Hereditary cancer risk assessment in the community urology practice setting.

278 Background: Professional guidelines recommend hereditary cancer risk assessment (HCRA) for men with prostate cancer to inform both risk of cancer (primary or subsequent) and treatment decisions. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the feasibility of integrating a HCRA protocol in urology practice for patients with prostate cancer and determine the response of providers and patients to the HCRA protocol. Methods: This prospective study was divided into 4 segments: process integration (4 wks.), practice (4 wks.), post-integration (8 wks.), and follow up (10 wks.). Study site staff were trained to perform HCRA for men with prostate cancer (integration). The sites then incorporated recommendations from the integration process into their normal practice workflow (practice). During the post-integration period, the HCRA process was implemented with eligible patients consented to participate. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, had a personal history of prostate cancer, and met National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for genetic testing (2.2018). Patients and providers completed surveys regarding testing ≥ 8 weeks of test delivery or 1 week of end of data collection period, respectively (follow up). Results: In the 8 weeks prior to the study, 4.2% of patients completed testing at the study sites. During the study, 8.4% of patients completed testing, about 1/2 of eligible patients screened. Of all patients who completed testing and consented for their results to be summarized (N = 182), 10.4% (N = 19) tested positive for a single pathogenic variant (PV; monoallelic MUTYH N = 4; BRCA2 N = 3; ATM, BRCA1, BRIP1, CHEK2, HOXB13 N = 2 each; RAD51C, RAD51D N = 1 each). Not all men who tested positive or a PV reported a family history of cancer and not all PVs detected were in known prostate cancer risk genes. During follow up, most providers (61.0%) felt HCRA was as important as other assessments regularly performed and 68.3% planned to continue to use the HCRA process. In contrast, only 9.8% of providers did not believe HCRA was as important and 12.2% did not plan to continue to use the process. Of the patients that responded to the survey (N = 166), most had shared (62.0%) or planned to share (25.3%) their results with family members post-testing. Conclusions: Urologists and patients responded favorably to HCRA protocol integration. Based on this study, education around and incorporation of an HCRA process in a community urology practice setting for men with prostate cancer appears effective at increasing appropriate uptake of genetic testing. Clinical trial information: NCT04015102.