BRCA1 mutations do not increase prostate cancer risk: results from a meta-analysis including new data

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.

Usefulness of BRCA and ctDNA as Prostate Cancer Biomarkers: A Meta-Analysis

Prostate cancer represents the most common male urologic neoplasia. Tissue biopsies are the gold standard in oncology for diagnosing prostate cancer. We conducted a study to find the most reliable and noninvasive diagnostic tool. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of two biomarkers which we believe are the most interesting: BRCA (BRCA1 and 2) and ctDNA. Our systematic research yielded 248 articles. Forty-five duplicates were first excluded and, upon further examination, a further 203 articles were excluded on the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, leaving 25 articles. A statistical analysis of the obtained data has been performed. With a collective calculation, BRCA1 was expressed in 2.74% of all cases from 24,212 patients examined and BRCA2 in 1.96% of cases from 20,480 patients. In a total calculation using ctDNA, it was observed that 89% of cases from 1198 patients exhibited high expression of circulating tumor DNA. To date, no ideal PCa biomarker has been found. Although BRCA1 and BRCA2 work well for breast and ovarian cancers, they do not seem to be reliable for prostate cancer. ctDNA seems to be a much better biomarker; however, there are few studies in this area. Further studies need to be performed.

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.

The prevalence of gene mutations in homologous recombination repair pathways in Japanese patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in real-world clinical practice: The multi-institutional observational ZENSHIN study

BACKGROUND

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a genetically heterogeneous disease with a poor prognosis. The prevalence of mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway genes, including BRCA1/2, as well as treatment patterns and clinical outcomes, are not well characterized among Japanese men with mCRPC.

METHODS

This multicenter, noninterventional cohort study enrolled Japanese men with mCRPC from 24 institutions between 2014 and 2018. Mutations in the 15 HRR-related genes were assessed using archival primary or metastatic tumor samples. Patterns of sequential therapies for mCRPC were investigated. Patients were followed up for survival evaluation including prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA-PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of the 143 patients analyzed, HRR-related mutations were detected in 51 patients (35.7%). The most frequently mutated genes were CDK12 (N = 19, 13.3%), followed by BRCA2 (N = 18, 12.6%), ATM (N = 8, 5.6%), and CHEK2 (N = 3, 2.1%). The most common type of first-line therapy for mCRPC was next-generation hormonal agents (NHA, 44.4%), followed by first-generation antiandrogens (FGA, 30.3%), and taxanes (22.5%). Commonly prescribed first-/second-line sequential regimens included FGA/NHA (17.6%), NHA/NHA (15.5%), and NHA/taxanes (14.1%). The median PSA-PFS and OS for the entire cohort were 5.6 and 26.1 months, respectively. Patients carrying BRCA1/2 mutations had numerically shorter PSA-PFS (median 3.3 vs. 5.9 months) and OS (median 20.7 vs. 27.3 months) than those without mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, approximately one-third of Japanese patients with mCRPC carried mutations in HRR-related genes in this study. The real-world outcomes of mCRPC are poor with conventional therapy, warranting an expansion of treatment options based on genetic abnormalities of the disease.

Prevalence of Germline BRCA1/2 Variants in Ashkenazi and Non-Ashkenazi Prostate Cancer Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

International guidelines recommend testing BRCA2 in men with prostate cancer, due to the presence of a strong association with this gene. Some ethnicities present disparities in genetic distribution for the relation with specific founder variants. Ashkenazi Jewish people are, importantly, at high risk of breast cancer for their inherited cluster with germline BRCA1/2 variants. However, in Ashkenazi men with prostate cancer, the prevalence of BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 is not well defined. We assessed the frequency of these variants in Ashkenazi vs. non-Ashkenazi men with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: In accord with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, we revised all germline BRCA variants reported in MEDLINE from 1996 to 2021 in Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi men with prostate cancer. Results: Thirty-five original studies were selected for the analysis. Among populations from Israel and North America, Ashkenazi Jewish men presented higher prevalence of BRCA1 variants [0.9% (0.4-1.5) vs. 0.5% (0.2-1.1), p = 0.09] and a lower prevalence of BRCA2 variants [1.5% (1.1-2.0) vs. 3.5% (1.7-5.9), p = 0.08] in comparison to the non-Ashkenazi population. Conclusions: Since germline BRCA1 variants are more prevalent and BRCA2 variants are less prevalent in PCa patients of Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity in comparison to non-Ashkenazi patients, prostate cancer genetic screening in Ashkenazi men should not be restricted to the BRCA2 gene.

