Choudry, Mouneeb

Abstract Introduction Patients living in rural areas have worse cancer‐specific outcomes. This study examines the effect of family‐based social capital on genitourinary cancer survival. We hypothesized that rural patients with urban relatives have improved survival relative to rural patients without urban family. Methods We examined rural and urban based Utah individuals diagnosed with genitourinary cancers between 1968 and 2018. Familial networks were determined using the Utah Population Database. Patients and relatives were classified as rural or urban based on 2010 rural–urban commuting area codes. Overall survival was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. Results We identified 24,746 patients with genitourinary cancer with a median follow‐up of 8.72 years. Rural cancer patients without an urban relative had the worst outcomes with cancer‐specific survival hazard ratios (HRs) at 5 and 10 years of 1.33 (95% CI 1.10–1.62) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.24–1.73), respectively relative to urban patients. Rural patients with urban first‐degree relatives had improved survival with 5‐ and 10‐year survival HRs of 1.21 (95% CI 1.06–1.40) and 1.16 (95% CI 1.03–1.31), respectively. Conclusions Our findings suggest rural patients who have been diagnosed with a genitourinary cancer have improved survival when having relatives in urban centers relative to rural patients without urban relatives. Further research is needed to better understand the mechanisms through which having an urban family member contributes to improved cancer outcomes for rural patients. Better characterization of this affect may help inform policies to reduce urban–rural cancer disparities.

376 Background: Germline genetic testing (GGT) is becoming increasingly important in the management of genitourinary (GU) malignancies as novel targeted drug therapies emerge. Selection for genetic studies and testing has historically been highly selective and based on pathologic characteristics, family history, and age of diagnosis. The aim of our study was to investigate the prevalence of pathogenic variants (PGVs) in inherited cancer susceptibility genes utilizing a universal testing approach and to characterize the rate of PGVs that would have been missed based on current NCCN guidelines. Methods: A multisite single-institutional prospective study (INTERCEPT) offered GGT to all patients with new or active diagnoses of GU malignancies (bladder, prostate, and renal cancers) from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2020 at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Mayo Clinic Florida and Mayo Clinic Rochester. Participants were offered GGT with a panel of >80 genes through Invitae Corp. Demographic, tumor characteristics and genetic results were evaluated. PGVs were classified as high-, intermediate-, or low- penetrance variants based on published literature. Respective NCCN GU GGT guidelines were used to determine if the PGVs discovered using our universal testing approach would have been missed with guideline-directed GGT. Results: A total of 3095 pan-cancer patients were enrolled in the study; 601 of which had a GU malignancy including: prostate cancer (358 patients), renal cancer (137), and bladder cancer (106). The mean age of enrollment was 66.8 years (SD 9.1), 89% were male, and 85.9% of patients were Non-Hispanic white. PGVs were identified in 82 of all GU patients (13.6%) and variants of undetermined significance (VUS) in 289 (48.1%) patients. PGV prevalence breakdown by cancer type was: 13.7% of prostate, 13.1% renal, and 14.2% bladder cancer patients. The proportion of high penetrance PGVs varied by malignancy type. Of all patients, 326 (54.2%) had advanced (stage III/IV) disease and 377 (64.4%) of these were metastatic upon initial evaluation. The majority of all PGVs identified were incremental, defined as PGVs that would not have been identified based on guideline-concordant GGT: 100% (15/15 patients) with bladder, 77.8% (14/18) with renal, and 57.1% (28/49) with prostate cancer. Conclusions: Universal GGT for prostate, renal and bladder cancer revealed that over 1 in 10 patients harbored potentially actionable PGVs, most of which would not have been identified with guidelines-based GGT. Utilization of GGT can impact our understanding of GU cancer pathogenesis, aid in familial cascade testing, and influence treatment decisions.