PROREPAIR-B: A Prospective Cohort Study of the Impact of Germline DNA Repair Mutations on the Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PARP inhibitors in prostate cancers, is it time for combinations?

Despite several improvements in outcomes, metastatic prostate cancer remains deadly. Alterations in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway are associated with more aggressive disease. Olaparib and rucaparib, two poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, have received approval from the authorities of several countries for their anti-tumoral effects in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers harboring HRR gene alterations, in particular BRCA2. More recently, it has been hypothesized that new hormonal therapies (NHTs) and PARP inhibitors (PARPi) could have synergistic actions and act independently of HRR deficiency. This review proposes to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of PARPi used as monotherapy or in combination with NHTs and whether there is a need for molecular selection.

Therapeutic biomarkers in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: does the state matter?

The treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has been fundamentally transformed by our greater understanding of its complex biological mechanisms and its entrance into the era of precision oncology. A broad aim is to use the extreme heterogeneity of mCRPC by matching already approved or new targeted therapies to the correct tumor genotype. To achieve this, tumor DNA must be obtained, sequenced, and correctly interpreted, with individual aberrations explored for their druggability, taking into account the hierarchy of driving molecular pathways. Although tumor tissue sequencing is the gold standard, tumor tissue can be challenging to obtain, and a biopsy from one metastatic site or primary tumor may not provide an accurate representation of the current genetic underpinning. Sequencing of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) might catalyze precision oncology in mCRPC, as it enables real-time observation of genomic changes in tumors and allows for monitoring of treatment response and identification of resistance mechanisms. Moreover, ctDNA can be used to identify mutations that may not be detected in solitary metastatic lesions and can provide a more in-depth understanding of inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity. Finally, ctDNA abundance can serve as a prognostic biomarker in patients with mCRPC.The androgen receptor (AR)-axis is a well-established therapeutical target for prostate cancer, and through ctDNA sequencing, insights have been obtained in (temporal) resistance mechanisms that develop through castration resistance. New third-generation AR-axis inhibitors are being developed to overcome some of these resistance mechanisms. The druggability of defects in the DNA damage repair machinery has impacted the treatment landscape of mCRPC in recent years. For patients with deleterious gene aberrations in genes linked to homologous recombination, particularly BRCA1 or BRCA2, PARP inhibitors have shown efficacy compared to the standard of care armamentarium, but platinum-based chemotherapy may be equally effective. A hierarchy exists in genes associated with homologous recombination, where, besides the canonical genes in this pathway, not every other gene aberration predicts the same likelihood of response. Moreover, evidence is emerging on cross-resistance between therapies such as PARP inhibitors, platinum-based chemotherapy and even radioligand therapy that target this genotype. Mismatch repair-deficient patients can experience a beneficial response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Activation of other cellular signaling pathways such as PI3K, cell cycle, and MAPK have shown limited success with monotherapy, but there is potential in co-targeting these pathways with combination therapy, either already witnessed or anticipated. This review outlines precision medicine in mCRPC, zooming in on the role of ctDNA, to identify genomic biomarkers that may be used to tailor molecularly targeted therapies. The most common druggable pathways and outcomes of therapies matched to these pathways are discussed.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with and without somatic or germline alterations in homologous recombination repair genes

BACKGROUND

Although germline BRCA mutations have been associated with adverse outcomes in prostate cancer (PC), understanding of the association between somatic/germline alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and treatment outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and outcomes associated with somatic/germline HRR alterations, particularly BRCA1/2, in patients initiating first-line (1L) mCRPC treatment with androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSi) or taxanes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 729 mCRPC patients were pooled for CAPTURE from four multicentre observational studies. Eligibility required 1L treatment with ARSi or taxanes, adequate tumour samples and biomarker panel results. Patients underwent paired normal and tumour DNA analyses by next-generation sequencing using a custom gene panel including ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDK12, CHEK2, FANCA, HDAC2, PALB2, RAD51B and RAD54L. Patients were divided into subgroups based on somatic/germline alteration(s): with BRCA1/2 mutations (BRCA); with HRR mutations except BRCA1/2 (HRR non-BRCA); and without HRR alterations (non-HRR). Patients without BRCA1/2 mutations were classified as non-BRCA. Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) and overall survival (OS) were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 729 patients, 96 (13.2%), 127 (17.4%) and 506 (69.4%) were in the BRCA, HRR non-BRCA and non-HRR subgroups, respectively. BRCA patients performed significantly worse for all outcomes than non-HRR or non-BRCA patients (P < 0.05), while PFS2 and OS were significantly shorter for BRCA than HRR non-BRCA patients (P < 0.05). HRR non-BRCA patients also had significantly worse rPFS, PFS2 and OS than non-HRR patients. Exploratory analyses suggested that for BRCA patients, there were no significant differences in outcomes associated with 1L treatment choice (ARSi or taxanes) or with the somatic/germline origin of the alterations.

CONCLUSIONS

Worse outcomes were observed for mCRPC patients in the BRCA subgroup compared with non-BRCA subgroups, either HRR non-BRCA or non-HRR. Despite its heterogeneity, the HRR non-BRCA subgroup presented worse outcomes than the non-HRR subgroup. Screening early for HRR mutations, especially BRCA1/2, is crucial in improving mCRPC patient prognosis.

Evaluating first-line therapeutic strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a comprehensive network meta-analysis and systematic review

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of first-line treatment options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Methods

We systematically searched electronic databases, including PubMed and Web of Science, for studies published from their inception to April 3rd, 2023. Inclusion criteria were: 1) Completed Phase III or IV randomized controlled trials (RCTs) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov; 2) Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of mCRPC who had not previously received chemotherapy or novel endocrine therapies. We conducted a network meta-analysis using R software (version 3.4.0). Network graphs and risk of bias graphs were generated using Stata 14.0 and RevMan 5.4, respectively. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcome was the incidence of severe adverse events (SAEs).

Results

Seven RCTs encompassing 6,641 patients were included. The network meta-analysis revealed that both docetaxel+prednisone (DP) and cabazitaxel+prednisone (CP) significantly improved OS compared to abiraterone. Compared to placebo, DP showed comparable results to both cabazitaxel 20 mg/m^2+prednisone (C20P) and cabazitaxel 25 mg/m^2+prednisone (C25P) in terms of OS. For SAEs, both DP and C20P were superior to C25P, with no statistical difference between C20P and DP. The probability ranking plots indicated that C25P ranked highest for OS, while DP ranked highest for SAEs.

Conclusions

Based on our network meta-analysis, we recommend cabazitaxel 20 mg/m^2+prednisone (C20P) as the primary choice for first-line management of mCRPC, followed by DP. Enzalutamide and abiraterone are suggested as subsequent options. Radium-223 may be considered for patients presenting with bone metastases.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023443943.

Prevalence of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in Japanese patients treated with castration-resistant prostate cancer and efficacy of CRPC treatment in real-world clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

The companion diagnosis for olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor for prostate cancer, aims to detect BRCA1/2 gene variants. In clinical practice, the frequency of germline BRCA1/2 variants in patients receiving castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of germline BRCA1/2 variants and their relationship to prognosis and treatment efficacy in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

METHODS

Between June 2021 and 2023, 92 patients receiving castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment were examined for germline BRCA1/2 variants using BRACAnalysis CDx®. Furthermore, the associations between BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and clinical outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients referred for genetic testing, 6 (6.5%) carried germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2. The BRCA2 variant was the most frequent (n = 5), followed by BRCA1 variant (n = 1). Among the five variants in BRCA2, the p.Asp427Thrfs*3 variant was identified for the first time in prostate cancer. Overall survival from castration-resistant prostate cancer for patients with BRCA1/2 variants was significantly shorter than for patients without BRCA1/2 variants (P = 0.043). Progression-free survival of androgen receptor signaling inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 variants was significantly shorter than for those without (P = 0.003). Progression-free survival of taxane chemotherapy was significantly shorter in patients with BRCA1/2 variants than in those without (P = 0.0149).

