PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

IMPORTANCE Understanding adverse effects of contemporary treatment approaches for men with favorable-risk and unfavorable-risk localized prostate cancer could inform treatment selection. OBJECTIVE To compare functional outcomes associated with prostate cancer treatments over 5 years after treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective, population-based cohort study of 1386 men with favorable-risk (clinical stage cT1 to cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] Յ20 ng/mL, and Grade Group 1-2) prostate cancer and 619 men with unfavorable-risk (clinical stage cT2cN0M0, PSA of 20-50 ng/mL, or Grade Group 3-5) prostate cancer diagnosed in 2011 through 2012, accrued from 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program sites and a US prostate cancer registry, with surveys through September 2017. EXPOSURES Treatment with active surveillance (n = 363), nerve-sparing prostatectomy (n = 675), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT; n = 261), or low-dose-rate brachytherapy (n = 87) for men with favorable-risk disease and treatment with prostatectomy (n = 402) or EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 217) for men with unfavorable-risk disease. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Patient-reported function, based on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (range, 0-100), 5 years after treatment. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important difference was 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritative symptoms, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormonal function. RESULTS A total of 2005 men met inclusion criteria and completed the baseline and at least 1 postbaseline survey (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [59-70] years; 1529 of 1993 participants [77%] were non-Hispanic white). For men with favorable-risk prostate cancer, nerve-sparing prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence at 5 years

PURPOSE Our objective was to evaluate operating characteristics, particularly specificity and positive predictive value (PPV), by mapping plasma miR371 expression to actual clinical events in patients with a history of germ cell tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred eleven male patients with a history of or newly diagnosed germ cell tumors were evaluable. Biospecimens obtained before confirmed clinical events were analyzed for miR371 expression with blinding of providers and laboratory personnel to analytic results or clinical status, respectively. Cases (patients with clinically confirmed active germ cell malignancy [aGCM]) and controls (patients with no clinically confirmed aGCM) were assigned over the course of the management. Patients were assigned risk status (high, low, or moderate) based on the composite clinical picture at time points in management. RESULTS Considering all cases and controls and results of prospectively obtained biosamples analyzed for miR371 expression, 46 (35%) of 132 samples had clinically confirmed aGCM over the course of management; 44 (96%) of these 46 patients had plasma miR371 expression (true positives) with no false positives. Two (4%) of 46 patients had no miRNA expression despite pathologic confirmation of aGCM (false negatives). Plasma miR371 expression in confirmed aGCM had a specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 100%, 96%, 100%, and 98%, respectively. Interpretation of sensitivity and negative predictive value is limited by modest follow-up. Specificity and sensitivity were 100% and 98%, 100% and 92%, and 100% and 97% in the low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups, respectively, with a median follow-up time of 15 months. CONCLUSION Plasma miR371 expression predicts aGCM with high specificity and positive predictive value. Although other operating characteristics of miR371 await longer follow-up for more complete definition, the findings of a highly specific liquid biopsy strongly support moving forward with large-scale, real-world clinical trials to further define full operating characteristics and to identify clinical utility and areas of patient benefit.