What tools do men need to make an informed decision about germline genetic testing for prostate cancer? A qualitative and survey study | medRxiv

What Men Need to Know Before Saying "Yes" to a Genetic Test:
A New Study Asks the Patients Themselves

An IPCSG Newsletter Feature — based on the Raspin et al. (2026) Tasmanian co-design study and a broad survey of current research, guidelines, and law.

BLUF — Bottom Line Up Front

Genetic testing now matters at every stage. Both the NCCN (Version 1.2025) and ASCO (2025) guidelines now recommend germline (inherited) genetic testing for every man with metastatic prostate cancer and most men with high-risk localized disease. About 1 in 10 men with metastatic prostate cancer carries an inherited mutation that changes treatment options.
The most important genes are BRCA2, BRCA1, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, HOXB13, and the Lynch-syndrome (MMR) genes. A BRCA2 mutation, in particular, signals more aggressive disease and opens the door to PARP-inhibitor drugs (olaparib, talazoparib, niraparib, rucaparib).
Patients want testing — but they're scared of the fine print. A new Australian study (Raspin et al., May 2026) found that men's biggest motivator for testing is helping their children and siblings, while their biggest worry is insurance discrimination, followed by cost and anxiety about results.
The legal landscape just shifted. Australia banned the use of genetic test results in life-insurance underwriting (Royal Assent 8 April 2026; effective 8 October 2026). In the U.S., the 2008 GINA law still does not protect against discrimination in life, disability, or long-term-care insurance — and California's CalGINA, while broader than federal law in housing and education, also stops short of those three coverage types. Only Florida (HB 1189, 2020) has closed the gap completely.
Timing matters for untested family members. Both a positive genetic test and a manifest diagnosis become disclosable on any new application for life, LTC, or disability insurance. Existing policies are unaffected. The genetic-counselling community routinely advises high-risk relatives to think about coverage before testing.
23andMe is the wrong tool for the prostate-cancer question. Its authorized BRCA report covers only 44 of more than 4,000 known BRCA1/2 mutations and tests none of the other relevant genes (ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, HOXB13, MMR). Comprehensive at-home alternatives exist — JScreen (Emory) tests 48–63 cancer-relevant genes for $49–$59 self-pay — but they are clinical-grade testing, not anonymous.
The biggest takeaway for patients: ask three questions before testing — What genes will be checked? Who will explain the results? And what protections do I have where I live?

Why This Story Matters Now

Prostate cancer has the highest heritability of any common cancer in men — meaning more of the risk is inherited than for breast, colon, or lung cancer. Yet for decades the testing tools that have transformed care for women with breast and ovarian cancer have lagged badly in our world. That is finally changing. Three FDA-approved PARP-inhibitor combinations (olaparib + abiraterone, talazoparib + enzalutamide, and niraparib + abiraterone) reached the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) clinic in 2023, and every major society guideline has since broadened the criteria for testing.

But guidelines aren't the same thing as patient experience. Most of us don't get a genetics PhD with our biopsy result. We get five minutes with a urologist, a stack of pamphlets, and a nagging worry: what does it mean for my kids? Will it cost me? Will my insurance find out?

That is exactly the gap a research team at the Menzies Institute for Medical Research at the University of Tasmania set out to address. Their study — posted on medRxiv on 7 May 2026 and led by Dr. Kelsie Raspin — is unusual in that it doesn't try to teach patients anything. It listens to them first, then builds a tool around what they actually said they need.

The Study: Listening Before Teaching

The Tasmanian team ran their study in two phases:

Phase I (Dec 2022 – Sept 2023): Four focus groups with 20 men diagnosed with prostate cancer (ages 50–83, average 72). The men's treatment histories looked a lot like an IPCSG meeting roster: 11 had radical prostatectomies, 10 had radiation, 5 had hormone therapy, 6 had recurred or progressed to metastatic disease, and many had endured difficult side effects.
Phase II (June – July 2024): The themes from Phase I were used to build a "Precision Medicine in Prostate Cancer Information Toolkit," which was then reviewed by 14 patients, 4 carers/family members, and 14 healthcare providers (oncologists, a urologist, a haematologist, prostate-cancer specialist nurses, geneticists, and pathologists).

