BackgroundMen with germline breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene mutations have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer (PCa) than noncarriers. IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls) is an international consortium of 62 centres in 20 countries evaluating the use of targeted PCa screening in men with BRCA1/2 mutations.ObjectiveTo report the first year's screening results for all men at enrolment in the study.Design, setting and participantsWe recruited men aged 40–69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrolment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types.Results and limitationsWe recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%—double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups.ConclusionsThe IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease.Patient summaryIn this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment.

BackgroundMutations in BRCA2 cause a higher risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating targeted PrCa screening using prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) in men with germline BRCA1/2 mutations.ObjectiveTo report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3 yr of screening, by BRCA status.Design, setting, and participantsMen aged 40–69 yr with a germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation and male controls testing negative for a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were recruited. Participants underwent PSA screening for 3 yr, and if PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, men were offered prostate biopsy.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPSA levels, PrCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. Statistical analyses included Poisson regression offset by person-year follow-up, chi-square tests for proportion t tests for means, and Kruskal-Wallis for medians.Results and limitationsA total of 3027 patients (2932 unique individuals) were recruited (919 BRCA1 carriers, 709 BRCA1 noncarriers, 902 BRCA2 carriers, and 497 BRCA2 noncarriers). After 3 yr of screening, 527 men had PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 357 biopsies were performed, and 112 PrCa cases were diagnosed (31 BRCA1 carriers, 19 BRCA1 noncarriers, 47 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 BRCA2 noncarriers). Higher compliance with biopsy was observed in BRCA2 carriers compared with noncarriers (73% vs 60%). Cancer incidence rate per 1000 person years was higher in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (19.4 vs 12.0; p =  0.03); BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed at a younger age (61 vs 64 yr; p =  0.04) and were more likely to have clinically significant disease than BRCA2 noncarriers (77% vs 40%; p =  0.01). No differences in age or tumour characteristics were detected between BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 noncarriers. The 4 kallikrein marker model discriminated better (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73) for clinically significant cancer at biopsy than PSA alone (AUC = 0.65).ConclusionsAfter 3 yr of screening, compared with noncarriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers were associated with a higher incidence of PrCa, younger age of diagnosis, and clinically significant tumours. Therefore, systematic PSA screening is indicated for men with a BRCA2 mutation. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers.Patient summaryWe demonstrate that after 3 yr of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, we detect more serious prostate cancers in men with BRCA2 mutations than in those without these mutations. We recommend that male BRCA2 carriers are offered systematic PSA screening.

Summary Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one’s DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data’s being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our “Your DNA, Your Say” study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.

Non-invasive prenatal testing is increasingly available worldwide and stakeholder viewpoints are essential to guide implementation. Here we compare the preferences of women and health professionals from nine different countries towards attributes of non-invasive and invasive prenatal tests for Down syndrome. A discrete choice experiment was used to obtain participants' stated preference for prenatal tests that varied according to four attributes: accuracy, time of test, risk of miscarriage, and type of information. Pregnant women and health professionals were recruited from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. A total of 2666 women's and 1245 health professionals' questionnaires were included in the analysis. Differences in preferences were seen between women and health professionals within and between countries. Overall, women placed greater emphasis on test safety and comprehensive information than health professionals, who emphasised accuracy and early testing. Differences between women's and health professionals' preferences are marked between countries. Varied approaches to implementation and service delivery are therefore needed and individual countries should develop guidelines appropriate for their own social and screening contexts. INTRODUCTIONMany countries have established prenatal screening programmes for Down syndrome (DS), where an initial screening test is followed by the offer of an invasive diagnostic test for women with a 'high risk' result to allow definitive diagnosis. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), which analyses cell-free DNA in maternal plasma, is rapidly transforming prenatal testing for DS worldwide. 1 NIPT can be used from 10 weeks in pregnancy to screen for DS with high sensitivity (99.3%) and specificity (99.8%) and can detect other common chromosomal aneuploidies (Trisomy 18, Trisomy 13, and Monosomy X). 2,3 NIPT allows screening for these conditions with much greater specificity than traditional DS screening (DSS) 4 and thereby significantly reduces the need for invasive testing (chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis) with the associated small miscarriage risk. 5

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.