Stacy Loeb, Scott W Keith, Laura Gross, Rebecca L Hartman, Tomasz M Beer, Karina L Brierley, Heather H Cheng, Anna Couvillon, Adam P Dicker, Sue Friedman, Leonard G Gomella, Lawrence Karsh, William K Kelly, Costas D Lallas, Amy E Leader, Mark J Mann, James Ryan Mark, Patrick Mille, Channing J Paller, Huma Q Rana, Alexandra O Sokolova, Edouard J Trabulsi, Young E Whang, Veda N Giri
{"title":"男性患者报告的前列腺癌生殖系检测结果:来自PROGRESS Registry的结果。","authors":"Stacy Loeb, Scott W Keith, Laura Gross, Rebecca L Hartman, Tomasz M Beer, Karina L Brierley, Heather H Cheng, Anna Couvillon, Adam P Dicker, Sue Friedman, Leonard G Gomella, Lawrence Karsh, William K Kelly, Costas D Lallas, Amy E Leader, Mark J Mann, James Ryan Mark, Patrick Mille, Channing J Paller, Huma Q Rana, Alexandra O Sokolova, Edouard J Trabulsi, Young E Whang, Veda N Giri","doi":"10.1200/PO-25-00571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Prostate cancer (PCA) germline testing (GT) informs precision therapy, cancer screening, and hereditary cancer risk for patients and families. To support patient-centered PCA GT, studying patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is essential.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PROGRESS was a national patient-driven registry (January 2021-April 2022) for English-speaking males older than 18 years with previous/current PCA GT and Internet access. Surveys collected demographics, PCA history, family cancer history, mode of genetics care delivery, satisfaction with genetic counseling, decisional conflict, cancer genetics knowledge, and attitudes toward GT. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to estimate and draw inferences (α = .05) on strength of relationships between participant characteristics and PROs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analyses focused on 414 participants: White (88%), Black (3%), Asian (6%), and mixed/other (3%). Most participants were non-Hispanic (95.2%) and 46.9% had PCA. Genetic results were positive (pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants; mutations) in 27.9%. The three most common modes of genetics care were meeting with genetics professional (in-person or remotely; 30.9%), discussing with doctor (21.1%), and using website (20.8%). In covariate-adjusted models, satisfaction scores were highest with pretest counseling by phone (β = 1.31; 95% CI, 0.26 to 2.36) or discussion with doctor (β = 1.25; 95% CI, 0.38 to 2.12). Lower decisional conflict scores were reported for pretest counseling by phone (β = -3.76; 95% CI, -7.28 to -0.24). Males with mutations reported higher GT benefit scores (β = .30; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.59) and importance of GT (β = .34; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.61). Asian Americans reported lower GT satisfaction (β = -2.91; 95% CI, -4.34 to -1.48) and higher decisional conflict (β = 8.93; 95% CI, 4.36 to 13.51).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PROGRESS Registry informs the first comprehensive report of PROs among males undergoing PCA GT, providing insights into opportunities to improve patient experience and leverage the benefit of GT.</p>","PeriodicalId":14797,"journal":{"name":"JCO precision oncology","volume":"9 ","pages":"e2500571"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12462908/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-Reported Outcomes From Males Regarding Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROGRESS Registry.\",\"authors\":\"Stacy Loeb, Scott W Keith, Laura Gross, Rebecca L Hartman, Tomasz M Beer, Karina L Brierley, Heather H Cheng, Anna Couvillon, Adam P Dicker, Sue Friedman, Leonard G Gomella, Lawrence Karsh, William K Kelly, Costas D Lallas, Amy E Leader, Mark J Mann, James Ryan Mark, Patrick Mille, Channing J Paller, Huma Q Rana, Alexandra O Sokolova, Edouard J Trabulsi, Young E Whang, Veda N Giri\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/PO-25-00571\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Prostate cancer (PCA) germline testing (GT) informs precision therapy, cancer screening, and hereditary cancer risk for patients and families. To support patient-centered PCA GT, studying patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is essential.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PROGRESS was a national patient-driven registry (January 2021-April 2022) for English-speaking males older than 18 years with previous/current PCA GT and Internet access. Surveys collected demographics, PCA history, family cancer history, mode of genetics care delivery, satisfaction with genetic counseling, decisional conflict, cancer genetics knowledge, and attitudes toward GT. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to estimate and draw inferences (α = .05) on strength of relationships between participant characteristics and PROs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analyses focused on 414 participants: White (88%), Black (3%), Asian (6%), and mixed/other (3%). Most participants were non-Hispanic (95.2%) and 46.9% had PCA. Genetic results were positive (pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants; mutations) in 27.9%. The three most common modes of genetics care were meeting with genetics professional (in-person or remotely; 30.9%), discussing with doctor (21.1%), and using website (20.8%). In covariate-adjusted models, satisfaction scores were highest with pretest counseling by phone (β = 1.31; 95% CI, 0.26 to 2.36) or discussion with doctor (β = 1.25; 95% CI, 0.38 to 2.12). Lower decisional conflict scores were reported for pretest counseling by phone (β = -3.76; 95% CI, -7.28 to -0.24). Males with mutations reported higher GT benefit scores (β = .30; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.59) and importance of GT (β = .34; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.61). Asian Americans reported lower GT satisfaction (β = -2.91; 95% CI, -4.34 to -1.48) and higher decisional conflict (β = 8.93; 95% CI, 4.36 to 13.51).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PROGRESS Registry informs the first comprehensive report of PROs among males undergoing PCA GT, providing insights into opportunities to improve patient experience and leverage the benefit of GT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO precision oncology\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"e2500571\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12462908/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO precision oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/PO-25-00571\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO precision oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/PO-25-00571","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Patient-Reported Outcomes From Males Regarding Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROGRESS Registry.
Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCA) germline testing (GT) informs precision therapy, cancer screening, and hereditary cancer risk for patients and families. To support patient-centered PCA GT, studying patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is essential.
Methods: PROGRESS was a national patient-driven registry (January 2021-April 2022) for English-speaking males older than 18 years with previous/current PCA GT and Internet access. Surveys collected demographics, PCA history, family cancer history, mode of genetics care delivery, satisfaction with genetic counseling, decisional conflict, cancer genetics knowledge, and attitudes toward GT. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to estimate and draw inferences (α = .05) on strength of relationships between participant characteristics and PROs.
Results: Analyses focused on 414 participants: White (88%), Black (3%), Asian (6%), and mixed/other (3%). Most participants were non-Hispanic (95.2%) and 46.9% had PCA. Genetic results were positive (pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants; mutations) in 27.9%. The three most common modes of genetics care were meeting with genetics professional (in-person or remotely; 30.9%), discussing with doctor (21.1%), and using website (20.8%). In covariate-adjusted models, satisfaction scores were highest with pretest counseling by phone (β = 1.31; 95% CI, 0.26 to 2.36) or discussion with doctor (β = 1.25; 95% CI, 0.38 to 2.12). Lower decisional conflict scores were reported for pretest counseling by phone (β = -3.76; 95% CI, -7.28 to -0.24). Males with mutations reported higher GT benefit scores (β = .30; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.59) and importance of GT (β = .34; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.61). Asian Americans reported lower GT satisfaction (β = -2.91; 95% CI, -4.34 to -1.48) and higher decisional conflict (β = 8.93; 95% CI, 4.36 to 13.51).
Conclusion: PROGRESS Registry informs the first comprehensive report of PROs among males undergoing PCA GT, providing insights into opportunities to improve patient experience and leverage the benefit of GT.