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice, 6.5% of patients treated with castration-resistant prostate cancer carried germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. Japanese castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutants have a poor prognosis and may be less responsive to treatment with androgen receptor signaling inhibitors and taxane-based chemotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PARP Inhibitors in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer: From Scientific Rationale to Clinical Development

Prostate cancer (PC) treatment has reached a milestone with the introduction of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) induce breaks in single-stranded and/or double-stranded DNA, resulting in synthetic lethality in cancer cells lacking functional homologous recombination genes. Around 20% to 25% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harbor mutations in DNA damage repair genes, either somatic or germline. The success of PARPi in these patients has prompted studies exploring its potential in tumors classified as "BRCAness," which refers to tumors without germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Additionally, there is a proposed connection between androgen receptor signaling and synthetic lethality of PARPi. The inclusion of genetic mutation tests in the treatment algorithm for PC is a significant step towards precision and personalized medicine, marking a first in the field. The objectives of this review encompass understanding the mechanism of action of PARPi in both monotherapy and combination therapy, exploring patient selection criteria, discussing pivotal studies that led to its approval, and offering future prospects. However, numerous unanswered questions remain, including the identification of the patient population that could benefit most from PARPi, determining whether to use PARPi as monotherapy or in combination, and finding the optimal timing of PARPi administration in advanced or localized disease. To address these questions, several ongoing clinical trials are being conducted.

Inherited Mutations in DNA Damage Repair Genes in Italian Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Results from the Meet-URO 10 Study

Background

The prevalence of pathogenic germline mutations in DNA damage repair (gDDR) genes in the Italian population is unknown.

Objective

In this prospective multicenter cohort study, we evaluated the prevalence of gDDR alterations in the Italian population affected by metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) and analyzed the impact on response to therapy, survival, and time to castration resistance.

Design setting and participants

In an observational prospective trial, 300 consecutive Italian mPCa patients, enrolled in the Meet-Uro-10 trial from three academic Italian centers, were recruited between 2017 and 2019 and were screened for gDDR mutations in 107 genes.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The primary endpoint was to assess the prevalence of gDDR mutations in the Italian population of patients with mPCa. The secondary endpoints included the association of gDDR subgroups with metastatic onset, Gleason score, and time to castration resistance.

Results and limitations

We identified 297 valuable patients. Forty-six patients had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (15.5%, 95% confidence interval: 11.4-19.6): the more frequent was gBRCA2 found in nine cases (3%), followed by gATM in five cases (1.7%). In patients without mutations, longer median overall survival was observed with the sequence docetaxel-androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) than with the sequence ARSI-docetaxel (87.9 vs 42 mo, p = 0.0001). In a univariate analysis, the median time to castration resistance in gDDR mutated patients was 19.8 mo, versus 23.7 mo in no mutated patients (p = 0.024). There were no associations of gDDR subgroups with metastatic onset and Gleason score ≥8. In our cohort, variants of unknown significance in gDDR genes were found in 80 patients and might have a prognostic relevance.

Conclusions

The study reported the prevalence of gDDR in the Italian population. The presence of gBRCA2 mutations correlates with a shorter time to the onset of castration resistance disease.

Patient summary

The prevalence of gBRCA2 in the Italian population is 3%, which is similar to that in the Spanish population, identifying similarities between people of the Western Mediterranean area.

TALAPRO-3 clinical trial protocol: phase III study of talazoparib plus enzalutamide in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in combination with androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors are a promising therapeutic option for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. Here, we describe the design and rationale of the multinational, phase III, TALAPRO-3 study comparing talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide in patients with mCSPC and HRR gene alterations. The primary end point is investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per RECIST 1.1 in soft tissue, or per PCWG3 criteria in bone. The TALAPRO-3 study will demonstrate whether the addition of talazoparib can improve the efficacy of enzalutamide as assessed by rPFS in patients with mCSPC and HRR gene alterations undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT04821622 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Registry Name: Study of Talazoparib With Enzalutamide in Men With DDR Gene Mutated mCSPC. Date of Registration: 29 March 2021.

Review on the Role of BRCA Mutations in Genomic Screening and Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer

(1) Background: Somatic and germline alterations can be commonly found in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. The aim of our present study was to perform a comprehensive review of the current literature in order to examine the impact of BRCA mutations in the context of PCa as well as their significance as genetic biomarkers. (2) Methods: A narrative review of all the available literature was performed. Only "landmark" publications were included. (3) Results: Overall, the number of PCa patients who harbor a BRCA2 mutation range between 1.2% and 3.2%. However, BRCA2 and BRCA1 mutations are responsible for most cases of hereditary PCa, increasing the risk by 3-8.6 times and up to 4 times, respectively. These mutations are correlated with aggressive disease and poor prognosis. Gene testing should be offered to patients with metastatic PCa, those with 2-3 first-degree relatives with PCa, or those aged < 55 and with one close relative with breast (age ≤ 50 years) or invasive ovarian cancer. (4) Conclusions: The individualized assessment of BRCA mutations is an important tool for the risk stratification of PCa patients. It is also a population screening tool which can guide our risk assessment strategies and achieve better results for our patients and their families.

Mainstream Model of Genetic Testing for Prostate Cancer at a Large Tertiary Cancer Centre

BACKGROUND

An estimated 20% to 30% of men with advanced prostate cancer carry a mutation in DNA damage repair genes, of which half are estimated to be germline. Eligibility criteria for germline genetic testing expanded significantly for Ontario patients in May 2021 and many centers adopted a "mainstream" model, defined as oncologist-initiated genetic testing.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review to report on the first-year mainstream experience of a large tertiary oncologic center, the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre. All patients who underwent mainstream at the discretion of their treating physician were included. A subset underwent somatic profiling as part of clinical trial screening. Descriptive statistics were used to report baseline clinicopathologic characteristics and treatments received.

RESULTS

Between May 1, 2021, and May 30, 2022, 174 patients with prostate cancer underwent mainstream germline genetic testing with a 19-gene panel. Median age was 75 (IQR 68-80), and 82% of patients were diagnosed with either de novo metastatic or high-risk localized prostate adenocarcinoma. Fourteen patients (8%; 95% CI 4%-12%) were found to have a deleterious germline mutation, including pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2, ATM, CHEK2, PMS2, RAD51C, HOXB13, and BRIP1. Forty-nine patients (28%; 95% CI 21%-35%) were found to have a variant of uncertain significance. Thirty-four patients also had next-generation sequencing (NGS) of their somatic tissue. Among this subset, 8 of 34 (23%) had an alteration in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Of the 14 patients with a germline mutation, none had a prior personal history of malignancy and 6 (43%) did not have any first- or second-degree relatives with history of prostate, pancreatic, breast, or ovarian cancer.

CONCLUSION

We report on the real-world characteristics of prostate cancer patients who underwent mainstream germline genetic testing. Personal history and family history of cancer cannot reliably stratify patients for the presence of pathogenic germline variants.

Precision Medicine in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Advances, Challenges, and the Landscape of PARPi Therapy-A Narrative Review

After recent approvals, poly-adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) have emerged as a frontline treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Unlike their restricted use in breast or ovarian cancers, where approval is limited to those with BRCA1/2 alterations, PARPis in mCRPC are applied across a broader spectrum of genetic aberrations. Key findings from the phase III PROPEL trial suggest that PARPis' accessibility may broaden, even without mandatory testing. An increasing body of evidence underscores the importance of distinct alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, revealing unique sensitivities to PARPis. Nonetheless, despite the initial effectiveness of PARPis in treating BRCA-mutated tumors, resistance to therapy is frequently encountered. This review aims to discuss patient stratification based on biomarkers and genetic signatures, offering insights into the nuances of first-line PARPis' efficacy in the intricate landscape of mCRPC.

Comprehensive genomic profiling testing in Japanese castration-resistant prostate cancer patients: results of a single-center retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Comprehensive genomic profiling testing using a hybrid-capture next-generation sequencing is commonly used in clinical practice to employ precision medicine in cancer treatment worldwide. In this study, we aimed to analyze the profiles obtained using comprehensive genomic profiling testing that was performed in Japanese castration-resistant prostate cancer patients and to discuss the genetic findings in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A total of 60 cases and 57 castration-resistant prostate cancer patients underwent comprehensive genomic profiling testing between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2022. Four types of comprehensive genomic profiling testing were selected, and clinically significant cancer-specific gene alterations were identified.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 74 years, and the median prostate-specific antigen value at the time of submission was 18.6 ng/ml. Fifty-seven (95%) of 60 cases were metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers, and 3 cases (5%) were non-metastatic. Among all genetic alterations, androgen-receptor alteration was the most frequently detected in 17 cases (28.3%), followed by 15 cases of TP53 (25.0%), 14 cases of CDK12 (23.3%), 10 cases of phosphatase and tensin homolog (16.7%) and 9 cases of ATM (15.0%) mutations. A total of 13 patients (21.7%) received systemic therapy according to the comprehensive genomic profiling testing results. Overall, the survival rate was significantly greater in the group treated through systemic therapy based on comprehensive genomic profiling testing compared with the group without new therapeutic treatment (P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive genomic profiling testing is recommended in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients identified as resistant to standard therapy as this can provide a new therapeutic option.