What the men actually said

Some of the findings will surprise no one in the IPCSG meeting room; others should:

Knowledge was thin. Only 9 of 20 men had even heard the term "precision medicine," and many of those couldn't define it. All 20 had heard of "genetic testing" — but few understood how it applies to prostate cancer specifically.
The strongest motivator wasn't personal — it was family. The number-one reason men gave for wanting testing was protecting their sons, brothers, and daughters. As one participant put it: "I think, for my son, if he was aware that he had the markers... it would flag him to be monitored more closely than to live life blindly."
The number-one fear was insurance. Five of the twenty men spontaneously raised insurance discrimination as their top worry. Many used "health insurance" and "life insurance" interchangeably, even though, in Australia, they are governed by very different rules. (More on this below — and the U.S. picture is no clearer.)
"You don't know what you don't know." Several men used this phrase to describe how hard it is to ask the right question when you've never been told what the test is for. They wanted closed-form questionnaires with examples, not blank pages.
Patients wanted a male prostate-cancer nurse as a second support person alongside the genetic counsellor — a gender-specific need rarely built into existing programs.

What the toolkit revealed

When the team's draft information toolkit was reviewed in Phase II, the results were sobering. Only 5 of 14 patients (36%) felt the toolkit's purpose was clear, compared with 8 of 14 healthcare providers (57%) and all 4 carers (100%). Patients tripped over jargon (the words "panel" and "PARP" were the worst offenders). Both patients and clinicians flagged a glaring omission: not enough information about cost, life insurance, family implications, and real patient stories. The authors' honest conclusion: the toolkit, as drafted, isn't enough. Co-design must be iterative, not a single round.

What's Actually In the Test? The Genes That Matter

A modern prostate-cancer germline panel typically screens around 30 genes, but the ones with the strongest evidence break down like this:

Gene	Why it matters in prostate cancer
BRCA2	The biggest player. Carriers face roughly a 27% absolute risk of prostate cancer by age 75 and ~60% by age 85, and the disease tends to be more aggressive, diagnosed younger, and faster to metastasize. BRCA2-mutant tumors respond especially well to PARP inhibitors.
BRCA1	Smaller risk increase than BRCA2, but still associated with more aggressive disease before age 65. Also a PARP-inhibitor target.
ATM	Moderate increase in risk of aggressive disease; PARP-inhibitor responsive in some men.
CHEK2, PALB2	Moderate risk for aggressive disease; included on most multigene panels.
HOXB13	Linked to early-onset, familial prostate cancer (the G84E mutation is most common in men of Northern European descent).
MMR genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2)	Cause Lynch syndrome. Increase prostate-cancer risk and — importantly — make tumors more likely to respond to immunotherapy (PD-1 inhibitors like pembrolizumab).

The 2025 NCCN guideline lists 11 genes for prostate-cancer susceptibility and 19 genes related to PARP-inhibitor response, with six genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, MLH1, and PALB2) appearing on both lists.

What Testing Changes — Treatment Decisions That Were Not Available Five Years Ago

For men with metastatic castration-resistant disease, identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation can completely re-shape the treatment plan. Three PARP-inhibitor combinations were FDA-approved within four months of each other in 2023:

Olaparib + abiraterone + prednisone (Lynparza + Zytiga) — approved 31 May 2023 for BRCA-mutated mCRPC, based on the PROpel trial.
Talazoparib + enzalutamide (Talzenna + Xtandi) — approved 20 June 2023 for HRR-gene-mutated mCRPC, based on TALAPRO-2.
Niraparib + abiraterone (Akeega) + prednisone — approved 11 August 2023 for BRCA-mutated mCRPC, based on MAGNITUDE.

For men whose tumors show microsatellite instability or MMR deficiency (typically Lynch-syndrome carriers), the immune-checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab becomes a treatment option. And for unaffected family members, a positive result triggers earlier and more frequent screening — the kind of advance warning the men in the Tasmanian study said they most wanted to give their children.

Who Should Be Tested? The Current Guidelines

The recommendations have expanded dramatically. The current NCCN Guidelines (Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, Version 3.2025) and ASCO's 2025 guidelines on metastatic prostate cancer agree on the following criteria for germline testing:

Any man with metastatic prostate cancer (any stage of metastasis).
Any man with high-risk or very-high-risk localized prostate cancer (higher Gleason/Grade Group, higher clinical stage, or PSA > 20 at diagnosis).
Men with intermediate-risk disease that shows intraductal or cribriform histology.
Men with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry or a strong family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancer.
Men with a known pathogenic family variant.

