A significant proportion of prostate cancer diagnoses may be associated with a strong hereditary component. Men who have multiple single-gene polymorphisms and a family history of prostate cancer have a significantly greater risk of developing prostate cancer. Numerous single-gene alterations have been confirmed to increase the risk of prostate cancer. These include breast cancer genes 1 and 2 (BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively), mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), mutS homologs 2 and 6 (MSH2 and MSH6, respectively), postmeiotic segregation increased 2 (PMS2), homeobox B13 (HOXB13), checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2), nibrin (NBN), BRCA1-interacting protein C-terminal helicase 1 (BRIP1), and ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM). Currently, there are no uniform guidelines on the definition of hereditary prostate cancer and genetic testing. With the advent of next-generation sequencing, which is capable of testing multiple genes simultaneously, and the approval of olaparib for BRCA1/BRCA2 or ATM-mutated, metastatic, castrate-resistant prostate cancer, it is being recognized that the results of genetic testing have an impact on therapeutic strategies. In this review, the authors examine the role of genetic counseling and testing, the challenges of insurance coverage for testing, the available germline and somatic testing panels, and the complexity of each testing method and its implications. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

A large percentage of cancer genetic counseling providers predicted they would opt for prophylactic surgery at a young age if they carried a BRCA or HNPCC mutation, and most would seek professional psychologic assistance when undergoing testing. More than half of respondents would not bill their insurance companies for genetic testing, largely because of fear of genetic discrimination. The vast majority of those providers most familiar with cancer genetic testing and its associated medical, psychologic, and legal implications would still pursue genetic testing.

After repeated media attention in 2013 due to the Angelina Jolie disclosure and the Supreme Court decision to ban gene patents, the demand for cancer genetic counseling and testing services has never been greater. Debate has arisen regarding who should provide such services and the quality of genetics services being offered. In this ongoing case series, we document 35 new cases from 7 states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Utah) and the District of Columbia of adverse outcomes in cancer genetic testing when performed without the involvement of a certified genetic counselor. We identified 3 major themes of errors: wrong genetic tests ordered, genetic test results misinterpreted, and inadequate genetic counseling. Patient morbidity and mortality were an issue in several of these cases. The complexity of cancer genetic testing and counseling has grown exponentially with the advent of multigene panels that include rare genes and the potential for more variants of uncertain significance. We conclude that genetic counseling and testing should be offered by certified genetics providers to minimize the risks, maximize the benefits, and utilize health care dollars most efficiently.