Prognostic Role of DNA Damage Response Genes Mutations and their Association With the Sensitivity of Olaparib in Prostate Cancer Patients

Objective

Evidence shows that gene mutation is a significant proportion of genetic factors associated with prostate cancer. The DNA damage response (DDR) is a signal cascade network that aims to maintain genomic integrity in cells. This comprehensive study was performed to determine the link between different DNA damage response gene mutations and prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Papers published up to February 1, 2022 were retrieved. The DDR gene mutations associated with prostate cancer were identified by referring to relevant research and review articles. Data of prostate cancer patients from multiple PCa cohorts were obtained from cBioPortal. The OR or HR and 95% CIs were calculated using both fixed-effects models (FEMs) and random-effects models (REMs).

Results

Seventy-four studies were included in this research, and the frequency of 13 DDR genes was examined. Through the analysis of 33 articles that focused on the risk estimates of DDR genes between normal people and PCa patients, DDR genes were found to be more common in prostate cancer patients (OR = 3.6293 95% CI [2.4992; 5.2705]). Also, patients in the mutated group had a worse OS and DFS outcome than those in the unmutated group (P < .05). Of the 13 DDR genes, the frequency of 9 DDR genes in prostate cancer was less than 1%, and despite differences in race, BRCA2 was the potential gene with the highest frequency (REM Frequency = .0400, 95% CI .0324 - .0541). The findings suggest that mutations in genes such as ATR, BLM, and MLH1 in PCa patients may increase the sensitivity of Olaparib, a PARP inhibitor.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that mutation in any DDR pathway results in a poor prognosis for PCa patients. Furthermore, mutations in ATR, BLM, and MLH1 or the expression of POLR2L, PMS1, FANCE, and other genes significantly influence Olaparib sensitivity, which may be underlying therapeutic targets in the future.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants and prostate cancer risk: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PVs) are associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk, but a wide range of relative risks (RRs) has been reported.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library in June 2021 for studies that estimated PCa RRs for male BRCA1/2 carriers, with no time or language restrictions. The literature search identified 27 studies (BRCA1: n = 20, BRCA2: n = 21).

RESULTS

The heterogeneity between the published estimates was high (BRCA1: I2 = 30%, BRCA2: I2 = 83%); this could partly be explained by selection for age, family history or aggressive disease, and study-level differences in ethnicity composition, use of historical controls, and location of PVs within BRCA2. The pooled RRs were 2.08 (95% CI 1.38-3.12) for Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA2 carriers, 4.35 (95% CI 3.50-5.41) for non-Ashkenazi European ancestry BRCA2 carriers, and 1.18 (95% CI 0.95-1.47) for BRCA1 carriers. At ages <65 years, the RRs were 7.14 (95% CI 5.33-9.56) for non-Ashkenazi European ancestry BRCA2 and 1.78 (95% CI 1.09-2.91) for BRCA1 carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

These PCa risk estimates will assist in guiding clinical management. The study-level subgroup analyses indicate that risks may be modified by age and ethnicity, and for BRCA2 carriers by PV location within the gene, which may guide future risk-estimation studies.

Next-generation sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Moroccan prostate cancer patients with positive family history

Prostate cancer is the most common male cancer in Morocco. Although sporadic forms account for a large proportion of patients, familial forms of prostate cancer are observed in 20% of cases and about 5% are due to hereditary transmission. Indeed, germline mutations in BRCA1/2 genes have been associated with prostate cancer risk. However, the spectrum of these mutations was not investigated in Moroccan Prostate cancer patients. Thereby, the aim of this study was to characterize and to estimate the prevalence of germline BRCA1/2 mutations and large rearrangements in Moroccan patients with familial prostate cancer. The entire coding regions and intron/exon boundaries of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have been analyzed by next generation sequencing (NGS) in a total of 30 familial prostate cancer patients. Three pathogenic mutations were detected in four unrelated patients (13.3%). One BRCA1 mutation (c.1953_1956delGAAA) and two BRCA2 mutations (c.7234_7235insG and BRCA2ΔE12). In addition, sixty-three distinct polymorphisms and unclassified variants have been found. Early identification of germline BRCA1/2 mutations may be relevant for the management of Moroccan prostate cancer patients.

Characterization of the Cancer Spectrum in Men With Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants: Results From the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA)

Importance

The limited data on cancer phenotypes in men with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PVs) have hampered the development of evidence-based recommendations for early cancer detection and risk reduction in this population.