The 2024 EAU guidelines (European Association of Urology and partner societies) and the 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) reach essentially the same conclusion. Notably, recent expert guidance — including a 2024 multidisciplinary consensus paper led by Duke's Andrew Armstrong — argues for offering germline testing to every man at the time of prostate-cancer diagnosis, not just those who meet today's narrower criteria.

The Insurance Question — and Why It Differs Sharply by Country

Australia: A New Law, Just in Time

The Tasmanian study captured an unusually fortunate moment. When the focus groups were held in 2022–2024, life-insurance discrimination based on genetic test results was governed only by a voluntary moratorium of the Financial Services Council — a partial protection that left many gaps. That has now changed.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Act 2026 (Act No. 35 of 2026) was passed by Parliament on 1 April 2026, received Royal Assent on 8 April 2026, and becomes operative on 8 October 2026. It bans Australian life insurers from using genetic test results — or even the fact that a person has been advised to undergo testing — to set premiums, refuse cover, or impose unfair conditions. The Australian Human Rights Commission called it a "historic reform." Genetic-discrimination researcher Dr. Jane Tiller of Monash University described the law to Medscape as "world-leading in terms of what it does, its totality, its strong enforcement."

The law is broader than its U.S. counterpart, though it does have limits: it does not apply to inferred genetic information; it covers only contracts entered into after October 2026; and it will be reviewed every five years.

United States: GINA's Famous (and Persistent) Gap

In the U.S., the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 protects Americans from genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment (for employers with 15+ employees). It does not apply to:

Life insurance
Long-term care insurance
Disability insurance
The U.S. military (genetic information can affect military employment decisions, which can in turn affect TRICARE eligibility)

A 2021 study published in Risk Management and Insurance Review found that 92.6% of Americans who reported high subjective knowledge of GINA actually got the life-insurance question wrong — they didn't realize the law leaves that gap. Some states (notably California, with CalGINA) have closed parts of the gap; many have not.

For an IPCSG audience: the practical point is that under federal U.S. law, a positive germline test result cannot be used to deny or price your health insurance or employment, but a private life-insurance carrier writing a new policy can still ask the question, and in most states can use the answer. Existing policies are not affected.

Sidebar: A Note on Insurance Timing — for Sons, Brothers, and Untested Family Members

If you are an IPCSG member reading this for yourself, the timing question may be moot — a manifest prostate-cancer diagnosis is already in your medical record, and that fact alone is disclosable on any new application for life, long-term-care, or disability coverage, with or without a genetic test. Existing policies you already hold are unaffected.

For your sons, brothers, and other untested family members, however, the timing window is real and worth knowing about. Two pieces of information become disclosable on any new application for life, LTC, or disability insurance: a positive genetic test result, and a manifest diagnosis. Either one is enough; both reset the underwriting picture. This is why genetic counsellors routinely advise high-risk family members to think about insurance before cascade testing — not to game the system, but because once a result is in the medical record, the duty of disclosure attaches to it. Misrepresentation on a new application can void the policy during the contestability period (typically two years after issue).

One sharper-than-people-realize wrinkle: family history alone can affect underwriting. An untested 35-year-old whose father and uncle both had metastatic prostate cancer will get questions on a life-insurance application even if he's never been near a saliva tube. The genetic test doesn't create the risk — it sharpens it. Group life insurance through an employer is typically guaranteed-issue (no medical underwriting), which is a quiet escape valve worth keeping in mind.

The State-Law Landscape — California Members, Take Note

State law variation matters here, and it's uneven:

California — CalGINA (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 11135 et seq., enacted 2011): California's law extends GINA-style protections beyond health insurance and employment into housing, mortgage lending, education, emergency medical services, and other state-funded programs. It does not, however, cover life, long-term-care, or disability insurance. So a California man considering germline testing has the same federal-only protection his cousin in Idaho has when it comes to those three coverage types — CalGINA does not close that particular gap.
Florida — HB 1189, "Genetic Information for Insurance Purposes" (effective 1 July 2020): the only U.S. state with a near-complete prohibition on the use of genetic test results in life, long-term-care, and disability underwriting. Florida insurers cannot solicit, require, or use genetic test results to deny, limit, cancel, or set differential premiums. The law does, however, permit insurers to consider a manifest diagnosis (e.g., a documented cancer, even if discovered through genetic testing) — so the timing principle still applies.
Partial protections in selected states: Arizona, Massachusetts, New Jersey (life insurers); Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts (long-term care). About half the states have nothing beyond federal GINA on these lines.

