Using patient-reported outcomes from the PROCLAIM trial to assess the impact of universal germline genetic testing for prostate cancer patients.

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Neal D Shore, Christopher M Pieczonka, Sean Heron, Mukaram Gazi, David J Cahn, Laurence H Belkoff, Aaron D Berger, Brian Mazzarella, Joseph Veys, David Morris, Richard Bevan-Thomas, Alexander Engelman, Paul Dato, David R Wise, Mary Kay Hardwick, Kerry W Aradhya, Brandie Heald, Robert L Nussbaum, Kathryn E Hatchell, Brianna Bucknor, Edward D Esplin, Sarah M Nielsen
{"title":"Using patient-reported outcomes from the PROCLAIM trial to assess the impact of universal germline genetic testing for prostate cancer patients.","authors":"Neal D Shore, Christopher M Pieczonka, Sean Heron, Mukaram Gazi, David J Cahn, Laurence H Belkoff, Aaron D Berger, Brian Mazzarella, Joseph Veys, David Morris, Richard Bevan-Thomas, Alexander Engelman, Paul Dato, David R Wise, Mary Kay Hardwick, Kerry W Aradhya, Brandie Heald, Robert L Nussbaum, Kathryn E Hatchell, Brianna Bucknor, Edward D Esplin, Sarah M Nielsen","doi":"10.1038/s41391-025-01013-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although germline genetic testing can inform medical management for patients with prostate cancer (PCa), data are limited regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after germline genetic testing for PCa. Recall and comprehension of germline genetic testing results, uptake of post-test clinical recommendations, and psychological impact of germline genetic testing among patients with PCa were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a secondary analysis of data from the PROCLAIM trial. PROs were analyzed overall and by germline genetic testing results. Differences between groups were determined by two-tailed Fisher's exact test with significance set at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 494 patients with informative survey responses, 60% and 71% accurately recalled and interpreted their germline genetic testing results, respectively, with the highest rates among patients with negative results and the lowest among those with variant of uncertain significance-only (VUS) results. Among 42/55 (76%) patients with positive results for whom clinicians made germline genetic testing-informed recommendations, 39 (93%) completed or planned to complete >1 clinical recommendation. Conversely, no further recommendations were made for 160/221 (72%) and 211/218 (97%) patients with VUS and negative results, respectively. However, 57% (213/371) of these patients indicated that they or their family members intended to pursue clinical management strategies that were not recommended by their clinicians. Of the patients who responded to the survey, >90% of patients reported no post-germline genetic testing increase in their level of concern for themselves or their family members.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>germline genetic testing for patients with PCa did not cause appreciable psychological harm to the tested patients. Furthermore, patients with positive results had a high uptake of clinician-recommended management strategies. Of note, there were inconsistencies in the understanding of VUS results, with some clinicians making recommendations not warranted by personal/family history; conversely, some patients pursued management strategies not recommended by their clinicians. This suggests that educational efforts are needed in the communication of germline genetic testing results and clinical recommendations to patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":20727,"journal":{"name":"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-025-01013-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although germline genetic testing can inform medical management for patients with prostate cancer (PCa), data are limited regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after germline genetic testing for PCa. Recall and comprehension of germline genetic testing results, uptake of post-test clinical recommendations, and psychological impact of germline genetic testing among patients with PCa were evaluated.

Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from the PROCLAIM trial. PROs were analyzed overall and by germline genetic testing results. Differences between groups were determined by two-tailed Fisher's exact test with significance set at p < 0.05.

Results: Among 494 patients with informative survey responses, 60% and 71% accurately recalled and interpreted their germline genetic testing results, respectively, with the highest rates among patients with negative results and the lowest among those with variant of uncertain significance-only (VUS) results. Among 42/55 (76%) patients with positive results for whom clinicians made germline genetic testing-informed recommendations, 39 (93%) completed or planned to complete >1 clinical recommendation. Conversely, no further recommendations were made for 160/221 (72%) and 211/218 (97%) patients with VUS and negative results, respectively. However, 57% (213/371) of these patients indicated that they or their family members intended to pursue clinical management strategies that were not recommended by their clinicians. Of the patients who responded to the survey, >90% of patients reported no post-germline genetic testing increase in their level of concern for themselves or their family members.

Conclusion: germline genetic testing for patients with PCa did not cause appreciable psychological harm to the tested patients. Furthermore, patients with positive results had a high uptake of clinician-recommended management strategies. Of note, there were inconsistencies in the understanding of VUS results, with some clinicians making recommendations not warranted by personal/family history; conversely, some patients pursued management strategies not recommended by their clinicians. This suggests that educational efforts are needed in the communication of germline genetic testing results and clinical recommendations to patients.

利用宣告试验患者报告的结果来评估通用种系基因检测对前列腺癌患者的影响。
背景:尽管生殖系基因检测可以为前列腺癌(PCa)患者的医疗管理提供信息,但关于前列腺癌生殖系基因检测后患者报告的结果(PROs)的数据有限。对PCa患者生殖系基因检测结果的回忆和理解、检测后临床建议的接受情况以及生殖系基因检测的心理影响进行了评估。方法:这是对宣告试验数据的二次分析。对PROs进行总体分析和种系基因检测结果分析。通过双尾Fisher精确检验确定组间差异,显著性设置为p。结果:在494名信息调查应答的患者中,60%和71%的患者分别准确地回忆和解释了他们的种系基因检测结果,阴性结果患者的比例最高,而VUS结果变体的比例最低。在42/55例(76%)临床医生提出生殖系基因检测建议的阳性结果患者中,39例(93%)完成或计划完成bbb1临床推荐。相反,对于VUS和阴性结果分别为160/221(72%)和211/218(97%)的患者,没有进一步的建议。然而,57%(213/371)的患者表示,他们或他们的家庭成员打算采取临床医生不推荐的临床管理策略。在接受调查的患者中,90%的患者报告说,生殖系基因检测后,他们对自己或家人的担忧程度没有增加。结论:对前列腺癌患者进行生殖系基因检测不会对患者造成明显的心理伤害。此外,阳性结果的患者对临床医生推荐的管理策略有很高的接受度。值得注意的是,对VUS结果的理解存在不一致,一些临床医生提出的建议不符合个人/家族史;相反,一些患者采取了临床医生不推荐的管理策略。这表明,在生殖系基因检测结果和临床建议的沟通中,教育工作是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
142
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases covers all aspects of prostatic diseases, in particular prostate cancer, the subject of intensive basic and clinical research world-wide. The journal also reports on exciting new developments being made in diagnosis, surgery, radiotherapy, drug discovery and medical management. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases is of interest to surgeons, oncologists and clinicians treating patients and to those involved in research into diseases of the prostate. The journal covers the three main areas - prostate cancer, male LUTS and prostatitis. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases publishes original research articles, reviews, topical comment and critical appraisals of scientific meetings and the latest books. The journal also contains a calendar of forthcoming scientific meetings. The Editors and a distinguished Editorial Board ensure that submitted articles receive fast and efficient attention and are refereed to the highest possible scientific standard. A fast track system is available for topical articles of particular significance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信