Impact of genetic counseling strategy on diagnostic yield and workload for genome-sequencing-based tumor diagnostics

PURPOSE

Genome sequencing (GS) enables comprehensive molecular analysis of tumors and identification of hereditary cancer predisposition. According to guidelines, directly determining pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) requires pretest genetic counseling, which is cost-ineffective. Referral for genetic counseling based on tumor variants alone could miss relevant PGVs and/or result in unnecessary referrals.

METHODS

We validated GS for detection of germline variants and simulated 3 strategies using paired tumor-normal GS data of 937 metastatic patients. In strategy-1, genetic counseling before tumor testing allowed direct PGV analysis. In strategy-2 and -3, germline testing and referral for post-test genetic counseling is based on tumor variants using Dutch (strategy-2) or Europen Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group (strategy-3) guidelines.

RESULTS

In strategy-1, PGVs would be detected in 50 patients (number-needed-to counsel; NTC = 18.7). In strategy-2, 86 patients would have been referred for genetic counseling and 43 would have PGVs (NTC = 2). In strategy-3, 94 patients would have been referred for genetic counseling and 32 would have PGVs (NTC = 2.9). Hence, 43 and 62 patients, respectively, were unnecessarily referred based on a somatic variant.

CONCLUSION

Both post-tumor test counseling strategies (2 and 3) had significantly lower NTC, and strategy-2 had the highest PGV yield. Combining pre-tumor test mainstreaming and post-tumor test counseling may maximize the clinically relevant PGV yield and minimize unnecessary referrals.

Blood-based liquid biopsy in advanced prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is characterized by several genetic alterations which could impact prognosis and therapeutic decisions in the advanced disease. Tissue biopsy is still considered the gold standard approach for molecular characterization in prostate cancer, but it has several limitations, including the possibility of insufficient/inadequate tumor tissue to be analyzed. Blood-based liquid biopsy is a non-invasive method to investigate tumor cell derivatives in the bloodstream, being a valid alternative to tissue biopsy for molecular characterization but also for predictive and/or prognostic purposes. In this review, we analyze the most relevant evidence in this field, focusing on clinically relevant targets such as HRD genetic alterations and also focusing on the differences between tissue and liquid biopsy in light of the data from the latest clinical trials.

Molecular Mechanisms of Prostate Cancer Development in the Precision Medicine Era: A Comprehensive Review

The progression of prostate cancer (PCa) relies on the activation of the androgen receptor (AR) by androgens. Despite efforts to block this pathway through androgen deprivation therapy, resistance can occur through several mechanisms, including the abnormal activation of AR, resulting in castration-resistant PCa following the introduction of treatment. Mutations, amplifications, and splicing variants in AR-related genes have garnered attention in this regard. Furthermore, recent large-scale next-generation sequencing analysis has revealed the critical roles of AR and AR-related genes, as well as the DNA repair, PI3K, and cell cycle pathways, in the onset and progression of PCa. Moreover, research on epigenomics and microRNA has increasingly become popular; however, it has not translated into the development of effective therapeutic strategies. Additionally, treatments targeting homologous recombination repair mutations and the PI3K/Akt pathway have been developed and are increasingly accessible, and multiple clinical trials have investigated the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors. In this comprehensive review, we outline the status of PCa research in genomics and briefly explore potential future developments in the field of epigenetic modifications and microRNAs.

How to Integrate Prostate Cancer Biomarkers in Urology Clinical Practice: An Update

Nowadays, the management of prostate cancer has become more and more challenging due to the increasing number of available treatment options, therapeutic agents, and our understanding of its carcinogenesis and disease progression. Moreover, currently available risk stratification systems used to facilitate clinical decision-making have limitations, particularly in providing a personalized and patient-centered management strategy. Although prognosis and prostate cancer-specific survival have improved in recent years, the heterogenous behavior of the disease among patients included in the same risk prognostic group negatively impacts not only our clinical decision-making but also oncological outcomes, irrespective of the treatment strategy. Several biomarkers, along with available tests, have been developed to help clinicians in difficult decision-making scenarios and guide management strategies. In this review article, we focus on the scientific evidence that supports the clinical use of several biomarkers considered by professional urological societies (and included in uro-oncological guidelines) in the diagnosis process and specific difficult management strategies for clinically localized or advanced prostate cancer.

Development of PARP inhibitors in advanced prostate cancer

The relatively high prevalence of alterations in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway described in advanced prostate cancer provides a unique opportunity to develop therapeutic strategies that take advantage of the decreased tumor ability to repair DNA damage. Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been demonstrated to improve the outcomes of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with HRR defects, particularly in those with BRCA1/2 alterations. To expand the benefit of PARPi to patients without detectable HRR alterations, multiple studies are addressing potential synergies between PARP inhibition (PARPi) and androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARSi), radiation, radioligand therapy, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy, and these strategies are also being evaluated in the hormone-sensitive setting. In this review, we summarize the development of PARPi in prostate cancer, the potential synergies, and combinations being investigated as well as the future directions of PARPi for the management of the disease.

Whole exome germline sequencing in early-onset prostate cancer patients: Genomic findings and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Whole exome sequencing (WES) furthered our understanding of various tumors. We assessed the occurrence of germline likely pathogenic/pathogenic (LP/P) variants, disease features, and clinical outcomes in early-onset prostate cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study (N = 134) included consecutive prostate cancer patients who donated blood samples for research purposes to the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi biobank. Patients diagnosed at >65 years were excluded. Clinical characteristics were extracted from the medical records. Germline WES was performed with analysis reporting on oncogenetic, two immunogenic, and a secondary minimum list panels (121, 468, 76, and 59 genes, respectively).

RESULTS

Median age at diagnosis was 61 (range 46-65) years; 131 (98%) were diagnosed with local disease. The median follow-up time from diagnosis was 14 (range <1-25) years. Of the patients with local disease, 32 (24%) and 10 (8%) had biochemical and distant recurrences, respectively. Twenty-five patients (19%) had ≥1 additional cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer), most frequently bladder (6), colorectal (5), and lymphoma (5). Seven (5%) deaths were reported, with only one related to prostate cancer. LP/P variants were identified in 8 patients (6%), all in genes from the oncogenetic panel: ATM, BRCA1 (in two patients), BRCA2 (in two patients), HOXB13, MUTYH, and MYH7. Of these eight patients, with a median follow-up of 7 years (range <1-15), two (25%) had biochemical recurrences, one had (12.5%) distant recurrence, and no deaths were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of 134 early-onset prostate cancer patients, we identified germline LP/P variants in an oncogenetic panel in 6% of participants, with no unique clinical outcome.

Molecular heterogeneity in prostate cancer and the role of targeted therapy

Data collected from large-scale studies has shown that the incidence of prostate cancer globally is on the rise, which could be attributed to an overall increase in lifespan. So, the question is how has modern science with all its new technologies and clinical breakthroughs mitigated or managed this disease? The answer is not a simple one as prostate cancer exhibits various subtypes, each with its unique characteristics or signatures which creates challenges in treatment. To understand the complexity of prostate cancer these signatures must be deciphered. Molecular studies of prostate cancer samples have identified certain genetic and epigenetic alterations, which are instrumental in tumorigenesis. Some of these candidates include the androgen receptor (AR), various oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, and the tumor microenvironment, which serve as major drivers that lead to cancer progression. These aberrant genes and their products can give an insight into prostate cancer development and progression by acting as potent markers to guide future therapeutic approaches. Thus, understanding the complexity of prostate cancer is crucial for targeting specific markers and tailoring treatments accordingly.

Germline DNA Damage Response Gene Mutations in Localized Prostate Cancer

Background and Objectives: Germline DNA damage response (DDR) gene mutations correlate with increased prostate cancer (PCa) risk and a more aggressive form of the disease. DDR mutation testing is recommended for metastatic PCa cases, while eligible information about the mutations' burden in the early-stage localized PCa is still limited. This study is aimed at the prospective detection of DDR pathway mutations in cases with localized PCa and correlation with clinical, histopathological, and radiological data. A comparison to the previously assessed cohort of the advanced PCa was performed. Materials and Methods: Germline DDR gene mutations were assessed prospectively in DNA samples from 139 patients, using a five-gene panel (BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, and NBN) targeted next-generation sequencing. Results: This study revealed an almost three-fold higher risk of localized PCa among mutation carriers as compared to non-carriers (OR 2.84 and 95% CI: 0.75-20.23, p = 0.16). The prevalence of germline DDR gene mutations in PCa cases was 16.8% (18/107) and they were detected only in cases with PI-RADS 4/5 lesions. BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM mutation carriers were 2.6 times more likely to have a higher (>1) cISUP grade group compared to those with a CHEK2 mutation (p = 0.27). However, the number of cISUP > 1-grade patients with a CHEK2 mutation was significantly higher in advanced PCa than in localized PCa: 66.67% vs. 23.08% (p = 0.047). Conclusions: The results of our study suggest the potential of genetic screening for selected DDR gene mutations for early identification of cases at risk of aggressive PCa.

