Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To characterize unmet sexual health resource needs and preferences for interventions to address unmet needs among female partners of patients with prostate cancer (PCa), given the significant negative impact of PCa on the sexual health of partners. METHODS:We conducted an exploratory sequential mixed methods study of female partners recruited from multiple U.S. clinical locations, websites, and support groups for caregivers. We first conducted semistructured in-depth interviews. Qualitative results informed development of a cross-sectional survey, which was administered to a larger sample of partners. RESULTS:Overall, 12 and 200 female partners participated in the qualitative and quantitative portions of the study. Major emergent themes from interviews were the benefits and drawbacks of technology-based interventions, the importance of sexual health resources throughout the PCa journey, and a desire for sexual health support groups that include partners. In the survey, the most common sexual health topics that partners wanted more information about were male libido problems (30.0%), erectile dysfunction (26.5%), and female libido and arousal problems (24.5%). Additionally, 41.5% wanted more information about sexual health websites, 35.0% about partners-only support groups, 29.5% about support groups for couples, and 23.5% about sexual medicine specialists. CONCLUSIONS:To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date on female partners' unmet sexual health resource needs and preferences for sexual health interventions. Partners prefer technology-based interventions, desire sexual health-focused support groups, and want more information about a variety of sexual issues and specialists who treat them.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:The objective of this study is to determine whether a sleep and health improvement programme (SHIP) to promote healthy sleep, eating and physical activity would be feasible, acceptable and have a positive impact on lifestyle behaviours for prostate cancer survivors and caregivers. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We recruited 50 participants for a single group 3-month pre-post pilot study. The SHIP intervention included (1) website about sleep, nutrition and physical activity (≥1 view/week), (2) two email newsletters with goal-setting exercises and resources and (3) midpoint health coach call. The primary outcome was changes in validated sleep scales; secondary outcomes included changes in diet, physical activity and concentration from baseline to 3 months. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 0.07). There were no statistically significant improvements in sleep quality or physical activity, but there were improvements in healthy eating (e.g., increase in cruciferous vegetables and reduction in dairy) and in fatigue-related problems and concentration. Exit interview feedback was positive. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:A web-based sleep and healthy lifestyle programme for patients with prostate cancer and their caregivers is feasible and acceptable. A randomized controlled trial is planned to test whether a refined SHIP improves sleep and lifestyle in patients with prostate cancer and caregivers.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Although prostate MRI and tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests improve staging and estimates of prostate cancer prognosis, their association with the intensity of treatment patients receive is not well understood. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer in 2013 through 2017 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The primary study outcome was the receipt of treatment intensification in the first 12 months after diagnosis (defined as the addition of androgen deprivation therapy among patients receiving radiation or pelvic lymphadenectomy among those undergoing radical prostatectomy). We assessed associations between the receipt of prostate MRI and genomic testing and treatment intensification, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors and further stratifying the analyses by risk status. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= .05). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Prostate MRI was associated with intensified treatment across risk strata, while genomic testing was associated with lower intensity of treatment among high-risk disease. Additional study is needed to determine whether use of imaging and risk stratification tools leads to improved long-term patient outcomes.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED: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.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations standardise the reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. An international consensus group recently updated these recommendations and identified the areas of uncertainty. METHODS:A panel of 38 experts used the formal RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus methodology. Panellists scored 193 statements using a 1-9 agreement scale, where 9 means full agreement. A summary of agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement (derived from the group median score) and consensus (determined using the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry method) was calculated for each statement and presented for discussion before individual rescoring. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:Participants agreed that MRI scans must meet a minimum image quality standard (median 9) or be given a score of 'X' for insufficient quality. The current scan should be compared with both baseline and previous scans (median 9), with the PRECISE score being the maximum from any lesion (median 8). PRECISE 3 (stable MRI) was subdivided into 3-V (visible) and 3-NonV (nonvisible) disease (median 9). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 lesions should be measured on T2-weighted imaging, using other sequences to aid in the identification (median 8), and whenever possible, reported pictorially (diagrams, screenshots, or contours; median 9). There was no consensus on how to measure tumour size. More research is needed to determine a significant size increase (median 9). PRECISE 5 was clarified as progression to stage ≥T3a (median 9). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:The updated PRECISE recommendations reflect expert consensus opinion on minimal standards and reporting criteria for prostate MRI in AS.