The bottom line for California sons and brothers reading this on Dad's behalf: federal GINA protects your health insurance and most employment decisions, CalGINA adds housing/mortgage/education/state-funded services, but life, LTC, and disability remain governed by underwriting that can lawfully consider both genetic test results and family history. The Society of Actuaries and the American Medical Association have both flagged this gap; bipartisan state interest has been simmering since Florida's law passed five years ago, but no other state has gone the full distance.

Practical sequence for an untested family member: evaluate your insurance needs and lock in any coverage you actually want before testing if you reasonably can; understand that family history alone may already trigger underwriting questions; recognize that group life through an employer is a different and easier path; and treat any new individual application after a positive result with the seriousness it deserves — answer every question fully and accurately. None of this is a reason to avoid testing if testing is medically indicated. It is a reason to sequence the steps thoughtfully.

Sidebar: A Note on At-Home and "Anonymous" Testing — What 23andMe Does and Doesn't Tell You

A reasonable question many IPCSG members and their family members ask is whether genetic testing can be done quietly, off the medical record — for example through 23andMe or a similar at-home service. The honest answer is that genuinely anonymous testing is essentially impossible (any test has to link a sample to a result somehow), but "off the clinical record" is achievable. The bigger problem is that the most famous at-home option is the wrong tool for the prostate-cancer question.

What 23andMe actually tests — and doesn't

23andMe's FDA-authorized BRCA1/BRCA2 health report covers 44 specific variants out of more than 4,000 known BRCA1/2 mutations. The original 2018 authorization covered only the three Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations; an expansion in 2024 added 41 more, including some more common in African American, Hispanic/Latino, East Asian, and South Asian populations. Even with the expansion, 23andMe's own product disclosure makes the limitation clear: "The variants included in this report do not represent the majority of the BRCA1/BRCA2 variants in people of most ethnicities."

More importantly for prostate cancer specifically: 23andMe does not test ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, HOXB13, or any of the Lynch-syndrome MMR genes — most of the panel that matters for this disease. For an Ashkenazi man, a 23andMe report can function as a crude initial screen for the three founder mutations. For everyone else, a "negative" 23andMe BRCA report is close to meaningless as reassurance about hereditary prostate-cancer risk, and contains no information at all about the other genes on a clinical panel.

The 23andMe data-custody story (2023–2025)

The privacy picture has also gotten complicated in ways most consumers haven't fully absorbed. In October 2023, 23andMe disclosed a data breach exposing personal data on roughly 7 million users. In March 2025, the company filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. After a contested auction, its assets — including the genetic-data archive of more than 15 million customers — were sold to TTAM Research Institute, a nonprofit founded by 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki, for $305 million; the sale closed on 14 July 2025. More than two dozen state attorneys general (including California) sued to block the sale on genetic-privacy grounds, arguing that customer DNA is not ordinary corporate property. The Missouri bankruptcy court overruled the objections, ruling the transaction was an equity transfer rather than a direct data sale, and TTAM has committed to honor existing privacy policies and customer deletion rights. The takeaway: direct-to-consumer genetic data has now demonstrably both been breached and changed hands through bankruptcy, neither of which is true of a clinical-laboratory record under HIPAA.

The clinically useful at-home alternative — JScreen

The closest comparable to 23andMe that is clinically useful for prostate-cancer risk is JScreen, run by Emory University's Department of Human Genetics. Despite the name (which reflects its origins in screening Ashkenazi populations for reproductive carrier conditions), JScreen's hereditary-cancer panel is open to anyone, of any ancestry, and tests 48–63 genes including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, HOXB13, and the Lynch-syndrome MMR genes. The lab work is performed by Myriad Genetics in a CLIA-certified facility using next-generation sequencing — meaning the entire gene is read, not just a handful of pre-selected SNPs. The cost is $49 self-pay base plus a $10 program fee for those who don't qualify for or don't want to use insurance; a saliva sample is mailed in and results are returned within about three weeks, accompanied by a virtual genetic-counsellor session.

The trade-off: JScreen is genuinely clinical testing. It produces a real medical-grade report that goes through Myriad's lab, and the counsellor visit creates a record. That's the opposite of what someone seeking pure off-the-record privacy might want — but it's also why the result is actually clinically actionable. Other clinical-grade comprehensive options include Invitae, Color Health, Ambry, GeneDx, and the newer whole-genome service Nucleus; most of these now require a physician order, though several offer telegenetics models that can be arranged remotely.