Synthetic Lethality by Co-Inhibition of Androgen Receptor and Polyadenosine Diphosphate-Ribose in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) and polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose inhibitors (PARPi) are part of the standard of care in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). There is biological evidence that the association of ARPI and PARPi could have a synergistic effect; therefore, several ongoing clinical trials are investigating the efficacy of this combination with preliminary results that are not perfectly concordant in identifying patients who can obtain the most benefit from this therapeutic option. The purpose of this review is to describe the PARPi mechanisms of action and to analyze the biological mechanisms behind the interplay between the androgen receptor and the PARPi system to better understand the rationale of the ARPI + PARPi combinations. Furthermore, we will summarize the preliminary results of the ongoing studies on these combinations, trying to understand in which patients to apply. Finally, we will discuss the clinical implications of this combination and its possible future perspectives.

Combining Novel Hormonal Therapies with a Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Emerging Evidence

Preclinical and clinical studies have suggested potential synergies of combining poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and novel hormonal therapies (NHT) for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We systematically searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and ASCO-GU annual meeting abstracts up to March 2023 to identify potential phase III trials reporting the use of combining PARP inhibitors with NHT in the first-line setting for mCRPC. A total of four phase III trials met the criteria for subsequent review. Emerging data suggested that the radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was significantly longer in the PARP inhibitor combined with NHT group versus the placebo plus NHT group for the first-line setting of biomarker-unselected mCRPC patients, especially for patients with homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutation (HRR m), and with the greatest benefit for BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCA1/2 m) populations. Final overall survival (OS) data of the PROpel trial indicated a significant improvement in median OS for mCRPC patients with HRR m and BRCA1/2 m receiving olaparib + abiraterone. Prior taxane-based chemotherapy might not influence the efficacy of the combination. Compared with the current standard-of-care therapies, combining NHT with PARP inhibitors could achieve a significant survival benefit in the first-line setting for mCRPC patients with HRR and BRCA1/2 mutations.

Theranostic biomarkers and PARP-inhibitors effectiveness in patients with non-BRCA associated homologous recombination deficient tumors: Still looking through a dirty glass window?

Breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1) and breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 (BRCA2) deleterious variants were the first and, still today, the main biomarkers of poly(ADP)ribose polymerase (PARP)-inhibitors (PARPis) benefit. The recent, increased, numbers of individuals referred for counseling and multigene panel testing, and the remarkable expansion of approved PARPis, not restricted to BRCA1/BRCA2-Pathogenic Variants (PVs), produced a strong clinical need for non-BRCA biomarkers. Significant limitations of the current testing and assays exist. The different approaches that identify the causes of Homologous Recombination Deficiency (HRD), such as the germline and somatic Homologous Recombination Repair (HRR) gene PVs, the testing showing its consequences, such as the genomic scars, or the novel functional assays such as the RAD51 foci testing, are not interchangeable, and should not be considered as substitutes for each other in clinical practice for guiding use of PARPi in non-BRCA, HRD-associated tumors. Today, the deeper knowledge on the significant relationship among all proteins involved in the HRR, not limited to BRCA, expands the possibility of a successful non-BRCA, HRD-PARPi synthetic lethality and, at the same time, reinforces the need for enhanced definition of HRD biomarkers predicting the magnitude of PARPi benefit.

Therapeutic sensitivity to standard treatments in BRCA positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent oncology guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing for a wide range of prostate cancer (PCa) patients. In addition, PARP inhibitors are available for mutation-positive metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC) patients following prior treatment with abiraterone, enzalutamide or docetaxel. However, the question of which of these standard treatments is the most effective for BRCA1/2 positive mCRPC patients remains to be answered. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of abiraterone, enzalutamide and docetaxel in BRCA1/2 mutation-positive mCRPC patients in terms of PSA-response (PSA50), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

METHODS

As no interventional trials are available on this topic, we performed the data synthesis of BRCA1/2 positive mCRPC patients by using both proportional and individual patient data. For PSA50 evaluation, we pooled event rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI), while for time-to-event (PFS, OS) analyses we used individual patient data with random effect Cox regression calculations.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 16 eligible studies with 348 BRCA1/2 positive mCRPC patients. In the first treatment line, response rates for abiraterone, enzalutamide and docetaxel were 52% (CI: 25-79%), 64% (CI: 43-80%) and 55% (CI: 36-73%), respectively. Analyses of individual patient data revealed a PFS (HR: 0.47, CI: 0.26-0.83, p = 0.010) but no OS (HR: 1.41, CI: 0.82-2.42, p = 0.210) benefit for enzalutamide compared to abiraterone-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our PSA50 analyses revealed that all the three first-line treatments have therapeutic effect in BRCA1/2 positive mCRPC; although, based on the results of PSA50 and PFS analyses, BRCA positive mCRPC patients might better respond to enzalutamide treatment. However, molecular marker-driven interventional studies directly comparing these agents are crucial for providing higher-level evidence.

Germline mutations in prostate cancer: a systematic review of the evidence for personalized medicine

BACKGROUND

The goal of precision medicine in prostate cancer (PCa) is to individualize the treatment according to the patient's germline mutation status. PCa has a very high rate of genetic predisposition compared with other cancers in men, with an estimated rate of cancers ascribable to hereditary factors of 5-15%.

METHODS

A systematic search (PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) of English literature from 2000 to 2022, using the keywords "prostate cancer", "germline mutations", "family history", and "inheritance" was conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

The search identified 980 publications. Of these, 200 papers were removed before screening (duplicates, non-English literature, and publication year before 2000) and 245 records were excluded after title/abstract screening. Finally, 50 articles were included in the final analysis. We analyze the latest evidence on the genetic basis of PCa predisposition and clinical implications for more personalized screening protocols and therapeutic management of this high-prevalent cancer.

DISCUSSION

Emerging data show that germline mutations in homologous recombination genes (BRCA1/2, ATM, CHECK2), in mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MLH2, MSH6), and other additional genes are associated with the development and aggressiveness of PCa. Germline testing and genetic counseling have increasingly important implications in cancer screening and therapeutic decisions making for patients affected by PCa. Patients with localized PCa and some gene mutations are more likely to develop aggressive cancer, so active treatment may be preferable to active surveillance for these patients. Moreover, in patients with metastatic PCa, these gene alterations may be useful biomarkers for predicting response to specific therapy such as PARP inhibitors, recently approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant PCa. The evidence supports recent guidelines and recommendations considering germline genetic testing for patients with a positive family history of PCa or men with high risk or metastatic disease.

Impact of germline DNA repair gene variants on prognosis and treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer

The clinical importance of germline variants in DNA repair genes (DRGs) is becoming increasingly recognized, but their impact on advanced prostate cancer prognosis remains unclear. A cohort of 221 newly diagnosed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients were screened for pathogenic germline variants in 114 DRGs. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) on first-line androgen signaling inhibitor (ARSI) treatment for mCRPC. Secondary endpoints were time to mCRPC progression on initial androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and overall survival (OS). Twenty-seven patients (12.2%) carried a germline DRG variant. DRG carrier status was independently associated with shorter PFS on first-line ARSI [HR 1.72 (1.06-2.81), P = 0.029]. At initiation of ADT, DRG carrier status was independently associated with shorter progression time to mCRPC [HR 1.56, (1.02-2.39), P = 0.04] and shorter OS [HR 1.99, (1.12-3.52), P = 0.02]. Investigating the contributions of individual germline DRG variants on PFS and OS revealed CHEK2 variants to have little effect. Furthermore, prior taxane treatment was associated with worse PFS on first-line ARSI for DRG carriers excluding CHEK2 (P = 0.0001), but not for noncarriers. In conclusion, germline DRG carrier status holds independent prognostic value for predicting advanced prostate cancer patient outcomes and may potentially inform on optimal treatment sequencing already at the hormone-sensitive stage.

