You are leaving Medscape Education
Cancel Continue
Log in to save activities Your saved activities will show here so that you can easily access them whenever you're ready. Log in here CME & Education Log in to keep track of your credits.
 

CME / ABIM MOC / CE

Are All Genes Created Equal in Prostate Cancer Outcomes?

  • Authors: News Author: Neil Osterweil; CME Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
  • CME / ABIM MOC / CE Released: 7/18/2023
  • Valid for credit through: 7/18/2024, 11:59 PM EST
Start Activity

  • Credits Available

    Physicians - maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™

    ABIM Diplomates - maximum of 0.25 ABIM MOC points

    Nurses - 0.25 ANCC Contact Hour(s) (0 contact hours are in the area of pharmacology)

    Pharmacists - 0.25 Knowledge-based ACPE (0.025 CEUs)

    Physician Assistant - 0.25 AAPA hour(s) of Category I credit

    IPCE - 0.25 Interprofessional Continuing Education (IPCE) credit

    You Are Eligible For

    • Letter of Completion
    • ABIM MOC points

Target Audience and Goal Statement

This activity is intended for hematologists/oncologists, internists, nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, physician assistants, and other members of the healthcare team for patients with prostate cancer.

The goal of this activity is for members of the healthcare team to be better able to describe the genomic landscape, comprehensive genomic profiling use patterns, and treatment patterns across ancestries in a large, diverse cohort of men with advanced prostate cancer, to determine the effect of genomics on ancestral disparities, based on a large-scale retrospective analysis of biopsy sections, with ancestry inferred using a single nucleotide polymorphism–based approach.

Upon completion of this activity, participants will:

  • Assess the effect of genomics on ancestral disparities in advanced prostate cancer, based on a large-scale retrospective analysis
  • Evaluate the clinical implications of the impact of genomics on ancestral disparities in advanced prostate cancer, based on a large-scale retrospective analysis, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Outline implications for the healthcare team


Disclosures

Medscape, LLC requires every individual in a position to control educational content to disclose all financial relationships with ineligible companies that have occurred within the past 24 months. Ineligible companies are organizations whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, re-selling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

All relevant financial relationships for anyone with the ability to control the content of this educational activity are listed below and have been mitigated. Others involved in the planning of this activity have no relevant financial relationships.


News Author

  • Neil Osterweil

    Freelance writer, Medscape

    Disclosures

    Neil Osterweil has no relevant financial relationships.

CME Author

  • Laurie Barclay, MD

    Freelance writer and reviewer
    Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Laurie Barclay, MD, has no relevant financial relationships.

Editor/Nurse Planner

  • Stephanie Corder, ND, RN, CHCP

    Associate Director, Accreditation and Compliance, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Stephanie Corder, ND, RN, CHCP, has no relevant financial relationships.

Compliance Reviewer

  • Amanda Jett, PharmD, BCACP

    Associate Director, Accreditation and Compliance, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Amanda Jett, PharmD, BCACP, has no relevant financial relationships.

Peer Reviewer

This activity has been peer reviewed and the reviewer has no relevant financial relationships.


Accreditation Statements

Medscape

Interprofessional Continuing Education

In support of improving patient care, Medscape, LLC is jointly accredited with commendation by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.

IPCE

This activity was planned by and for the healthcare team, and learners will receive 0.25 Interprofessional Continuing Education (IPCE) credit for learning and change.

    For Physicians

  • Medscape, LLC designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

    Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to 0.25 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the CME activity provider’s responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit.

    College of Family Physicians of Canada Mainpro+® participants may claim certified credits for any AMA PRA Category 1 credit(s)™, up to a maximum of 50 credits per five-year cycle. Any additional credits are eligible as non-certified credits. College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) members must log into Mainpro+® to claim this activity.

    Through an agreement between the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, medical practitioners participating in the Royal College MOC Program may record completion of accredited activities registered under the ACCME’s “CME in Support of MOC” program in Section 3 of the Royal College’s MOC Program.

    Contact This Provider

    For Nurses

  • Awarded 0.25 contact hour(s) of nursing continuing professional development for RNs and APNs; 0.00 contact hours are in the area of pharmacology.

    Contact This Provider

    For Pharmacists

  • Medscape designates this continuing education activity for 0.25 contact hour(s) (0.025 CEUs) (Universal Activity Number: JA0007105-0000-23-286-H01-P).

    Contact This Provider

  • For Physician Assistants

    Medscape, LLC has been authorized by the American Academy of PAs (AAPA) to award AAPA Category 1 CME credit for activities planned in accordance with AAPA CME Criteria. This activity is designated for 0.25 AAPA Category 1 CME credits. Approval is valid until 7/14/2024. PAs should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation.

