Veda N Giri1,2, Elias Obeid3, Sarah E Hegarty4, Laura Gross1, Lisa Bealin3, Colette Hyatt1, Carolyn Y Fang5, Amy Leader2. 1. Cancer Risk Assessment and Clinical Cancer Genetics Program, Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Division of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is rising, with limited insights regarding genetic counseling (GC) needs of males. Genetic Evaluation of Men (GEM) is a prospective multigene testing study for inherited PCA. Men undergoing GC were surveyed on knowledge of cancer risk and genetics (CRG) and understanding of personal GT results to identify GC needs. METHODS: GEM participants with or high-risk for PCA were recruited. Pre-test GC was in-person, with video and handout, or via telehealth. Post-test disclosure was in-person, by phone, or via telehealth. Clinical and family history data were obtained from participant surveys and medical records. Participants completed measures of knowledge of CRG, literacy, and numeracy pre-test and post-test. Understanding of personal genetic results was assessed post-test. Factors associated with knowledge of CRG and understanding of personal genetic results were examined using multivariable linear regression or McNemar's test. RESULTS: Among 109 men who completed pre- and post-GT surveys, multivariable analysis revealed family history meeting hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) criteria was significantly predictive of higher baseline knowledge (P = 0.040). Of 101 men who responded definitively regarding understanding of results, 13 incorrectly reported their result (McNemar's P < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with discordance between reported and actual results included having a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) (P < 0.001) and undergoing GC via pre-test video and post-test phone disclosure (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: While meeting criteria for HCS was associated with higher knowledge of CRG, understanding of personal GT results was lacking among a subset of males with VUS. A more exploratory finding was lack of understanding of results among men who underwent GC utilizing video and phone. Studies optimizing GC strategies for males undergoing multigene testing for inherited PCA are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is rising, with limited insights regarding genetic counseling (GC) needs of males. Genetic Evaluation of Men (GEM) is a prospective multigene testing study for inherited PCA. Men undergoing GC were surveyed on knowledge of cancer risk and genetics (CRG) and understanding of personal GT results to identify GC needs. METHODS: GEM participants with or high-risk for PCA were recruited. Pre-test GC was in-person, with video and handout, or via telehealth. Post-test disclosure was in-person, by phone, or via telehealth. Clinical and family history data were obtained from participant surveys and medical records. Participants completed measures of knowledge of CRG, literacy, and numeracy pre-test and post-test. Understanding of personal genetic results was assessed post-test. Factors associated with knowledge of CRG and understanding of personal genetic results were examined using multivariable linear regression or McNemar's test. RESULTS: Among 109 men who completed pre- and post-GT surveys, multivariable analysis revealed family history meeting hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) criteria was significantly predictive of higher baseline knowledge (P = 0.040). Of 101 men who responded definitively regarding understanding of results, 13 incorrectly reported their result (McNemar's P < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with discordance between reported and actual results included having a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) (P < 0.001) and undergoing GC via pre-test video and post-test phone disclosure (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: While meeting criteria for HCS was associated with higher knowledge of CRG, understanding of personal GT results was lacking among a subset of males with VUS. A more exploratory finding was lack of understanding of results among men who underwent GC utilizing video and phone. Studies optimizing GC strategies for males undergoing multigene testing for inherited PCA are warranted.
Authors: O Bratt; J E Damber; M Emanuelsson; U Kristoffersson; R Lundgren; H Olsson; H Grönberg Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Adam H Buchanan; Santanu K Datta; Celette Sugg Skinner; Gail P Hollowell; Henry F Beresford; Thomas Freeland; Benjamin Rogers; John Boling; P Kelly Marcom; Martha B Adams Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Bronson D Riley; Julie O Culver; Cécile Skrzynia; Leigha A Senter; June A Peters; Josephine W Costalas; Faith Callif-Daley; Sherry C Grumet; Katherine S Hunt; Rebecca S Nagy; Wendy C McKinnon; Nancie M Petrucelli; Robin L Bennett; Angela M Trepanier Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: B Meiser; P Butow; M Friedlander; A Barratt; V Schnieden; M Watson; J Brown; K Tucker Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Kasmintan A Schrader; Donavan T Cheng; Vijai Joseph; Meera Prasad; Michael Walsh; Ahmet Zehir; Ai Ni; Tinu Thomas; Ryma Benayed; Asad Ashraf; Annie Lincoln; Maria Arcila; Zsofia Stadler; David Solit; David M Hyman; David Hyman; Liying Zhang; David Klimstra; Marc Ladanyi; Kenneth Offit; Michael Berger; Mark Robson Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Jessica Long; Jacquelyn Powers; Jill Stopfer; Andrea Forman; Christina Rybak; Kristin Mattie; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Wendy K Chung; Jane Churpek; Mary B Daly; Laura Digiovanni; Dana Farengo-Clark; Dominique Fetzer; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Cassandra Gulden; Michael Hall; Lynne Kohler; Kara Maxwell; Shana Merrill; Susan Montgomery; Rebecca Mueller; Sarah Nielsen; Olufunmilayo Olopade; Kimberly Rainey; Christina Seelaus; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Colin C Pritchard; Joaquin Mateo; Michael F Walsh; Navonil De Sarkar; Wassim Abida; Himisha Beltran; Andrea Garofalo; Roman Gulati; Suzanne Carreira; Rosalind Eeles; Olivier Elemento; Mark A Rubin; Dan Robinson; Robert Lonigro; Maha Hussain; Arul Chinnaiyan; Jake Vinson; Julie Filipenko; Levi Garraway; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Saud AlDubayan; G Celine Han; Mallory Beightol; Colm Morrissey; Belinda Nghiem; Heather H Cheng; Bruce Montgomery; Tom Walsh; Silvia Casadei; Michael Berger; Liying Zhang; Ahmet Zehir; Joseph Vijai; Howard I Scher; Charles Sawyers; Nikolaus Schultz; Philip W Kantoff; David Solit; Mark Robson; Eliezer M Van Allen; Kenneth Offit; Johann de Bono; Peter S Nelson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jessica Russo; Carey McDougall; Nicholas Bowler; Ayako Shimada; Laura Gross; Colette Hyatt; William K Kelly; Anne Calvaresi; Nathan R Handley; Irvin H Hirsch; Joseph K Izes; Costas D Lallas; Mark Mann; James Ryan Mark; Patrick J Mille; Donald Preate; Edouard J Trabulsi; Miranda Tsang; Thenappan Chandrasekar; Perry R Weiner; Leonard G Gomella; Veda N Giri Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-09-01