Aligning germline and somatic mutations in prostate cancer. Are genetics changing practice?

OBJECTIVE

To review the current status of germline and somatic (tumour) genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCa), and its relevance for clinical practice.

METHODS

A narrative synthesis of various molecular profiles related to their clinical context was carried out. Current guidelines for genetic testing and its feasibility in clinical practice were analysed. We report the main identified genetic sequencing results or functional genomic scores for PCa published in the literature or obtained from the French PROGENE study.

RESULTS

The molecular alterations observed in PCa are mostly linked to disruption of the androgen receptor (AR) pathway or DNA repair deficiency. The main known germline mutations affect the BReast CAncer gene 2 (BRCA2) and homeobox B13 (HOXB13) genes, whereas AR and tumour protein p53 (TP53) are the genes with most frequent somatic alterations in tumours from men with metastatic PCa. Molecular tests are now available for detecting some of these germline or somatic alterations and sometimes recommended by guidelines, but their utilisation must combine rationality and feasibility. They can guide specific therapies, notably for the management of metastatic disease. Indeed, following androgen deprivation, targeted therapies for PCa currently include poly-(ADP-ribose)-polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-guided radiotherapy. The genetic tests currently approved for targeted therapies remain limited to the detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation and DNA mismatch repair deficiency, while large panels are recommended for germline analyses, not only for inherited cancer predisposing syndrome, but also for metastatic PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Further consensus aligning germline with somatic molecular analysis in metastatic PCa is required, including genomics scars, emergent immunohistochemistry, or functional pre-screen imaging. With rapid advances in knowledge and technology in the field, continuous updating of guidelines to help the clinical management of these individuals, and well-conducted studies to evaluate the benefits of genetic testing are needed.

Phase II Trial Evaluating Olaparib Maintenance in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Responsive or Stabilized on Docetaxel Treatment: SOGUG-IMANOL Study

The SOGUG-IMANOL trial was a phase 2, uncontrolled, Spanish multicenter study to assess the effect of maintenance treatment with olaparib on radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who achieved partial or complete response or disease stabilization on docetaxel treatment and had a documented germline/somatic mutation in any of the homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Patients received olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily. From the screened population (n = 134), 26 (19.4%) somatic mutations were found, and 14 patients were included in the study. The median radiographic PFS was 11.1 (95%CI, 5.7 to 16.5) months. The median PSA-PFS was 3.5 (95%CI, 1.0 to 6.0) months, and the median clinical PFS was 14.7 (95%CI, 1.8 to 27.5 months). Clinical benefit was observed in 12 patients (85.7%, 95%CI 67.4% to 100%), including two patients with partial response and 10 with stable disease. Six patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events: asthenia (n = 3), anemia (n = 2) and neutropenia (n = 1). In this setting, olaparib has been shown to be an efficacious maintenance treatment in terms of radiographic PFS and clinical benefit, becoming a therapeutic option for some patients harboring an HRR gene mutation and in scenarios where further investigation is needed.

Germline DNA Repair Genes Pathogenic Variants Among Mexican Patients With Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Early identification of germline mutation carriers may be relevant for the optimal management of prostate cancer and to inform cancer risk in relatives. However, population minorities have limited access to genetic testing. The aim of this study was to describe the frequency of DNA repair gene pathogenic variants (PVs) among Mexican men with prostate cancer referred for Genomic Cancer Risk Assessment and testing.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who meet criteria for genetic testing and enrolled in the Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network at the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City were included. Descriptive statistics were performed using frequency and proportions for categorical variables and median and range for quantitative variables. X2 and t test were used for group comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 199 men were enrolled, median age at diagnosis was 66 (range 44-88) years; 45% were de novo metastatic and 44% were high- very high and 10% were intermediate risk group. Four (2%) had a pathogenic germline variant; one each of the following genes: ATM, CHEK2, BRIP1, and MUTYH (all monoallelic). Younger men at diagnosis were more likely to carry a PV than older age at diagnosis (56.7 vs. 66.4 years, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed a low prevalence of known prostate cancer associated PVs and no BRCA PVs in Mexican men with prostate cancer. This suggests that the genetic and/or epidemiologic risk factors for prostate cancer are not well characterized in this specific population.

Mutational spectrum of DNA damage and mismatch repair genes in prostate cancer

Over the past few years, a number of studies have revealed that a significant number of men with prostate cancer had genetic defects in the DNA damage repair gene response and mismatch repair genes. Certain of these modifications, notably gene alterations known as homologous recombination (HRR) genes; PALB2, CHEK2 BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, and genes for DNA mismatch repair (MMR); MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 are connected to a higher risk of prostate cancer and more severe types of the disease. The DNA damage repair (DDR) is essential for constructing and diversifying the antigen receptor genes required for T and B cell development. But this DDR imbalance results in stress on DNA replication and transcription, accumulation of mutations, and even cell death, which compromises tissue homeostasis. Due to these impacts of DDR anomalies, tumor immunity may be impacted, which may encourage the growth of tumors, the release of inflammatory cytokines, and aberrant immune reactions. In a similar vein, people who have altered MMR gene may benefit greatly from immunotherapy. Therefore, for these treatments, mutational genetic testing is indicated. Mismatch repair gene (MMR) defects are also more prevalent than previously thought, especially in patients with metastatic disease, high Gleason scores, and diverse histologies. This review summarizes the current information on the mutation spectrum and clinical significance of DDR mechanisms, such as HRR and MMR abnormalities in prostate cancer, and explains how patient management is evolving as a result of this understanding.

BRCA-deficient metastatic prostate cancer has an adverse prognosis and distinct genomic phenotype

BACKGROUND

Genomic alterations in DNA damage response (DDR) genes are common in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Understanding how these genomic events impact prognosis and/or treatment response is vital for optimising clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Targeted sequencing was performed on 407 plasma samples from 375 men with mCRPC. Using the CLIA-certified PredicineCARE™ cell-free DNA (cfDNA) assay, pathogenic alterations in 152 key genes (including 27 DDR-related genes) were assessed, as was the presence and mechanisms of biallelic loss in BRCA2.

FINDINGS

At least one DDR alteration was present in 34.5% (129/375) of patients (including monoallelic alterations). The most frequently altered DDR genes were BRCA2 (19%), ATM (13%), FANCA (5%), CHEK2 (5%) and BRCA1 (3%). Patients with BRCA alterations, especially BRCA2, had significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS) (Hazard ratio (HR) 3.3 [95% CI 1.9-6.0]; Cox regression p < 0.001), overall survival (HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.1-4.5]; Cox regression p = 0.02) and PSA response rates to androgen receptor (AR) pathway inhibitors (32% vs 60%, chi-square p = 0.02). BRCA-deficient tumours were also enriched for alterations within multiple genes including in the AR and PI3K pathways. Zygosity of BRCA2 alterations had no discernible impact on clinical outcomes, with similarly poor PFS for monoallelic vs biallelic loss (median 3.9 months vs 3.4 months vs copy neutral 9.8 months).

INTERPRETATION

These data emphasise that the BRCA genes, in particular BRCA2, are key prognostic biomarkers in mCRPC. The clinical utility of BRCA2 as a marker of poor outcomes may, at least in cfDNA assays, be independent of the zygosity state detected. Enrichment of actionable genomic alterations in cfDNA from BRCA-deficient mCRPC may support rational co-targeting strategies in future clinical trials.

FUNDING

Several funding sources have supported this study. A full list is provided in the Acknowledgments. No funding was received from Predicine, Inc. during the conduct of the study.

Niraparib plus abiraterone acetate with prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations: second interim analysis of the randomized phase III MAGNITUDE trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and BRCA alterations have poor outcomes. MAGNITUDE found patients with homologous recombination repair gene alterations (HRR+), particularly BRCA1/2, benefit from first-line therapy with niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP). Here we report longer follow-up from the second prespecified interim analysis (IA2).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with mCRPC were prospectively identified as HRR+ with/without BRCA1/2 alterations and randomized 1 : 1 to niraparib (200 mg orally) plus AAP (1000 mg/10 mg orally) or placebo plus AAP. At IA2, secondary endpoints [time to symptomatic progression, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, overall survival (OS)] were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 212 HRR+ patients received niraparib plus AAP (BRCA1/2 subgroup, n = 113). At IA2 with 24.8 months of median follow-up in the BRCA1/2 subgroup, niraparib plus AAP significantly prolonged radiographic progression-free survival {rPFS; blinded independent central review; median rPFS 19.5 versus 10.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.78]; nominal P = 0.0007} consistent with the first prespecified interim analysis. rPFS was also prolonged in the total HRR+ population [HR = 0.76 (95% CI 0.60-0.97); nominal P = 0.0280; median follow-up 26.8 months]. Improvements in time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy were observed with niraparib plus AAP. In the BRCA1/2 subgroup, the analysis of OS with niraparib plus AAP demonstrated an HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58-1.34; nominal P = 0.5505); the prespecified inverse probability censoring weighting analysis of OS, accounting for imbalances in subsequent use of poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors and other life-prolonging therapies, demonstrated an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90; nominal P = 0.0181). No new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

MAGNITUDE, enrolling the largest BRCA1/2 cohort in first-line mCRPC to date, demonstrated improved rPFS and other clinically relevant outcomes with niraparib plus AAP in patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC, emphasizing the importance of identifying this molecular subset of patients.

