PURPOSE: Multigene panels are commercially available for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PCA) predisposition, which necessitates tailored genetic counseling (GC) for men. Here we describe emerging results of Genetic Evaluation of Men, prospective multigene testing study in PCA to inform personalized genetic counseling, with emerging implications for referrals, cancer screening, and precision therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria for men affected by or at high risk for PCA encompass age, race, family history (FH), and PCA stage/grade. Detailed demographic, clinical, and FH data were obtained from participants and medical records. Multigene testing was conducted after GC. Mutation rates were summarized by eligibility criteria and compared across FH data. The 95% CI of mutation prevalence was constructed by using Poisson distribution. RESULTS: Of 200 men enrolled, 62.5% had PCA. Eleven (5.5%; 95% CI, 3.0% to 9.9%) had mutations; 63.6% of mutations were in DNA repair genes. FH of breast cancer was significantly associated with mutation status (P = .004), and FH that met criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome was significantly associated with PCA (odds ratio, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.05 to 5.18). Variants of uncertain significance were reported in 70 men (35.0%). Among mutation carriers, 45.5% had personal/FH concordant with the gene. A tailored GC model was developed based on emerging findings. CONCLUSION: Multigene testing for PCA identifies mutations mostly in DNA repair genes, with implications for precision therapy. The study highlights the importance of comprehensive genetic evaluation for PCA beyond metastatic disease, including early-stage disease with strong FH. Detailed FH is important for referrals of men for genetic evaluation. The results inform precision GC and cancer screening for men and their male and female blood relatives.
PURPOSE: Multigene panels are commercially available for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PCA) predisposition, which necessitates tailored genetic counseling (GC) for men. Here we describe emerging results of Genetic Evaluation of Men, prospective multigene testing study in PCA to inform personalized genetic counseling, with emerging implications for referrals, cancer screening, and precision therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria for men affected by or at high risk for PCA encompass age, race, family history (FH), and PCA stage/grade. Detailed demographic, clinical, and FH data were obtained from participants and medical records. Multigene testing was conducted after GC. Mutation rates were summarized by eligibility criteria and compared across FH data. The 95% CI of mutation prevalence was constructed by using Poisson distribution. RESULTS: Of 200 men enrolled, 62.5% had PCA. Eleven (5.5%; 95% CI, 3.0% to 9.9%) had mutations; 63.6% of mutations were in DNA repair genes. FH of breast cancer was significantly associated with mutation status (P = .004), and FH that met criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome was significantly associated with PCA (odds ratio, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.05 to 5.18). Variants of uncertain significance were reported in 70 men (35.0%). Among mutation carriers, 45.5% had personal/FH concordant with the gene. A tailored GC model was developed based on emerging findings. CONCLUSION: Multigene testing for PCA identifies mutations mostly in DNA repair genes, with implications for precision therapy. The study highlights the importance of comprehensive genetic evaluation for PCA beyond metastatic disease, including early-stage disease with strong FH. Detailed FH is important for referrals of men for genetic evaluation. The results inform precision GC and cancer screening for men and their male and female blood relatives.
Authors: R M Giusti; J L Rutter; P H Duray; L S Freedman; M Konichezky; J Fisher-Fischbein; M H Greene; B Maslansky; A Fischbein; S B Gruber; G Rennert; R D Ronchetti; S M Hewitt; J P Struewing; J Iscovich Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Stephen M Edwards; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Julia Meitz; Rifat Hamoudi; Questa Hope; Peter Osin; Rachel Jackson; Christine Southgate; Rashmi Singh; Alison Falconer; David P Dearnaley; Audrey Ardern-Jones; Annette Murkin; Anna Dowe; Jo Kelly; Sue Williams; Richard Oram; Margaret Stevens; Dawn M Teare; Bruce A J Ponder; Simon A Gayther; Doug F Easton; Rosalind A Eeles Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2002-12-09 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Charles M Ewing; Anna M Ray; Ethan M Lange; Kimberly A Zuhlke; Christiane M Robbins; Waibhav D Tembe; Kathleen E Wiley; Sarah D Isaacs; Dorhyun Johng; Yunfei Wang; Chris Bizon; Guifang Yan; Marta Gielzak; Alan W Partin; Vijayalakshmi Shanmugam; Tyler Izatt; Shripad Sinari; David W Craig; S Lilly Zheng; Patrick C Walsh; James E Montie; Jianfeng Xu; John D Carpten; William B Isaacs; Kathleen A Cooney Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Asad Umar; C Richard Boland; Jonathan P Terdiman; Sapna Syngal; Albert de la Chapelle; Josef Rüschoff; Richard Fishel; Noralane M Lindor; Lawrence J Burgart; Richard Hamelin; Stanley R Hamilton; Robert A Hiatt; Jeremy Jass; Annika Lindblom; Henry T Lynch; Païvi Peltomaki; Scott D Ramsey; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; Hans F A Vasen; Ernest T Hawk; J Carl Barrett; Andrew N Freedman; Sudhir Srivastava Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-02-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Brandy-Joe Milliron; Michael Bruneau; Elias Obeid; Laura Gross; Lisa Bealin; Christa Smaltz; Veda N Giri Journal: Prostate Date: 2019-03-24 Impact factor: 4.104