Implementation of a Telehealth Genetic Testing Station to Deliver Germline Testing for Men With Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: Germline testing for men with prostate cancer (PCa) poses numerous implementation barriers. Alternative models of care delivery are emerging, but implementation outcomes are understudied. We evaluated implementation outcomes of a hybrid oncologist– and genetic counselor–delivered model called the genetic testing station (GTS) created to streamline testing and increase access. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution, cohort study of men with PCa referred to the GTS from October 14, 2019, to October 14, 2021, was conducted. Using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework, we described patients referred to GTS (Reach), the association of GTS with germline testing completion rates within 60 days of a new oncology appointment in a pre- versus post-GTS multivariable logistic regression (Effectiveness), Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance. Because GTS transitioned from an on-site to remote service during the COVID-19 pandemic, we also compared outcomes for embedded versus remote GTS. RESULTS: Overall, 713 patients were referred to and eligible for GTS, and 592 (83%) patients completed germline testing. Seventy-six (13%) patients had ≥ 1 pathogenic variant. Post-GTS was independently associated with higher odds of completing testing within 60 days than pre-GTS (odds ratio, 8.97; 95% CI, 2.71 to 29.75; P < .001). Black race was independently associated with lower odds of testing completion compared with White race (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.96; P = .042). There was no difference in test completion rates or patient-reported decisional conflict for embedded versus remote GTS. GTS has been adopted by 31 oncology providers across four clinics, and implementation fidelity was high with low patient loss to follow-up, but staffing costs are a sustainability concern. CONCLUSION: GTS is a feasible, effective model for high-volume germline testing in men with PCa, both in person and using telehealth. GTS does not eliminate racial disparities in germline testing access.

[1]  A. Armstrong,et al.  Abiraterone and Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. , 2022, NEJM evidence.

[2]  Heather H. Cheng,et al.  Germline genetics of prostate cancer , 2022, The Prostate.

[3]  V. Giri,et al.  Germline testing and genetic counselling in prostate cancer , 2022, Nature Reviews Urology.

[4]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2022 , 2022, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[5]  L. Madlensky,et al.  Disparities in germline testing among racial minorities with prostate cancer , 2021, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[6]  J. Tsoh,et al.  Research to reduce inequities in cancer risk services: Insights for remote genetic counseling in a pandemic and beyond , 2021, Journal of genetic counseling.

[7]  E. Collisson,et al.  Implementation of an embedded in-clinic genetic testing station to optimize germline testing for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. , 2021, The oncologist.

[8]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Adapting genetic counseling operations amidst the COVID‐19 pandemic , 2021, Journal of genetic counseling.

[9]  K. Offit,et al.  Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer , 2021, Genetics in Medicine.

[10]  A. Leader,et al.  Barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation for prostate cancer , 2021, The Prostate.

[11]  W. Lowrance,et al.  Clinical Germline Testing Results of Men With Prostate Cancer: Patient-Level Factors and Implications of NCCN Guideline Expansion , 2021, JCO precision oncology.

[12]  A. Wyatt,et al.  Differential treatment outcomes in BRCA1/2‐, CDK12‐, and ATM‐mutated metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer , 2021, Cancer.

[13]  Jennifer R. Rider,et al.  Disparities in precision medicine-Examining germline genetic counseling and testing patterns among men with prostate cancer. , 2020, Urologic oncology.

[14]  C. Parker,et al.  Prostate Cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2020, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[15]  Anne E. Calvaresi,et al.  Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019. , 2020, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  P. Nelson,et al.  Mismatch repair deficiency in metastatic prostate cancer: Response to PD-1 blockade and standard therapies , 2020, PloS one.

[17]  Alexandra O. Sokolova,et al.  Implementation of systematic germline genetic testing (GT) for metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) patients at the Puget Sound VA prostate oncology clinic. , 2020 .

[18]  David P. Smith,et al.  Evaluation of a Mainstream Model of Genetic Testing for Men With Prostate Cancer. , 2020, JCO oncology practice.

[19]  F. Saad,et al.  Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  E. Small,et al.  Ethnic disparities among men with prostate cancer undergoing germline testing. , 2020, Urologic oncology.

[21]  R. Nussbaum,et al.  Prevalence of Germline Variants in Prostate Cancer and Implications for Current Genetic Testing Guidelines , 2019, JAMA oncology.

[22]  Borsika A. Rabin,et al.  RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review , 2019, Front. Public Health.

[23]  Stephanie A Cohen,et al.  The past, present and future of service delivery in genetic counseling: Keeping up in the era of precision medicine , 2018, American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics.

[24]  P. Kantoff,et al.  Role of Genetic Testing for Inherited Prostate Cancer Risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017. , 2017, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Z. Szallasi,et al.  The association between germline BRCA2 variants and sensitivity to platinum‐based chemotherapy among men with metastatic prostate cancer , 2017, Cancer.

[26]  A. Dicker,et al.  Inherited Mutations in Men Undergoing Multigene Panel Testing for Prostate Cancer: Emerging Implications for Personalized Prostate Cancer Genetic Evaluation. , 2017, JCO precision oncology.

[27]  S. Buys,et al.  Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Delivery of BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling Compared With In-Person Counseling: 1-Year Follow-Up. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  Ahmet Zehir,et al.  Inherited DNA-Repair Gene Mutations in Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  G. Parmigiani,et al.  Familial Risk and Heritability of Cancer Among Twins in Nordic Countries. , 2016, JAMA.

[30]  Martha B. Adams,et al.  Randomized Trial of Telegenetics vs. In-Person Cancer Genetic Counseling: Cost, Patient Satisfaction and Attendance , 2015, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[31]  J. Garber,et al.  Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[32]  F. Légaré,et al.  Are you SURE?: Assessing patient decisional conflict with a 4-item screening test. , 2010, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.