Genetic aberrations of homologous recombination repair pathways in prostate cancer: The prognostic and therapeutic implications

Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most common cancer in men worldwide. Homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene defects have been identified in a significant proportion of metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) and are associated with an increased risk of PC and more aggressive PC. Importantly, it has been well-documented that poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibition in cells with HR deficiency (HRD) can cause cell death. This has been exploited for the targeted treatment of PC patients with HRD by PARP inhibitors. Moreover, it has been shown that platinum-based chemotherapy is more effective in mCRPC patients with HRR gene alterations. This review highlights the prognosis and therapeutic implications of HRR gene alterations in PC.

Is It Time to Anticipate the Use of PARP Inhibition in Prostate Cancer Patients?

The increasing diffusion of genetic analysis regarding the pathogenetic variants (PVs) of genes involved in DNA Damage Repair (DDR) mechanisms and the development of Poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) led to the first valid precision medicine option tailored toward metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). The concept of anticipation in the systemic treatment of mPC was initially adopted for androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) to describe the expansion of their indications, from the setting of the late-stage second-line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) to first-line therapy in selected cases. There is already mounting evidence in favor of the anticipation of PARPis in the first line of mCRPC therapy, and further evidence in favor of mHSPC is emerging. Many studies have demonstrated the synergism between ARSIs and PARP inhibitors. Recent discoveries regarding the crosstalk between the androgen receptor (AR) and DNA repair mechanisms are disconnecting the use of PARPis from genetic analysis. The new message emerging is that the combination of PARPis with ARSIs may work independently of DDR mutational status. As a matter of fact, most of the recent trials analyzing the combination of PARPis with abiraterone or enzalutamide as a first-line therapy enrolled mCRPC patients irrespective of their mutational status. The PROPEL trial concluded that the advantage of the combination was independent of PV status, despite a higher advantage being reported in the BRCA1/2 mutated subgroup. The MAGNITUDE trial, however, showed a significant advantage only in the DDR mutated subgroup, and the DDR non-mutated cohort was closed for further enrollment. The combination of PARPis with ARSIs represents a significant strategy with a view to the anticipation and intensification of care in mPC. However, it should not nullify the advantages of precision medicine linked to the genetic analysis of DDR genes.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis on Metastatic Prostate Cancer with Disease Progression

The positivity rate of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) next-generation sequencing (NGS) varies among patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), complicating its incorporation into regular practice. This retrospective study analyzed the ctDNA sequencing results of 100 mPC patients from May 2021 to March 2023 to identify the factors associated with positive ctDNA. Three custom gene panels were used for sequencing. Overall, 63% of the patients exhibited tier I/II somatic alterations, while 12% had pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline alterations. The key genes that were altered included AR, TP53, RB1, PTEN, and APC. Mutations in BRCA1/2, either germline or somatic, were observed in 21% of the patients. Among the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients, the ctDNA-positive samples generally showed higher median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and were more likely to be at the radiographic and clinical progressive disease stages, although they were not significantly associated with PSA progression. Our results suggest that ctDNA analysis could detect meaningful genetic changes in mPC patients, especially during disease progression.

Impact of Somatic DNA Repair Mutations on the Clinical Outcomes of Bone Metastases from Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Up to 80% of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients develop bone metastases during the natural history of disease and about 25% harbor mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes. This retrospective observational study evaluated the prevalence of DDR alterations in CRPC patients and their effect on the clinical outcomes associated with bone metastases. The mutational status of CRPC patients was analyzed per FoundationOne® analysis in tissue biopsy or, when it was not possible, in liquid biopsy performed at the onset of metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). The impact of DDR gene mutations on bone-related efficacy endpoints was evaluated at the time of mCRPC diagnoses. In total, 121 mCRPC patients with bone metastases were included: 38 patients had mutations in at least one DDR gene, the remaining 83 ones had a non-mutated DDR status. DDR mutated status was associated with bone metastases volume (p = 0.006), but did not affect SRE (skeletal-related events) incidence and time to SRE onset. Liquid and tissue biopsies were both available for 61 patients with no statistically significant difference in terms of incidence and type of molecular DDR alterations. Mutated DDR status was associated with higher bone metastasic volume, although a not detrimental effect on the other bone-related efficacy endpoints was observed.

What is the ideal combination therapy in de novo, oligometastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer?

PURPOSE

To review current evidence regarding the management of de novo, oligometastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline and a narrative synthesis of the evidence was performed in August 2022.

RESULTS

Oligometastatic disease is an intermediate state between localized and aggressive metastatic PCa defined by ≤ 3-5 metastatic lesions, although this definition remains controversial. Conventional imaging has limited accuracy in detecting metastatic lesions, and the implementation of molecular imaging could pave the way for a more personalized treatment strategy. However, oncological data supporting this strategy are needed. Radiotherapy to the primary tumor should be considered standard treatment for oligometastatic PCa (omPCa). However, it remains to be seen whether local therapy still has an additional survival benefit in patients with de novo omPCa when treated with the most modern systemic therapy combinations. There is insufficient evidence to recommend cytoreductive radical prostatectomy as local therapy; or stereotactic body radiotherapy as metastasis-directed therapy in patients with omPCa. Current data support the use of intensified systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and next-generation hormone therapies (NHT) for patients with de novo omPCa. Docetaxel has not demonstrated benefit in low volume disease. There are insufficient data to support the use of triple therapy (i.e., ADT + NHT + Docetaxel) in low volume disease.

CONCLUSION

The present review discusses current data in de novo, omPCa regarding its definition, the increasing role of molecular imaging, the place of local and metastasis-directed therapies, and the intensification of systemic therapies.

Investigation of Clinically Significant Molecular Aberrations in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Implications for Personalized Treatment, Prognosis and Genetic Testing

The data on tumor molecular profiling of European patients with prostate cancer is limited. Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence and prognostic and predictive values of gene alterations in unselected patients with prostate cancer. The presence of gene alterations was assessed in patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer using the ForeSENTIA^® Prostate panel (Medicover Genetics), targeting 36 clinically relevant genes and microsatellite instability testing. The primary endpoint was the prevalence of gene alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Overall, 196 patients with prostate cancer were evaluated (median age 72.2 years, metastatic disease in 141 (71.9%) patients). Gene alterations were identified in 120 (61%) patients, while alteration in HRR genes were identified in 34 (17.3%) patients. The most commonly mutated HRR genes were ATM (17, 8.7%), BRCA2 (9, 4.6%) and BRCA1 (4, 2%). The presence of HRR gene alterations was not associated with advanced stage (p = 0.21), age at diagnosis (p = 0.28), Gleason score (p = 0.17) or overall survival (HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.41-1.26; p = 0.251). We identified clinically relevant somatic gene alterations in European patients with prostate cancer. These molecular alterations have prognostic significance and therapeutic implications and/or may trigger genetic testing in selected patients. In the era of precision medicine, prospective research on the predictive role of these alterations for innovative treatments or their combinations is warranted.