The hidden problem with "anonymous" testing

Here is the wrinkle that defeats most of the privacy advantage people imagine they're getting from at-home testing: life-insurance applications in most U.S. states ask directly whether you have ever had genetic testing, sometimes specifically including direct-to-consumer testing such as 23andMe. Answering "no" when you have is a misrepresentation, which can void the policy during the contestability period (typically two years after issue) regardless of whether the insurer ever otherwise discovers the test. The privacy "advantage" of DTC over clinical testing is therefore largely illusory the moment you submit an honest application. Florida's HB 1189 prohibits insurers from asking the question at all; California's CalGINA does not. So for a California family member contemplating DTC testing as an "off the record" option, no real anonymity benefit exists on a future life-insurance application — the question is still asked, and the duty of disclosure still attaches.

The bottom line

For an untested high-risk family member who wants both meaningful information and insurance flexibility, the honest sequence is: (1) lock in any life, LTC, or disability coverage you actually want first; (2) choose comprehensive clinical testing (JScreen, or a clinical-grade panel ordered through your physician), not 23andMe — because if you're going to disclose the test on future applications anyway, you want a result that's actually useful; (3) engage a genetic counsellor regardless of the testing pathway, particularly if a positive result emerges. 23andMe still has a role for ancestry, pharmacogenomics, and for Ashkenazi men who want a quick founder-mutation screen, but it is not the right tool for answering whether you carry inherited prostate-cancer risk.

Barriers Beyond Insurance — and What's Being Done About Them

Insurance worry is only one of the obstacles documented in the literature. A 2025 Lancet EBioMedicine review by Loeb, Vadaparampil, and Giri at NYU, Moffitt, and Yale found that the rapid expansion of testing has overwhelmed genetic-counsellor capacity, and that disparities by race, geography, and socioeconomic status remain substantial. The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium's 2025 survey of academic medical oncologists identified five top barriers: clinical workflow, time and space, access to genetic counsellors, out-of-pocket cost, and educational resources for patients and providers.

Several efforts are underway to bridge those gaps:

The PROMISE Registry (NCT04995198) offers free, at-home saliva-based germline testing through Color Health to U.S. men with prostate cancer at any stage. Positive results trigger a virtual visit with a genetic counsellor. The registry plans to enroll 5,000 men over five years, with 15 years of follow-up. A patient can sign up at prostatecancerpromise.org.
The IRONMAN registry is the international companion study for men with advanced disease, addressing real-world disparities in treatment patterns.
Community-based "health coach" pilots are testing culturally tailored education for African-American men, who carry the highest disease burden but the lowest testing uptake (NCT04763980).
The Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus framework (originated 2017, updated 2019, updated again with ASCO 2025 guideline) provides a stepwise model for how to deliver testing when local genetics services are scarce — including pre-test education videos, telegenetics, and reflex panels that start narrow and expand only if needed.

What the Tasmanian Study Tells Us About Toolkit Design

One striking finding from the Raspin study is the perception gap between patients and the people supporting them. Most carers/family members said the draft toolkit was clear; only a third of patients did. The authors suggest a reason worth quoting: carers and family members read health information with a practical mindset, while patients read it through the lens of fear, immediate decisions, and personal meaning. A toolkit that "covers the topic" can still fail the patient if it doesn't anchor the information in real lived experience — including real patient stories at different stages of disease.

The implications for any prostate-cancer support group, including IPCSG, are direct:

Define every term — including "panel," "PARP," "germline," "somatic," and "variant of uncertain significance" — the first time it appears.
Address insurance, cost, and family implications head-on, not as an afterthought.
Include patient stories that span watch-and-wait, localized treatment, recurrence, and metastatic disease — so each reader sees someone like himself.
Provide a clear next step: who you call, what you ask for, and what the test actually involves (saliva or blood; results in 4–8 weeks; counselling visit if positive).

