Loeb, Stacy

Importance Half of all carriers of inherited cancer-predisposing variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are male, but the implications for their health are underrecognized compared to female individuals. Germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (also known as pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, referred to here as BRCA1/2 PVs) are well known to significantly increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancers in female carriers, and knowledge of BRCA1/2 PVs informs established cancer screening and options for risk reduction. While risks to male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs are less characterized, there is convincing evidence of increased risk for prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer in males. There has also been a rapid expansion of US Food and Drug Administration–approved targeted cancer therapies, including poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, for breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers associated with BRCA1/2 PVs. Observations This narrative review summarized the data that inform cancer risks, targeted cancer therapy options, and guidelines for early cancer detection. It also highlighted areas of emerging research and clinical trial opportunities for male BRCA1/2 PV carriers. These developments, along with the continued relevance to family cancer risk and reproductive options, have informed changes to guideline recommendations for genetic testing and strengthened the case for increased genetic testing for males. Conclusions and Relevance Despite increasing clinical actionability for male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs, far fewer males than female individuals undergo cancer genetic testing. Oncologists, internists, and primary care clinicians should be vigilant about offering appropriate genetic testing to males. Identifying more male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs will maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with prostate cancer suffer significant sexual dysfunction after treatment which negatively affects them and their partners psychologically, and strain their relationships.AimWe convened an international panel with the aim of developing guidelines that will inform clinicians, patients and partners about the impact of prostate cancer therapies (PCT) on patients’ and partners’ sexual health, their relationships, and about biopsychosocial rehabilitation in prostate cancer (PC) survivorship.MethodsThe guidelines panel included international expert researchers and clinicians, and a guideline methodologist. A systematic review of the literature, using the Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsychINFO, LGBT Life, and Embase databases was conducted (1995–2022) according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Study selection was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Each statement was assigned an evidence strength (A-C) and a recommendation level (strong, moderate, conditional) based on benefit/risk assessment, according to the nomenclature of the American Urological Association (AUA). Data synthesis included meta-analyses of studies deemed of sufficient quality (3), using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).OutcomesGuidelines for sexual health care for patients with prostate cancer were developed, based on available evidence and the expertise of the international panel.ResultsThe guidelines account for patients’ cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity. They attend to the unique needs of individuals with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. The guidelines are based on literature review, a theoretical model of sexual recovery after PCT, and 6 principles that promote clinician-initiated discussion of realistic expectations of sexual outcomes and mitigation of sexual side-effects through biopsychosocial rehabilitation. Forty-seven statements address the psychosexual, relationship, and functional domains in addition to statements on lifestyle modification, assessment, provider education, and systemic challenges to providing sexual health care in PC survivorship.Clinical ImplicationsThe guidelines provide clinicians with a comprehensive approach to sexual health care for patients with prostate cancer.Strengths & LimitationsThe strength of the study is the comprehensive evaluation of existing evidence on sexual dysfunction and rehabilitation in prostate cancer that can, along with available expert knowledge, best undergird clinical practice. Limitation is the variation in the evidence supporting interventions and the lack of research on issues facing patients with prostate cancer in low and middle-income countries.ConclusionThe guidelines document the distressing sexual sequelae of PCT, provide evidence-based recommendations for sexual rehabilitation and outline areas for future research.

The use of social media continues to increase in health care and academia. Health care practice, particularly the oncologic field, is constantly changing because of new knowledge, evidence-based research, clinical trials, and government policies. Therefore, oncology trainees and professionals continue to strive to stay up-to-date with practice guidelines, research, and skills. Although social media as an educational and professional development tool is no longer completely new to medicine and has been embraced, it is still under-researched in terms of various outcomes. Social media plays several key roles in professional development and academic advancement. We reviewed the literature to evaluate how social media can be used for professional development and academic promotion of oncology professionals.

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.

Objective To examine the use of the Prostate Health Index ( PHI ) as a continuous variable in multivariable risk assessment for aggressive prostate cancer in a large multicentre US study. Materials and Methods The study population included 728 men, with prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA ) levels of 2–10 ng/ mL and a negative digital rectal examination, enrolled in a prospective, multi‐site early detection trial. The primary endpoint was aggressive prostate cancer, defined as biopsy Gleason score ≥7. First, we evaluated whether the addition of PHI improves the performance of currently available risk calculators (the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial [ PCPT ] and European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ ERSPC ] risk calculators). We also designed and internally validated a new PHI ‐based multivariable predictive model, and created a nomogram. Results Of 728 men undergoing biopsy, 118 (16.2%) had aggressive prostate cancer. The PHI predicted the risk of aggressive prostate cancer across the spectrum of values. Adding PHI significantly improved the predictive accuracy of the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators for aggressive disease. A new model was created using age, previous biopsy, prostate volume, PSA and PHI , with an area under the curve of 0.746. The bootstrap‐corrected model showed good calibration with observed risk for aggressive prostate cancer and had net benefit on decision‐curve analysis. Conclusion Using PHI as part of multivariable risk assessment leads to a significant improvement in the detection of aggressive prostate cancer, potentially reducing harms from unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis.

Objective To evaluate whether genetic correction using the genetic variants prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA )‐single nucleotide polymorphisms ( SNPs ) could reduce potentially unnecessary and/or delayed biopsies in A frican‐ A merican men. Subjects and Methods We compared the genotypes of four PSA ‐ SNPs between 964 C aucasian and 363 A frican‐ A merican men without known prostate cancer ( PCa ). We adjusted the PSA values based on an individual's PSA‐SNP carrier status, and calculated the percentage of men that would meet commonly used PSA thresholds for biopsy (≥2.5 or ≥4.0 ng/mL) before and after genetic correction. Potentially unnecessary and delayed biopsies were defined as those men who were below and above the biopsy threshold after genetic correction, respectively. Results Overall, 349 (96.1%) and 354 (97.5%) A frican‐ A merican men had measured PSA levels <2.5 and <4.0 ng/mL. Genetic correction in A frican‐ A merican men did not avoid any potentially unnecessary biopsies, but resulted in a significant ( P < 0.001) reduction in potentially delayed biopsies by 2.5% and 3.9%, based on the biopsy threshold level. Conclusions There are significant differences in the influence of the PSA ‐ SNPs between A frican‐ A merican and C aucasian men without known PCa , as genetic correction resulted in an increased proportion of A frican‐ A merican men crossing the threshold for biopsy. These results raise the question of whether genetic differences in PSA might contribute to delayed PCa diagnosis in A frican‐ A merican men.