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.

Men with germline breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene mutations have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer (PCa) than noncarriers. IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls) is an international consortium of 62 centres in 20 countries evaluating the use of targeted PCa screening in men with BRCA1/2 mutations. To report the first year's screening results for all men at enrollment in the study. We recruited men aged 40-69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrollment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy. PSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types. We recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%-double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups. The IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease. In this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment.

Purpose: Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-driven working framework for comprehensive genetic evaluation of inherited PCA in the multigene testing era addressing genetic counseling, testing, and genetically informed management. Methods: An expert consensus conference was convened including key stakeholders to address genetic counseling and testing, PCA screening, and management informed by evidence review. Results: Consensus was strong that patients should engage in shared decision making for genetic testing. There was strong consensus to test HOXB13 for suspected hereditary PCA, BRCA1/2 for suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and DNA mismatch repair genes for suspected Lynch syndrome. There was strong consensus to factor BRCA2 mutations into PCA screening discussions. BRCA2 achieved moderate consensus for factoring into early-stage management discussion, with stronger consensus in high-risk/advanced and metastatic setting. Agreement was moderate to test all men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA, regardless of family history, with stronger agreement to test BRCA1/2 and moderate agreement to test ATM to inform prognosis and targeted therapy. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary consensus statement to address a genetic evaluation framework for inherited PCA in the multigene testing era. Future research should focus on developing a working definition of familial PCA for clinical genetic testing, expanding understanding of genetic contribution to aggressive PCA, exploring clinical use of genetic testing for PCA management, genetic testing of African American males, and addressing the value framework of genetic evaluation and testing men at risk for PCA—a clinically heterogeneous disease.

Next-generation sequencing technologies have ushered in the capability to assess multiple genes in parallel for genetic alterations that may contribute to inherited risk for cancers in families. Thus, gene panel testing is now an option in the setting of genetic counseling and testing for cancer risk. This article describes the many gene panel testing options clinically available to assess inherited cancer susceptibility, the potential advantages and challenges associated with various types of panels, clinical scenarios in which gene panels may be particularly useful in cancer risk assessment, and testing and counseling considerations. Given the potential issues for patients and their families, gene panel testing for inherited cancer risk is recommended to be offered in conjunction or consultation with an experienced cancer genetic specialist, such as a certified genetic counselor or geneticist, as an integral part of the testing process. Next-generation sequencing technologies have ushered in the capability to assess multiple genes in parallel for genetic alterations that may contribute to inherited risk for cancers in families. Thus, gene panel testing is now an option in the setting of genetic counseling and testing for cancer risk. This article describes the many gene panel testing options clinically available to assess inherited cancer susceptibility, the potential advantages and challenges associated with various types of panels, clinical scenarios in which gene panels may be particularly useful in cancer risk assessment, and testing and counseling considerations. Given the potential issues for patients and their families, gene panel testing for inherited cancer risk is recommended to be offered in conjunction or consultation with an experienced cancer genetic specialist, such as a certified genetic counselor or geneticist, as an integral part of the testing process.

Background: Genetic testing capability and guidelines are rapidly expanding to assess inherited prostate cancer (PCA). Clinical genetic data from multigene testing can provide insights into the germline pathogenic variant (PV) spectrum and correlates in men with PCA unselected for metastatic disease to optimize identification of men for genetic evaluation and management. Methods: A retrospective cross‐sectional analysis was conducted of de‐identified clinical genetic testing data from a large commercial genetic testing laboratory in the US. ICD‐10 claims codes were used to identify men with PCA, along with family history data. Gleason score was abstracted from test request forms. Overall PV rate among men with PCA was estimated, along with PVs in DNA repair genes. Family history and Gleason score association to germline DNA repair PVs was assessed using Fisher's exact test with correction for false‐discovery. Results: As of August 2017, genetic results were available on 1328 men with PCA. Overall PV rate was 15.6%, with 10.9% of PV in DNA repair genes. PVs were most commonly identified in BRCA2 (4.5%), CHEK2 (2.2%), ATM (1.8%), and BRCA1 (1.1%). Breast cancer family history was significantly associated with germline DNA repair PVs (OR 1.89, [95%CI 1.33, 2.68], P = 0.003). Among men with Gleason score>= 6 ( n = 706), Gleason> = 8 was significantly associated with DNA repair PVs (OR 1.85 [95%CI 1.22, 2.80], P = 0.004). Conclusions: A substantial proportion of men with PCA unselected for metastatic disease carry germline DNA repair PVs. Breast cancer family history and high Gleason score are important predictors to identify men with PCA who may carry germline DNA repair PVs. Our findings support current NCCN guidelines and have implications for genetic assessment, therapeutic management, and cascade testing for men with PCA and their families.

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous prostate cancer susceptibility alleles, but these loci have been identified primarily in men of European descent. There is limited information about the role of these loci in men of African descent. Methods: We identified 7,788 prostate cancer cases and controls with genotype data for 47 GWAS-identified loci. Results: We identified significant associations for SNP rs10486567 at JAZF1, rs10993994 at MSMB, rs12418451 and rs7931342 at 11q13, and rs5945572 and rs5945619 at NUDT10/11. These associations were in the same direction and of similar magnitude as those reported in men of European descent. Significance was attained at all reported prostate cancer susceptibility regions at chromosome 8q24, including associations reaching genome-wide significance in region 2. Conclusion: We have validated in men of African descent the associations at some, but not all, prostate cancer susceptibility loci originally identified in European descent populations. This may be due to the heterogeneity in genetic etiology or in the pattern of genetic variation across populations. Impact: The genetic etiology of prostate cancer in men of African descent differs from that of men of European descent. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(1); 23–32. ©2011 AACR.