Clinical Impact for IPCSG Members

If you have metastatic disease, every major society guideline now recommends both germline and tumor (somatic) genetic testing. Ask your oncologist directly: "Have I been tested? What was on the panel?" Ten to fifteen percent of men with mCRPC carry an actionable mutation.
If you have high-risk localized disease (Gleason 8–10, PSA > 20, T3+, or intraductal/cribriform histology), you also meet 2025 NCCN criteria for germline testing — even if you've never had a relative with cancer.
If you have a son, brother, or daughter, a positive result for you can mean earlier PSA screening for your sons (often starting at 40 instead of 50–55) and breast/ovarian-cancer surveillance for daughters and sisters.
Before testing, make a list of what insurance you currently hold (health, life, long-term care, disability). Federal GINA covers your health insurance and most jobs. It does not cover the others. If you already hold those policies, your existing coverage is not affected — the question only arises if you apply for new coverage.
Free or low-cost options exist. The PROMISE Registry provides free at-home testing for U.S. men with prostate cancer. Some commercial labs offer reduced cash-pay rates if insurance balks. Ask your urologist or oncologist for a referral to a genetic counsellor — and don't accept "we don't do that here" as a final answer.

Patient Q&A

Q: I'm 72, was treated for localized disease eight years ago, no recurrence. Should I still get tested?
A: Maybe — it depends on your original Gleason score and family history. If your tumor was Gleason 8 or higher, or you have first-degree relatives with breast, ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancer, yes. The result still matters for your children and siblings even if it no longer changes your treatment.

Q: What's the difference between "germline" and "somatic" testing?
A: Germline means inherited — the mutation is in every cell of your body, including the cells you passed to your children. The test is done on saliva or a blood draw. Somatic means the mutation arose in the tumor itself; it tells your oncologist about treatment options for you, but does not directly inform family risk. The two tests answer different questions, and current guidelines recommend doing both for men with advanced disease.

Q: Will my health insurance go up if I test positive?
A: Under U.S. federal law (GINA), your health insurance cannot be raised, denied, or cancelled because of a genetic test result. The same protection applies to most employment decisions. GINA does not protect life, long-term-care, or disability insurance, however. Existing policies are unaffected; the issue arises only if you apply for new coverage.

Q: I live in California. Doesn't CalGINA cover all of this?
A: Not all of it. California's CalGINA (in force since 2011) goes beyond federal GINA by extending genetic-nondiscrimination protections into housing, mortgage lending, education, emergency medical services, and other state-funded programs. But life, long-term-care, and disability insurance are still governed by ordinary underwriting in California — same as under federal law. Florida's HB 1189 is, as of this writing, the only U.S. state law that closes that gap completely. So a California son or brother considering testing should still think carefully about insurance timing.

Q: Can my brother just use 23andMe to check his BRCA risk privately?
A: He can, but the report is unlikely to be useful. 23andMe's authorized BRCA test covers 44 specific variants out of more than 4,000 known BRCA1/2 mutations, and tests none of the other prostate-cancer-relevant genes (ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, HOXB13, Lynch-syndrome MMR genes). A "negative" result is close to meaningless as reassurance for non-Ashkenazi men. The privacy benefit is also smaller than it appears: most life-insurance applications ask directly about any genetic testing including DTC tests, and 23andMe's parent company (now TTAM Research Institute, after the 2025 bankruptcy sale) has experienced both a major data breach in 2023 and a court-supervised change of ownership. For a comprehensive at-home option, JScreen's 48–63-gene cancer panel through Emory University ($49 self-pay plus a $10 program fee) is far more useful — though it is clinical testing, with all that implies.

Q: I have a "variant of uncertain significance" (VUS). What does that mean?
A: It means the lab found a change in a gene, but science doesn't yet know whether the change is harmful. A VUS is not a positive result and should not change your treatment. Many VUS results are eventually reclassified as benign. Your genetic counsellor will tell you when (or whether) to expect a re-classification letter.

Q: My urologist says I don't need testing. Should I push back?
A: Yes, if you meet the 2025 NCCN criteria above. A 2025 review found a substantial fraction of men who meet criteria are still not offered testing. You can also enrol directly in the PROMISE Registry, which provides free at-home testing without a referral.

Q: I'm Australian and worried about life insurance. What changes on 8 October 2026?
A: From that date, Australian life insurers cannot ask for or use genetic test results when underwriting new policies. The protection is broader than the previous voluntary moratorium and is backed by civil and criminal penalties. Existing policies and policies bought before the law takes effect are not retroactively covered.

The Bottom Line

The Tasmanian study is small (twenty men in Phase I, thirty-two participants in Phase II) but it does something most precision-medicine research never bothers to do: it asks the patients first. What it finds is consistent with everything we already knew from the U.S., the U.K., and Europe: men want this information, mostly to protect their families; they're scared of insurance and cost more than of the science; and the educational materials we're handing them aren't yet good enough.