DNA Damage Repair Pathways in Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review of Molecular Mechanisms, Emerging Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets in Precision Oncology

Prostate cancer (PCa) has a distinct molecular signature, including characteristic chromosomal translocations, gene deletions and defective DNA damage repair mechanisms. One crucial pathway involved is homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and it is found in almost 20% of metastatic castrate-resistant PCa (mCRPC). Inherited/germline mutations are associated with a hereditary predisposition to early PCa development and aggressive behavior. BRCA2, ATM and CHECK2 are the most frequently HRD-mutated genes. BRCA2-mutated tumors have unfavorable clinical and pathological characteristics, such as intraductal carcinoma. PARP inhibitors, due to the induction of synthetic lethality, have been therapeutically approved for mCRPC with HRD alterations. Mutations are detected in metastatic tissue, while a liquid biopsy is utilized during follow-up, recognizing acquired resistance mechanisms. The mismatch repair (MMR) pathway is another DNA repair mechanism implicated in carcinogenesis, although only 5% of metastatic PCa is affected. It is associated with aggressive disease. PD-1 inhibitors have been used in MMR-deficient tumors; thus, the MMR status should be tested in all metastatic PCa cases. A surrogate marker of defective DNA repair mechanisms is the tumor mutational burden. PDL-1 expression and intratumoral lymphocytes have ambivalent predictive value. Few experimental molecules have been so far proposed as potential biomarkers. Future research may further elucidate the role of DNA damage pathways in PCa, revealing new therapeutic targets and predictive biomarkers.

Health-related quality of life in GALAHAD: A multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of niraparib for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA-repair gene defects

BACKGROUND: Niraparib is a highly selective poly (adenosine diphosphateribose) polymerase-1 and poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase-2 inhibitor indicated for select patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. The phase 2 GALAHAD trial (NCT02854436) demonstrated that niraparib monotherapy is tolerable and efficacious in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, particularly those with breast cancer gene (BRCA) alterations who had progressed on prior androgen signaling inhibitor therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To report the prespecified patient-reported outcomes analysis from GALAHAD. METHODS: Eligible patients with alterations to BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) and with pathogenic alterations in other HRR genes (other HRR cohort) were enrolled and received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Patient-reported outcome instruments included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate and the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Changes from baseline were compared using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. RESULTS: On average, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved in the BRCA cohort by cycle 3 (mean change = 6.03; 95% CI = 2.76-9.29) and was maintained above baseline until cycle 10 (mean change = 2.84; 95% CI = -1.95 to 7.63), whereas the other HRR cohort showed no early change in HRQoL from baseline (mean change = -0.07; 95% CI = -4.69 to 4.55) and declined by cycle 10 (mean change = -5.10; 95% CI = -15.3 to 5.06). Median time to deterioration in pain intensity and pain interference could not be estimated in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced mCRPC and BRCA alterations treated with niraparib experienced more meaningful improvement in overall HRQoL, pain intensity, and pain interference compared with those with other HRR alterations. In this population of castrate, heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and HRR alterations, stabilization, and improvement in HRQoL may be relevant to consider when making treatment decisions. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC (no grant number). Dr Smith has received grants and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, Janssen, and Lilly; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Sandhu has received grants from Amgen, Endocyte, and Genentech; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Merck; and has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono. Dr George has received personal fees from the American Association for Cancer Research, Axess Oncology, Capio Biosciences, Constellation Pharma, EMD Serono, Flatiron, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Michael J. Hennessey Association, Millennium Medical Publishing, Modra Pharma, Myovant Sciences, Inc., NCI Genitourinary, Nektar Therapeutics, Physician Education Resource, Propella TX, RevHealth, LLC, and UroGPO; has received grants and personal fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer and UroToday; has received grants from Calithera and Novartis; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Exelixis, Inc., Sanofi, and Janssen Pharma. Dr Chi has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, POINT Biopharma, Roche, and Sanofi; and has received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Saad has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Janssen during the conduct of the study; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Bayer, Myovant, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr Thiery-Vuillemin has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Astellas Pharma; and has received personal fees from Sanofi, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Olmos has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer; has received personal fees from Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has received nonfinancial support from Astellas Pharma, F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Genentech, and Ipsen. Dr Danila has received research support from the US Department of Defense, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Stand Up to Cancer, Janssen Research & Development, Astellas Pharma, Medivation, Agensys, Genentech, and CreaTV. Dr Gafanov has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study. Dr Castro has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from Janssen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Clovis. Dr Moon has received research funding from SeaGen, HuyaBio, Janssen, BMS, Aveo, Xencor, and has received personal fees from Axess Oncology, MJH, EMD Serono, and Pfizer. Dr Joshua has received nonfinancial support from Janssen; consulted or served in an advisory role for Neoleukin, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Noxopharm, IQvia, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, and Eisai; and received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mayne Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, MacroGenics, Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Corvus Pharmaceuticals. Drs Mason, Liu, Bevans, Lopez-Gitlitz, and Francis and Mr Espina are employees of Janssen Research & Development. Dr Mason owns stocks with Janssen. Dr Fizazi has participated in advisory boards and talks for Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Pfizer, and Sanofi, with honoraria to his institution (Institut Gustave Roussy); has participated in advisory boards for, with personal honoraria from, Arvinas, CureVac, MacroGenics, and Orion. Study registration number: NCT02854436.

Impact of DNA damage repair alterations on prostate cancer progression and metastasis

Prostate cancer is among the most common diseases worldwide. Despite recent progress with treatments, patients with advanced prostate cancer have poor outcomes and there is a high unmet need in this population. Understanding molecular determinants underlying prostate cancer and the aggressive phenotype of disease can help with design of better clinical trials and improve treatments for these patients. One of the pathways often altered in advanced prostate cancer is DNA damage response (DDR), including alterations in BRCA1/2 and other homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Alterations in the DDR pathway are particularly prevalent in metastatic prostate cancer. In this review, we summarise the prevalence of DDR alterations in primary and advanced prostate cancer and discuss the impact of alterations in the DDR pathway on aggressive disease phenotype, prognosis and the association of germline pathogenic alterations in DDR genes with risk of developing prostate cancer.

Niraparib and Abiraterone Acetate for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains a lethal disease with current standard-of-care therapies. Homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, including BRCA1/2 alterations, can sensitize cancer cells to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition, which may improve outcomes in treatment-naïve mCRPC when combined with androgen receptor signaling inhibition.

METHODS

MAGNITUDE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03748641) is a phase III, randomized, double-blinded study that evaluates niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (niraparib + AAP) in patients with (HRR+, n = 423) or without (HRR-, n = 247) HRR-associated gene alterations, as prospectively determined by tissue/plasma-based assays. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive niraparib + AAP or placebo + AAP. The primary end point, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) assessed by central review, was evaluated first in the BRCA1/2 subgroup and then in the full HRR+ cohort, with secondary end points analyzed for the full HRR+ cohort if rPFS was statistically significant. A futility analysis was preplanned in the HRR- cohort.

RESULTS

Median rPFS in the BRCA1/2 subgroup was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.6 v 10.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79; P = .001). In the overall HRR+ cohort, rPFS was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.5 v 13.7 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .022). These findings were supported by improvement in the secondary end points of time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In the HRR- cohort, futility was declared per the prespecified criteria. Treatment with niraparib + AAP was tolerable, with anemia and hypertension as the most reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Combination treatment with niraparib + AAP significantly lengthened rPFS in patients with HRR+ mCRPC compared with standard-of-care AAP.

[Media: see text].

Germline ATM Mutations Detected by Somatic DNA Sequencing in Lethal Prostate Cancer

Background

Germline mutations in the ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) gene occur in 0.5-1% of the overall population and are associated with tumour predisposition. The clinical and pathological features of ATM-mutated prostate cancer (PC) are poorly defined but have been associated with lethal PC.

Objective

To report on the clinical characteristics including family history and clinical outcomes of a cohort of patients with advanced metastatic castration-resistant PC (CRPC) who were found to have germline ATM mutations after mutation detection by initial tumour DNA sequencing.

Design setting and participants

We acquired germline ATM mutation data by saliva next-generation sequencing from patients with ATM mutations in PC biopsies sequenced between January 2014 and January 2022. Demographics, family history, and clinical data were collected retrospectively.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Outcome endpoints were based on overall survival (OS) and time from diagnosis to CRPC. Data were analysed using R version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results and limitations

Overall, seven patients (n = 7/1217; 0.6%) had germline ATM mutations detected, with five of them having a family history of malignancies, including breast, prostate, pancreas, and gastric cancer; leukaemia; and lymphoma. Two patients had concomitant somatic mutations in tumour biopsies in genes other than ATM, while two patients were found to carry more than one ATM pathogenic mutation. Five tumours in germline ATM variant carriers had loss of ATM by immunohistochemistry. The median OS from diagnosis was 7.1 yr (range 2.9-14 yr) and the median OS from CRPC was 5.3 yr (range 2.2-7.3 yr). When comparing these data with PC patients sequenced by The Cancer Genome Atlas, we found that the spatial localisation of mutations was similar, with distribution of alterations occurring on similar positions in the ATM gene. Interestingly, these include a mutation within the FRAP-ATM-TRRAP (FAT) domain, suggesting that this represents a mutational hotspot for ATM.

