Assessing the mid-term impact of enhanced prostate cancer screening in Caucasian men with germline DNA repair pathogenic variants.

Massimo Lazzeri,Vittorio Fasulo,Nicolò Maria Buffi,Paolo Casale,Rodolfo Hurle,Alberto Saita,Marco Paciotti,Alessio Finocchiaro,Muhannad Aljoulani,Rosanna Asselta,Giulia Soldà,Ilaria De Simone,Piergiuseppe Colombo,Miriam Cieri,Federica Maura,Pietro Cavalli,Giovanni Lughezzani
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.278
IF: 45.3
2024-02-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:278 Background: Family history is a major prostate cancer (PCa) risk factor. Pathogenic gene variants (e.g., BRCA1/BRCA2) greatly increase PCa risk (2.5 to 8.6-fold for <65-year-olds) and affect outcomes. This study assesses an enhanced screening protocol's effectiveness and participant compliance. It combines PHI for familial cases and multiparametric MRI for those with pathogenic DNA repair gene (DRG) variants. Methods: This non-profit charity-funded study (AIRC - Fondazione AIRC project IG 2020 ID 25027) evaluates targeted screening for men at higher genetic risk of PCa due to PVs in a specific gene region (DRG). Conducted at a tertiary Hospital with collaboration from departments of Oncology, Breast Unit, Urology, Pathology, Radiology, Laboratory and Medical Genetics. It includes men aged 35-69 with documented deleterious DRG mutations who consent to planned screening. Exclusion criteria are prior prostate surgery, prostate cancer diagnosis, MRI contraindications, or variants of unknown significance (VUS). Results: Between 2020 and 2023, a total of 90 patients participated in this study. Their median age was 51.5 years (IQR 46.0-60.2). The median total PSA level was 0.9 (IQR 0.5-1.63), and the median PHI was 17 (IQR 12.3-23.8). Notably, 20.1% of patients had a family history of breast/ovarian cancer, while 79.9% had a family history of PCA. Most participants hailed from Northern Italy (69.4%). PVs were identified as follows: BRCA2 (55.7%), BRCA1 (17.8%), ATM (4.44%), PMS2 (3.33%), BRCA (3.33%), MSH2 (2.22%), TMPRSS2-ERG (2.22%), BRIP1 (1.11%), MLH1 (1.11%), MSH6 (1.11%), BRCA3 (1.11%), and 6.67% of patients reported mutations without specific details. In terms of screening compliance, 36 patients completed 1 visit, 31 completed 2 visits, 1 completed 3 visits, and 22 scheduled their first follow-up. Regarding PHI levels, 62.8% had PHI levels below 20, 33.5% fell in the 20-40 range, and 3.70% exceeded 40. For patients with PSA levels below 3 and PHI above 20 (n=17), only one exhibited a positive mpMRI result and is scheduled for a biopsy. Conversely, among patients with PSA levels above 3 and PHI below 20 (n=2), one underwent mpMRI, which yielded a negative result. Among the patients who underwent mpMRI, six underwent biopsy, and all resulted negatives. Conclusions: In summary, this study achieved high participant compliance with the screening method and underscores the importance of using PHI and multiparametric MRI, especially in those with genetic predispositions. These tools hold potential for enhancing prostate cancer detection accuracy and merit further exploration for early diagnosis in at-risk populations.
oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?