The good news is that the science has moved fast and the legal landscape — at least in Australia — has finally caught up. The challenge for our generation of patients is to make sure no man has to navigate a positive (or negative) result alone, without knowing what genes were tested, what protections he has, and what the result means for the people he loves. That's the toolkit the Tasmanians are still building. It's the toolkit each of us can help build, one well-asked question at a time.

Sources and Further Reading

Raspin K, Bartlett L, Makin JK, Wilson R, Butorac K, FitzGerald LM, Roydhouse J, Dickinson JL. What tools do men need to make an informed decision about germline genetic testing for prostate cancer? A qualitative and survey study. medRxiv preprint, posted 7 May 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.03.27.26349466. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2026.03.27.26349466v2
Loeb S, Vadaparampil ST, Giri VN. Germline testing for prostate cancer: current state and opportunities for enhanced access. EBioMedicine 2025;116:105705. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105705. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12148599/
Xu J, Shi Z, Wei J, et al. Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer Patients: Evidence-Based Evaluation of Genes Recommended by NCCN Guidelines. The Prostate 2025;85(11):1099–1112. doi:10.1002/pros.24918. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12278705/
Armstrong AJ, Taylor A, Haffner MC, et al. Germline and somatic testing for homologous repair deficiency in patients with prostate cancer (part 1 of 2). Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 2024;28(3):652–661. doi:10.1038/s41391-024-00901-4. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41391-024-00901-4
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology — Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, Version 3.2025. (March 6, 2025.) https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/category_2
NCCN Press Release. Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment Guidelines Expand to Include More Cancer Types. 7 November 2024. https://www.nccn.org/home/news/newsdetails?NewsId=4840
NCCN. Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate Cancers — NCCN Guidelines for Patients, 2025. https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/content/PDF/genetics-patient.pdf
ASCO. Germline and Somatic Genomic Testing for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2025. doi:10.1200/JCO-24-02608. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02608
Giri VN, Knudsen KE, Kelly WK, et al. Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2020;38(24):2798–2811. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.00046. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.20.00046
Gillessen S, et al. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Report from the 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC). European Urology 2024. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.017.
Castro E, Goh C, Olmos D, et al. Germline BRCA mutations are associated with higher risk of nodal involvement, distant metastasis, and poor survival outcomes in prostate cancer. British Journal of Cancer; and Taylor RA et al., Germline BRCA2 mutations drive prostate cancers with distinct evolutionary trajectories. Nature Communications 2017;8:13671. doi:10.1038/ncomms13671. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13671
Nyberg T, Frost D, Barrowdale D, et al. Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: A Prospective Cohort Study. European Urology 2020;77(1):24–35. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.025.
Pritchard CC, Mateo J, Walsh MF, et al. Inherited DNA-repair gene mutations in men with metastatic prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2016;375(5):443–453.
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. FDA approves olaparib with abiraterone and prednisone (or prednisolone) for BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. 31 May 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/fda-approves-olaparib-abiraterone-and-prednisone-or-prednisolone-brca-mutated-metastatic-castration
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. FDA approves talazoparib with enzalutamide for HRR gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. 20 June 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/fda-approves-talazoparib-enzalutamide-hrr-gene-mutated-metastatic-castration-resistant-prostate
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. FDA approves niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone for BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. 11 August 2023.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Act 2026 (Cth) — Act No. 35 of 2026. Federal Register of Legislation, Australian Government. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2026A00035/asmade/text
Australian Government, The Hon. Daniel Mulino MP (Assistant Treasurer). Media release: Legislation passed to ban the use of adverse genetic testing results in life insurance. 1 April 2026. https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/daniel-mulino-2025/media-releases/legislation-passed-ban-use-adverse-genetic-testing
Australian Human Rights Commission. New protections end genetic discrimination in life insurance. Media release, 1 April 2026. https://humanrights.gov.au/about-us/media-centre/media-releases/disability-rights/new-protections-end-genetic-discrimination-in-life-insurance