Conclusions

Germline ATM mutations are rare in patients with lethal PC but occur at mutational hotspots; further research is warranted to better characterise the family histories of these men and PC clinical course.

Patient summary

In this report, we studied the clinical and pathological features of advanced prostate cancers associated with germline mutations in the ATM gene. We found that most patients had a strong family history of cancer and that this mutation might predict the course of these prostate cancers, as well as response to specific treatments.

Novel Histopathological Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer: Implications and Perspectives

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer in men. Despite the significant progress in cancer diagnosis and treatment over the last few years, the approach to disease detection and therapy still does not include histopathological biomarkers. The dissemination of PCa is strictly related to the creation of a premetastatic niche, which can be detected by altered levels of specific biomarkers. To date, the risk factors for biochemical recurrence include lymph node status, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density (PSAD), body mass index (BMI), pathological Gleason score, seminal vesicle invasion, extraprostatic extension, and intraductal carcinoma. In the future, biomarkers might represent another prognostic factor, as discussed in many studies. In this review, we focus on histopathological biomarkers (particularly CD169 macrophages, neuropilin-1, cofilin-1, interleukin-17, signal transducer and activator of transcription protein 3 (STAT3), LIM domain kinase 1 (LIMK1), CD15, AMACR, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), Appl1, Sortilin, Syndecan-1, and p63) and their potential application in decision making regarding the prognosis and treatment of PCa patients. We refer to studies that found a correlation between the levels of biomarkers and tumor characteristics as well as clinical outcomes. We also hypothesize about the potential use of histopathological markers as a target for novel immunotherapeutic drugs or targeted radionuclide therapy, which may be used as adjuvant therapy in the future.

Multi-Gene Next-Generation Sequencing Panel for Analysis of BRCA1/BRCA2 and Homologous Recombination Repair Genes Alterations Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Despite significant therapeutic advances, metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) remains a lethal disease. Mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes are frequent in mCRPC, and tumors harboring these mutations are known to be sensitive to PARP inhibitors. The aim of this study was to verify the technical effectiveness of this panel in the analysis of mCRPC, the frequency and type of mutations in the BRCA1/BRCA2 genes, as well as in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. A total of 50 mCRPC cases were analyzed using a multi-gene next-generation sequencing panel evaluating a total of 1360 amplicons in 24 HRR genes. Of the 50 cases, 23 specimens (46.0%) had an mCRPC harboring a pathogenic variant or a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), whereas in 27 mCRPCs (54.0%), no mutations were detected (wild-type tumors). BRCA2 was the most commonly mutated gene (14.0% of samples), followed by ATM (12.0%), and BRCA1 (6.0%). In conclusion, we have set up an NGS multi-gene panel that is capable of analyzing BRCA1/BRCA2 and HRR alterations in mCRPC. Moreover, our clinical algorithm is currently being used in clinical practice for the management of patients with mCRPC.

Recent Research Advances in Double-Strand Break and Mismatch Repair Defects in Prostate Cancer and Potential Clinical Applications

Prostate cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related death in men worldwide. Recent research advances have emphasized the critical roles of mismatch repair (MMR) and double-strand break (DSB) in prostate cancer development and progression. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the molecular mechanisms underlying DSB and MMR defects in prostate cancer, as well as their clinical implications. Furthermore, we discuss the promising therapeutic potential of immune checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors in targeting these defects, particularly in the context of personalized medicine and further perspectives. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of these novel treatments, including Food and Drugs Association (FDA) drug approvals, offering hope for improved patient outcomes. Overall, this review emphasizes the importance of understanding the interplay between MMR and DSB defects in prostate cancer to develop innovative and effective therapeutic strategies for patients.

Roles of the PARP Inhibitor in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Mutated Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Direct Functions and Modification of the Tumor Microenvironment

Cancer cells frequently exhibit defects in DNA damage repair (DDR), leading to genomic instability. Mutations in DDR genes or epigenetic alterations leading to the downregulation of DDR genes can result in increased dependency on other DDR pathways. Therefore, DDR pathways could be a treatment target for various cancers. In fact, polyadenosine diphosphatase ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, such as olaparib (Lynparza®), have shown remarkable therapeutic efficacy against BRCA1/2-mutant cancers through synthetic lethality. Recent genomic analytical advancements have revealed that BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants are the most frequent mutations among DDR genes in prostate cancer. Currently, the PROfound randomized controlled trial is investigating the efficacy of a PARP inhibitor, olaparib (Lynparza®), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The efficacy of the drug is promising, especially in patients with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants, even if they are in the advanced stage of the disease. However, olaparib (Lynparza®) is not effective in all BRCA1/2 mutant prostate cancer patients and inactivation of DDR genes elicits genomic instability, leading to alterations in multiple genes, which eventually leads to drug resistance. In this review, we summarize PARP inhibitors' basic and clinical mechanisms of action against prostate cancer cells and discuss their effects on the tumor microenvironment.

BRCA 1/BRCA 2 Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic Variant Patients with Breast, Ovarian, and Other Cancers

The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who have BRCA 1/BRCA 2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants may differ from their relatives who had BRCA-related cancer. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the clinical and demographic findings of patients who had BRCA-related cancer and to assess the differences comparing their relatives who had BRCA-related cancer with breast, genital tract, prostate, and pancreas cancers as well. The results of sequencing analysis of 200 cancer patients (190 women, 10 men) who have been directed to genetic counseling with an indication of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing from different regions across 9 medical oncology centers were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 200 consecutive cancer patients who harbored the BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (130 (65%) patients harbored BRCA 1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant, and 70 harbored BRCA 2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant) were included. Of these, 64.0% had breast cancer (43.8% of them had the triple-negative disease, and about 2.3% had only the HER-2 mutant), 31.5% had genital cancers (92.1% of them had ovarian cancer, 3.2% had endometrium, and 1.6% had peritoneum cancer as the primary site and mostly serous adenocarcinoma was the most common histopathology and 14.3% of the patients had endometrioid adenocarcinoma), 3.5% had prostate (median time from metastasis to castration-resistant status was 28 months) and 1.0% had pancreas cancer. Newly diagnosed cancer (breast and ovary) patients who had BRCA 1/BRCA 2 pathogenic/ likely pathogenic variant were younger than their previous cancer diagnosed (breast, ovary, and pancreas) parents who harbored BRCA pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant. We suggest that the genetic screening of BRCA 1/ BRCA 2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant is needed as a routine screening for those with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer. In addition, once BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 germline pathogenic variant has been identified in a family, testing of at-risk next-generation relatives earlier can identify those family members who also have the familial pathogenic variant, and thus need increased surveillance.

Frequency of Germline and Somatic BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Prostate Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In prostate cancer (PC), the presence of BRCA somatic and/or germline mutation provides prognostic and predictive information. Meta-analysis aims to estimate the frequency of BRCA mutations in patients with PC (PCp). In November 2022, we reviewed literature searching for all articles testing the proportion of BRCA mutations in PCp, without explicit enrichment for familiar risk. The frequency of germline and somatic BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations was described in three stage disease populations (any/metastatic/metastatic castration-resistant PC, mCRPC). Out of 2253 identified articles, 40 were eligible. Here, 0.73% and 1.20% of any stage PCp, 0.94% and 1.10% of metastatic PCp, and 1.21% and 1.10% of mCRPC patients carried germline and somatic BRCA1 mutation, respectively; 3.25% and 6.29% of any stage PCp, 4.51% and 10.26% of metastatic PCp, and 3.90% and 10.52% of mCRPC patients carried germline and somatic BRCA2 mutation, respectively; and 4.47% and 7.18% of any stage PCp, 5.84% and 10.94% of metastatic PCp, and 5.26% and 11.26% of mCRPC patients carried germline and somatic BRCA1/2 mutation, respectively. Somatic mutations are more common than germline and BRCA2 are more common than BRCA1 mutations; the frequency of mutations is higher in the metastatic setting. Despite that BRCA testing in PC is now standard in clinical practice, several open questions remain.

A review of treatments targeting DNA-repair gene defects in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. About 6% of those diagnosed will develop metastatic disease. Unfortunately, metastatic prostate cancer is fatal. Prostate cancer can be castration sensitive or castration resistant. Many treatments have been shown to improve progression free survival and overall survival in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In recent years, studies have been exploring targeting mutations in the DNA Damage Repair (DDR) response that may amplify oncogenes. In this paper, we aim to discuss DDR, new approved targeted therapies, and the most recent clinical trials in the setting of metastatic CRPC.