed to recruit 60 men. Results: Of 66 men offered testing from April to November 2019, 63 (95%) accepted. Four pathogenic variants were identified (2 BRCA2, 1 NBN, 1 MSH6). 48 patients and eight clinicians completed questionnaires. Acceptability was high. All (48/48) patients were happy to have been tested, and 45/48 (94%) were happy to have been tested at their oncology appointment. All were happy to receive their results from their oncologist. All clinicians were satisfied mainstreaming and 88% (7/8) felt confident doing so. Mainstreaming was cost-effective, requiring 87% fewer genetic consultations than traditional genetic counselling. Conclusions: This study shows that mainstreaming of men with mPC is feasible, resource efficient and acceptable to both clinicians and patients. Widespread implementation as a new standard of care would facilitate timely access to genetic testing for men with mPC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document