For questions regarding the content of this activity, contact the accredited provider for this CME/CE activity noted above. For technical assistance, contact [email protected]


Instructions for Participation and Credit

There are no fees for participating in or receiving credit for this online educational activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity online during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page. To receive AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™, you must receive a minimum score of 75% on the post-test.

Follow these steps to earn CME/CE credit*:

  1. Read the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.
  2. Study the educational content online or printed out.
  3. Online, choose the best answer to each test question. To receive a certificate, you must receive a passing score as designated at the top of the test. We encourage you to complete the Activity Evaluation to provide feedback for future programming.

You may now view or print the certificate from your CME/CE Tracker. You may print the certificate but you cannot alter it. Credits will be tallied in your CME/CE Tracker and archived for 6 years; at any point within this time period you can print out the tally as well as the certificates from the CME/CE Tracker.

*The credit that you receive is based on your user profile.

CME / ABIM MOC / CE

Are All Genes Created Equal in Prostate Cancer Outcomes?

Authors: News Author: Neil Osterweil; CME Author: Laurie Barclay, MDFaculty and Disclosures

CME / ABIM MOC / CE Released: 7/18/2023

Valid for credit through: 7/18/2024, 11:59 PM EST

processing....

Clinical Context

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent nonskin cancer in men. The only well-established risk factors thus far are age, family history or genetics, and race/ethnicity.

Across cancer types, disparities by race or ancestry are greatest in prostate cancer, with significant racial disparities in incidence, mortality, outcomes, and treatment patterns. Highly Eurocentric precision oncology initiatives could potentially widen disparities if genomic risk models and targeted therapies continue to be developed on the basis of homogeneous study populations.

Study Synopsis and Perspective

Men of African ancestry have higher incidence of prostate cancer, have worse clinical outcomes, and are more likely to die from the disease when compared with men of other ancestries.

Trying to uncover the reason for this disparity has been the subject of much research. Potential explanations for this phenomenon include differences in environmental exposures, socioeconomic factors affecting access to care, explicit and structural racism in health care, and underlying biological or genetic variations.

But a new genomic study dispels this last explanation. This study had 1 of the largest samples of genomes of Black men to date, and found that the prevalence of alterations in medically actionable genes is largely similar across a large range of backgrounds. The results suggest that the worse outcomes among men of African ancestry are unlikely to be primarily a result of genomic differences, say the authors. 

The study was published online in the June issue of Lancet Digital Health.

“Overall, our findings suggest that genomic differences in actionable genes are unlikely to be the major driver of ancestry-based disparities among men diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer,” concluded Smruthy Sivakumar, PhD, from Foundation Medicine in Cambridge, Massachusetts and colleagues.

In addition, the authors found that men of African ancestry on average received more lines of therapy before undergoing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) than men of European ancestry, and that after undergoing profiling, men of African heritage were less likely to be enrolled in clinical trials based on those results.

They suggest that “equitable use of CGP testing, subsequent precision medicine or treatment pathways, and downstream clinical trial enrolment could lead to a reduction in disparities.”

Only One Piece of the Puzzle

An oncologist who studies racial disparities in genitourinary cancers but was not involved in the study told Medscape Medical News that the findings underscore the complex challenges in addressing racial inequities.

“There are differences in the genomic profiles from a population perspective of men with African ancestry and men of European ancestry, and we see that in this paper, with different prevalence of certain mutations, either higher or lower. But the changes aren’t dramatic, and those that actually are actionable by treatment are relatively modestly different,” commented Daniel J. George, MD, a medical oncologist at Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.

He added, however, that more widespread adoption of genomic profiling alone is not sufficient to reduce racial disparities.

“It’s not likely that even with perfect and comprehensive genetic profiling that we would be able to create a balanced outcome by race. It’s not those actionable targets alone; we’re going to need more treatments that can benefit these populations in order to bring together these disparate outcomes,” he said.

Dr George noted that in the discussion section of the article, Dr Sivakumar and colleagues cited disparities in access to care, including prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, access to therapies, and inclusion in clinical trials, as the primary driver of racial disparities in prostate cancer care.

“But what can be lost in the concern over this access to care is that there are also biologic factors,” Dr George said. “Yes, race is a social construct, but it’s also a biologic construct; they’re not mutually exclusive, and we know there are differences in biology by race. The question is how does that pertain to cancer outcomes, and I think understanding that in the context of our clinical trials, in our drug and therapy development, is critical.”