Objective

To compare the cancer spectrum and frequencies between male BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cohort study of 6902 men, including 3651 BRCA1 and 3251 BRCA2 PV carriers, older than 18 years recruited from cancer genetics clinics from 1966 to 2017 by 53 study groups in 33 countries worldwide collaborating through the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Clinical data and pathologic characteristics were collected.

Main Outcomes and Measures

BRCA1/2 status was the outcome in a logistic regression, and cancer diagnoses were the independent predictors. All odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, country of origin, and calendar year of the first interview.

Results

Among the 6902 men in the study (median [range] age, 51.6 [18-100] years), 1634 cancers were diagnosed in 1376 men (19.9%), the majority (922 of 1,376 [67%]) being BRCA2 PV carriers. Being affected by any cancer was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2, rather than a BRCA1, PV carrier (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.81-3.70; P < .001), as well as developing 2 (OR, 7.97; 95% CI, 5.47-11.60; P < .001) and 3 (OR, 19.60; 95% CI, 4.64-82.89; P < .001) primary tumors. A higher frequency of breast (OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 4.06-7.37; P < .001) and prostate (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.78; P = .008) cancers was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2 PV carrier. Among cancers other than breast and prostate, pancreatic cancer was associated with a higher probability (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.55-5.81; P = .001) and colorectal cancer with a lower probability (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78; P = .003) of being a BRCA2 PV carrier.

Conclusions and Relevance

Significant differences in the cancer spectrum were observed in male BRCA2, compared with BRCA1, PV carriers. These data may inform future recommendations for surveillance of BRCA1/2-associated cancers and guide future prospective studies for estimating cancer risks in men with BRCA1/2 PVs.

Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk but a wide range of risk estimates have been reported that are based on retrospective studies.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate relative and absolute PCa risks associated with BRCA1/2 mutations and to assess risk modification by age, family history, and mutation location.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a prospective cohort study of male BRCA1 (n = 376) and BRCA2 carriers (n = 447) identified in clinical genetics centres in the UK and Ireland (median follow-up 5.9 and 5.3 yr, respectively).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Standardised incidence/mortality ratios (SIRs/SMRs) relative to population incidences or mortality rates, absolute risks, and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using cohort and survival analysis methods.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Sixteen BRCA1 and 26 BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed with PCa during follow-up. BRCA2 carriers had an SIR of 4.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.99-6.61) and absolute PCa risk of 27% (95% CI 17-41%) and 60% (95% CI 43-78%) by ages 75 and 85 yr, respectively. For BRCA1 carriers, the overall SIR was 2.35 (95% CI 1.43-3.88); the corresponding SIR at age <65 yr was 3.57 (95% CI 1.68-7.58). However, the BRCA1 SIR varied between 0.74 and 2.83 in sensitivity analyses to assess potential screening effects. PCa risk for BRCA2 carriers increased with family history (HR per affected relative 1.68, 95% CI 0.99-2.85). BRCA2 mutations in the region bounded by positions c.2831 and c.6401 were associated with an SIR of 2.46 (95% CI 1.07-5.64) compared to population incidences, corresponding to lower PCa risk (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.96) than for mutations outside the region. BRCA2 carriers had a stronger association with Gleason score ≥7 (SIR 5.07, 95% CI 3.20-8.02) than Gleason score ≤6 PCa (SIR 3.03, 95% CI 1.24-7.44), and a higher risk of death from PCa (SMR 3.85, 95% CI 1.44-10.3). Limitations include potential screening effects for these known mutation carriers; however, the BRCA2 results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The results substantiate PCa risk patterns indicated by retrospective analyses for BRCA2 carriers, including further evidence of association with aggressive PCa, and give some support for a weaker association in BRCA1 carriers.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study we followed unaffected men known to carry mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes to investigate whether they are at higher risk of developing prostate cancer compared to the general population. We found that carriers of BRCA2 mutations have a high risk of developing prostate cancer, particularly more aggressive prostate cancer, and that this risk varies by family history of prostate cancer and the location of the mutation within the gene.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 Gene Mutations and Colorectal Cancer Risk: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Investigations of the associations with colorectal cancer have yielded conflicting results. The aim of our study was to synthesize the research on colorectal cancer risks in BRCA mutation carriers by means of a systematic review and quantitatively by means of meta-analyses overall and in subgroups of BRCA mutation carriers.

