Streamlining the genetics pipeline to increase testing for patients at risk for hereditary prostate cancer.
Authors: Barry Tong, Hala Borno, Fern Alagala, Kelly Gordon, Eric Jay Small, Amy M. Lin, Amie Blanco, Mallika Sachdev Dhawan
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2021)

66 Background: At UCSF, ~850 men with metastatic prostate cancer are seen annually, all of whom should receive germline genetic testing. Prior to our study, the GU medical oncology program offered a self-pay, take-home genetic testing kit (30-gene panel) to patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Patients with positive test results were referred for genetic counseling. For this study, the UCSF Cancer Genetics and Prevention program partnered with the GU medical oncology program, adapting a Genetic Testing Station (GTS) to expand access and accommodate testing needs. At Prostate GTS, a genetic counselor assistant (GCA) facilitates cancer genetics education by video, enrolls patient in a research registry, collects a family history and saliva sample sent for an 87-gene panel. Our study evaluates the effectiveness of the GTS by comparing prospective performance metrics and testing outcomes of Prostate GTS with retrospective data obtained from the take-home method (“Before GTS”). Methods: Men were ascertained by their treating oncologist and referred for GTS. Indications for genetic testing include: all metastatic prostate cancer, or under age 50 at diagnosis, or with family history, or at clinician discretion. GTS metrics were prospectively collected by clinical staff. “Before GTS” metrics were retrospectively collected through data reporting from commercial lab analysis (test orders dated 01/2017 to 09/2019) and patient chart review. Results: In the first 6 months of Prostate GTS (10/2019-3/2020), 139 patients received testing at the GTS and 91% (127) had received results at censoring. GTS results were distributed as follows: 10% (13) positives, 33% (42) negative no VUS, and 57% (72) negative w/VUS. In the 33 months, “Before GTS”, 218 genetic testing orders had been placed, with 78% (196) reported at censoring, distributed as 11% (22) positive, 68% (134) negative no VUS, and 20% (40) negative w/VUS. The rate of incomplete tests decreased significantly with the GTS, (22% down to 9%, p = 0.0008). "Before GTS", of patients with a positive result, 15/22 (68%) were referred for genetic counseling, of which 8 completed a visit (36% of all positives). In the GTS model, all patients with positive results were seen by a genetic counselor for results disclosure and counseling. Comparing result rates across similar timeframes, 127 results were reported from GTS compared to 40 results from “Before GTS” in the same calendar months the year prior, representing a 218% increase in returned results. Median turnaround time decreased from 16 days to 9 days with GTS. Conclusions: GTS efficiently increased access to genetic testing and counseling for patients with prostate cancer. By leveraging GCAs and video education, this model involves cancer genetics at each step of the process, decreases turnaround time, and increases rates of returned results that can be used by patients to inform treatment and prevention strategies.