Social media is widely used globally by patients, families of patients, health professionals, scientists, and other stakeholders who seek and share information related to cancer. Despite many benefits of social media for cancer care and research, there is also a substantial risk of exposure to misinformation, or inaccurate information about cancer. Types of misinformation vary from inaccurate information about cancer risk factors or unproven treatment options to conspiracy theories and public relations articles or advertisements appearing as reliable medical content. Many characteristics of social media networks-such as their extensive use and the relative ease it allows to share information quickly-facilitate the spread of misinformation. Research shows that inaccurate and misleading health-related posts on social media often get more views and engagement (e.g., likes, shares) from users compared with accurate information. Exposure to misinformation can have downstream implications for health-related attitudes and behaviors. However, combatting misinformation is a complex process that requires engagement from media platforms, scientific and health experts, governmental organizations, and the general public. Cancer experts, for example, should actively combat misinformation in real time and should disseminate evidence-based content on social media. Health professionals should give information prescriptions to patients and families and support health literacy. Patients and families should vet the quality of cancer information before acting upon it (e.g., by using publicly available checklists) and seek recommended resources from health care providers and trusted organizations. Future multidisciplinary research is needed to identify optimal ways of building resilience and combating misinformation across social media.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Although prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the diagnosis, staging and active surveillance of prostate cancer, little is known about patient perspectives on MRI. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Interviews focused on experiences with and knowledge of prostate MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy during active surveillance. We purposively sampled patients who received prostate MRI as part of their clinical care, conducted interviews until reaching thematic saturation and performed conventional content analysis to analyse data. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Twenty patients aged 51-79 years (mean = 68 years) participated in the study. At diagnosis, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and three (15%) had a grade group 2 tumour. Overall, participants viewed prostate MRI as a valuable tool that accurately localizes and monitors prostate cancer over time, and they considered prostate MRI central to active surveillance monitoring. We identified five thematic categories related to MRI use: (1) the experiential aspects of undergoing an MRI scan; (2) the experience of visualizing one's own prostate and prostate cancer; (3) adequacy of provider explanations of MRI results; (4) confidence in prostate MRI in decision-making; and (5) the role of prostate MRI in longitudinal follow-up, including an interest in using MRI to modify the timing of, or replace, prostate biopsy. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Patients value prostate MRI as a tool that enhances their confidence in the initial diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. This work can inform future studies to optimize patient experience, education and counselling during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Germline genetic testing (GT) is important for prostate cancer (PCA) management, clinical trial eligibility, and hereditary cancer risk. However, GT is underutilized and there is a shortage of genetic counselors. To address these gaps, a patient-driven, pretest genetic education webtool was designed and studied compared with traditional genetic counseling (GC) to inform strategies for expanding access to genetic services. METHODS:Technology-enhanced acceleration of germline evaluation for therapy (TARGET) was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04447703) comparing a nine-module patient-driven genetic education webtool versus pretest GC. Participants completed surveys measuring decisional conflict, satisfaction, and attitudes toward GT at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and after GT result disclosure. The primary end point was noninferiority in reducing decisional conflict between webtool and GC using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. Mixed-effects regression modeling was used to compare decisional conflict between groups. Participants opting for GT received a 51-gene panel, with results delivered to participants and their providers. RESULTS:= .01), suggesting the patient-driven webtool was noninferior to GC. Overall, 145 (89.5%) GC and 120 (78.4%) in the webtool arm underwent GT, with pathogenic variants in 15.8% (8.7% in PCA genes). Satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms; knowledge of cancer genetics was higher but attitudes toward GT were less favorable in the webtool arm. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The results of the TARGET study support the use of patient-driven digital webtools for expanding access to pretest genetic education for PCA GT. Further studies to optimize patient experience and evaluate them in diverse patient populations are warranted.