Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial
Huma Q. Rana, Jill E. Stopfer, Michelle Weitz, Lindsay Kipnis, Diane R. Koeller, Samantha Culver, Joanna Mercado, Rebecca Gelman, Meghan Underhill‐Blazey, Bradley A. McGregor, Christopher J. Sweeney, Nancie Petrucelli, Courtney Kokenakes, Sara Pirzadeh‐Miller, Brian Reys, Arthur Frazier, Andrew Knechtl, Salman Fateh, Donna Rachel Vatnick, Rebecca Silver, Kerry Kilbridge, Mark M. Pomerantz, Xiao X. Wei, Atish D. Choudhury, Guru Sonpavde, Olga Kozyreva, Christopher S. Lathan, Carolyn Horton, Jill S. Dolinsky, Elisabeth I. Heath, Theodora S. Ross, Kevin D. Courtney, Judy E. Garber, Mary‐Ellen Taplin
Abstract
PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent. METHODS: Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons. RESULTS: n = 4). CONCLUSION: Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.