Norton Rose Fulbright. Protecting genetic information is no joke: Australian Parliament bans use of genetic test results in life insurance. Legal analysis, April 2026. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-au/knowledge/publications/37a427d4/protecting-genetic-information-is-no-joke
National Human Genome Research Institute. Genetic Discrimination — Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Updated 2024. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genetic-Discrimination
American Society of Human Genetics. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). https://www.ashg.org/advocacy/gina/
Prince AER, Uhlmann WR, Suter SM, Scherer AM. Genetic testing and insurance implications: Surveying the US general population about discrimination concerns and knowledge of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Risk Management and Insurance Review 2021;24(4):341–365. doi:10.1111/rmir.12195.
Florida HB 1189, "Genetic Information for Insurance Purposes," codified at Fla. Stat. §§ 626.9706, 626.9707, 627.4301; effective 1 July 2020. Florida House analysis available at https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2020/1189/Analyses/h1189c.COM.PDF
FORCE (Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered). Florida Enacts Wide-Ranging Genetic Protection Law. https://www.facingourrisk.org/privacy-policy-legal/advocacy/florida-enacts-sweeping-genetic-protection-law
California Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (CalGINA), Cal. Gov. Code §§ 11135 et seq., enacted SB 559 (2011). Extends genetic-nondiscrimination protections to housing, mortgage lending, education, emergency medical services, and state-funded programs. Does not cover life, long-term-care, or disability insurance.
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. Other States Slow To Follow Florida's Lead on Genetic Information Restrictions. December 2021. https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2021/12/other-states-slow-to-follow-floridas-lead-on-genetic-information-restrictions
Prince AER, Eckel T. Genetic information in insurance: Guiding questions for state regulation. Science 2026;381:eaee2317. doi:10.1126/science.aee2317. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aee2317
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation for the 23andMe Personal Genome Service (PGS) Genetic Health Risk Report for BRCA1/BRCA2 (Selected Variants). Decision summary, DEN170046, 2018. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/DEN170046.pdf
23andMe, Inc. 23andMe Granted New FDA Clearance to Report Additional BRCA Variants. Press release, 2024. (Expansion from 3 to 44 BRCA1/2 variants.) https://investors.23andme.com/news-releases/news-release-details/23andme-granted-new-fda-clearance-report-additional-brca
23andMe, Inc. Information about Genetic Health Risk reports. Product page noting "44 out of more than 4,000 variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes." https://www.23andme.com/test-info/genetic-health/
23andMe Holding Co. 23andMe Reaches Agreement for Sale of Business to TTAM Research Institute Following Final Round of Bidding in Court-Approved Sale Process. Press release, 13 June 2025. Sale closed 14 July 2025. https://mediacenter.23andme.com/press-releases/23andme-reaches-agreement-sale-business-ttam-research-institute/
Foley Hoag LLP. 23andMe Bankruptcy Update: How the Proceedings Highlight Best Practices for Handling and Transferring Genetic Data and Personal Information. July 2025. https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/publications/alerts-and-updates/2025/july/23andme-bankruptcy-update-how-the-proceedings-highlight-best-practices-for-handling-and-transferring/
Allen J. Judge OKs sale of 23andMe — and its trove of DNA data — to a nonprofit led by its founder. NPR, 30 June 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5451398/23andme-sale-approved-dna-data
JScreen (Emory University Department of Human Genetics). At-Home Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing. Hereditary Cancer Test panel (48–63 genes including BRCA1/2, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, HOXB13, MMR genes). https://www.jscreen.org/products/hereditary-cancer-screen
Beidler LB, Zayhowski K, Nahorniak M, Loo S, Gignac GA, Wang C, Gunn CM. Perceptions and Use of Germline Genetic Testing Among Patients With Prostate Cancer. JCO Oncology Practice 2025;21:1468–1474. doi:10.1200/OP-24-00624.
Sokolova A, et al. Barriers to germline genetic testing in advanced prostate cancer: Survey results from the Germline Genetics Working Group of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium (PCCTC). Journal of Clinical Oncology 2025;43(suppl):e17073. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.e17073
Paller CJ, Cheng HH, Agarwal N, et al. PROMISE Registry: A prostate cancer registry of outcomes and germline mutations for improved survival and treatment effectiveness. The Prostate 2024;84(3). doi:10.1002/pros.24650. NCT04995198. Patient sign-up: https://www.prostatecancerpromise.org
Shore N, Armstrong AJ, Barata P, et al. Implementing and Optimizing Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Prostate Cancer in Clinical Practice. Urology 2025;199:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2025.01.070.
Mucci LA, Hjelmborg JB, Harris JR, et al. Familial Risk and Heritability of Cancer Among Twins in Nordic Countries. JAMA 2016;315(1):68–76. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.17703.
Ahmed L, Constantinidou A, Chatzittofis A. Patients' perspectives related to ethical issues and risks in precision medicine: a systematic review. Frontiers in Medicine 2023;10:1215663. doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1215663.

Search This Blog

Informed Prostate Cancer Patient Support