Retrospective Study

For their study, Dr Sivakumar and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling performed on biopsy samples from 11,741 men with prostate cancer. They inferred each patient’s ancestry on the basis of patterns of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), classifying each patient as being of European, African, East Asian, South Asian, or American admixed heritage.

The authors also looked at real-world treatment patterns and overall survival rates of a subset of patients for whom clinic-genomic data were available. This cohort included 130 men of African ancestry and 1017 men of European ancestry, and the remainder were of Asian or mixed heritage.

The investigators found that although there were differences in ancestry-specific mutational patterns, the prevalence of alterations in the gene AR, which codes for the androgen receptor, in DNA damage-response pathways and in other “actionable” genes were similar across ancestries, including those with mixed genetic heritage.

“Of note, men of African ancestry were less likely to receive CGP early in their treatment course (after fewer lines of therapy). Furthermore, men of African ancestry were less likely to be treated on clinical trials after CGP, which could affect the genomic landscape, outcomes, and ultimately disparities in prostate cancer,” the investigators write.

The study was supported by the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Department of Defense, Flatiron Health, Foundation Medicine, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr Sivakumar and multiple coauthors are employees of Foundation Medicine and have equity interests in Roche. Dr George have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Lancet Digit Health. Published in the June 2023 edition.[1]

Study Highlights

  • In this large-scale retrospective analysis, the CGP-based genomic landscape was evaluated in biopsy sections from 11,741 patients (12% of African ancestry; 79% of European ancestry) with prostate cancer.
  • Ancestry was inferred from an SNP-based approach.
  • Clinical and treatment information for 1234 patients in a deidentified US-based clinicogenomic database was independently and retrospectively reviewed for real-world treatment patterns and overall survival.
  • Men of African ancestry received more lines of therapy before CGP than men of European ancestry (median, 2 lines [interquartile range (IQR), 0-8] vs 1 line [IQR, 0-10]; P=.029).
  • There was a survival benefit with earlier CGP, with patients receiving CGP earlier in their treatment course (0 to 1 lines of therapy before CGP) having better real-world overall survival than those receiving CGP later in their care (at least 2 lines of therapy before CGP).
  • After undergoing CGP, men of African ancestry were less likely to receive a clinical study drug than men of European ancestry (10% vs 26%; P=.0005).
  • Genomic analyses revealed ancestry-specific mutational landscapes, with some differences in alteration frequencies across genes known to be associated with aggressive cancers.
  • However, not all aggressive mutational distributions were skewed to being aggressive in patients of African ancestry.
  • For example, CDK12 alterations associated with aggressive subtypes of prostate cancer were enriched in men of African ancestry vs. those of European ancestry, whereas TP53, PTEN, and other aggressive disease alterations were less frequent in patients of African ancestry.
  • Prevalence of alterations in AR, the DNA damage response pathway, and other actionable genes with prognostic or therapeutic implications were similar across ancestries.
  • Genomic landscapes were similar in analyses accounting for admixture-derived ancestry fractions.
  • The investigators concluded that similar rates of gene alterations with therapy implications suggest that differences in actionable genes (including AR and DNA damage response pathway genes) that would have therapeutic and predictive implications may not be a main driver of disparities across ancestries in advanced prostate cancer.
  • Later CGP use and lower rate of clinical trial enrollment among men of African ancestry could affect genomics, outcomes, and disparities.
  • Equitable use of CGP testing, subsequent precision medicine or treatment pathways, and downstream clinical trial enrollment could help reduce disparities.
  • Racial disparities in access to care involving prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, access to therapies, and inclusion in clinical trials may be the primary driver of racial disparities in prostate cancer care, but biologic factors are also important.
  • Study limitations include retrospective design, confounding, and scarce data on treatment sequence or history and exposures, hindering determination of the significance of genetic differences.
  • To elucidate mechanisms of disease underlying prostate cancer, continued large sequencing efforts are needed in prospective, diverse cohorts.
  • Future research should examine patterns of testing across patients of different ages, ancestries, geographic locations, site of care, and other variables.

Clinical Implications

  • Men of African or European ancestry with aggressive prostate cancer had similar rates of gene alterations with therapy implications.
  • Differences in actionable genes (including AR and DNA damage response pathway genes) that would have therapeutic and predictive implications may not be a main driver of disparities across ancestries in advanced prostate cancer.
  • Equitable use of CGP testing, subsequent precision medicine or treatment pathways, and downstream clinical trial enrollment could help reduce disparities. Members of the healthcare team should stay abreast of advances in fields of genomics and precision medicine to best address the health needs of the populations they serve.

 

Earn Credit

  • Print