Inadequacies in genetic testing referrals and counseling in prostate cancer.

• DOI: 10.1200/jco.2020.38.29_suppl.43
• Publication Date: 2020-10-08T13:35:56Z
• Authors: Yash Suri; Lakshminarayanan ...; Arnab Basu
• Keywords: 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; 3. Good health

43 Background: Recent studies have recognized the high prevalence of germline mutations in genes affecting DNA repair patients with prostate cancer. In recognition their growing clinical significance, NCCN guidelines recommend genetic counselling cancer pts certain risk factors. The application these practice were evaluated. Methods: All new clinic visits at UAB from January 2019 – June identified and analyzed. We constructed a flow diagram two-step referral model, performed chart review analyzed visits. then sent 10-item questionnaire to providers collect information on testing patterns, general approach testing, barriers GC, actions overcome barriers. Results: From 2019, 57 seen, which 23 had metastatic disease, 20 or intermediate localized disease remaining biochemical recurrence. total, 38 an indication for GC. most common was (40%) 15 (26%). Significantly 33% 24 early onset < 60 yrs did not meet defined criteria testing. Only 39% eligible referred, completed 11% those indications. response rate survey 91%. 30% respondents reported that they would be comfortable completing counseling themselves, commonly barrier providing themselves time, lack expertise/experience. 70% percent cited genetics workforce 60% knowledge inadequate coordination referrals Conclusions: While majority seen oncology are inconsistent, only handful complete results, areas need improved provider’s side education comfort systems perspective, more workforce, better process workflows required improve uptake Genetic Testing Referral Testing. interventions transformation implemented, tested adherence