Methods

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were used to derive pooled estimates of colorectal cancer risk overall and in subgroups defined by mutation type (BRCA1 or BRCA2), cancer type (colorectal or colon cancer), study design (age-sex-adjusted or crude), and ascertainment method (ascertained or inferred genotyping). The associations were evaluated using random-effect models. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review: five cohort studies with ascertained BRCA mutation, six cohort studies involving pedigree analysis, five case-control studies, and two kin-cohort studies. Of these, 14 were used in the meta-analysis, which revealed a statistically significant increased risk of colorectal cancer in overall BRCA mutation carriers (OR = 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02 to 1.51, P = .03). In subgroup meta-analyses by BRCA type, BRCA1 mutation was associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.85, P < .001), but BRCA2 was not (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.58, P = .61). In subgroup meta-analyses of studies reporting estimates adjusted for age and sex, an increased risk of colorectal cancer for BRCA1 (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.23 to 1.98, P < .001), but not for BRCA2 (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.58, P = .66) was observed. Analyses stratified by ascertainment method found no association between BRCA mutation and colorectal cancer risk.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis results provide clinicians and health-care regulatory agencies with evidence of the increased risk of colorectal cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers, but not in BRCA2.

The association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with prostate cancer risk, frequency, and mortality: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A prior meta-analysis found no association between BRCA1 mutation and prostate cancer (PCa). Subsequent BRCA2 mutation studies have shown an association with PCa risk and mortality. We conducted a meta-analysis of overall BRCA mutation carriers and in subgroups to (1) estimate PCa risk in BRCA mutation carriers, (2) evaluate the frequency of BRCA mutation carriers in patients with PCa, and (3) compare cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) among BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Unadjusted odds ratio (OR), percentage (%), and hazard ratio (HR) were used to calculate pooled estimates for PCa risk, frequency, and survival, respectively. Subgroup analyses by mutation type ( BRCA1 or BRCA2) were conducted for the three objectives. Further subgroup analyses by study design (age-sex-adjusted or crude), ascertainment method (ascertained or inferred genotyping), population (Ashkenazi Jewish or general population), and survival outcomes (CSS or OS) were conducted. The associations were evaluated using random-effects models, in two-sided statistical tests.

RESULTS

A total of 8 cohort, 7 case-control, 4 case-series, 28 frequency, and 11 survival studies were included. Being a BRCA mutation carrier ( BRCA1 and/or BRCA2) was associated with a significant increase in PCa risk (OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.58-2.29), with BRCA2 mutation being associated with a greater risk of PCa (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 2.03-3.47) than BRCA1 (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.03-1.76). The frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers in patients with PCa was 0.9% and 2.2%, respectively. OS (HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.64-2.30) and CSS (HR = 2.63, 95% CI = 2.00-3.45) were significantly worse among BRCA2 carriers compared to noncarriers, whereas OS (HR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.11-1.99) and CSS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.38-2.96) were statistically not significant when comparing BRCA1 carriers and noncarriers.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a 1.90-fold greater risk of PCa in overall BRCA mutation carriers. This elevated PCa risk is attributable mainly to a 2.64-fold greater risk of PCa in BRCA2 carriers compared to a moderate 1.35-fold greater risk in BRCA1 carriers. The frequency of BRCA2 mutations was higher than BRCA1 mutations among patients with PCa. BRCA2 but not BRCA1 mutations were associated with higher PCa mortality. The BRCA mutation may be a clinical factor to stratify high-risk patients and guide clinical strategies for more effective treatments for patients with PCa.

Prostate Cancer in Primary Care

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy seen worldwide. The incidence has risen in recent decades, mainly fuelled by more widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, although prostate cancer mortality rates have remained relatively static over that time period. A man's risk of prostate cancer is affected by his age and family history of the disease. Men with prostate cancer generally present symptomatically in primary care settings, although some diagnoses are made in asymptomatic men undergoing opportunistic PSA screening. Symptoms traditionally thought to correlate with prostate cancer include lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), such as nocturia and poor urinary stream, erectile dysfunction and visible haematuria. However, there is significant crossover in symptoms between prostate cancer and benign conditions affecting the prostate such as benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) and prostatitis, making it very challenging to distinguish between them on the basis of symptoms. The evidence for the performance of PSA in asymptomatic and symptomatic men for the diagnosis of prostate cancer is equivocal. PSA is subject to false positive and false negative results, affecting its clinical utility as a standalone test. Clinicians need to counsel men about the risks and benefits of PSA testing to inform their decision-making. Digital rectal examination (DRE) by primary care clinicians has some evidence to show discrimination between benign and malignant conditions affecting the prostate. Patients referred to secondary care for diagnostic testing for prostate cancer will typically undergo a transrectal or transperineal biopsy, where a number of samples are taken and sent for histological examination. These biopsies are invasive procedures with side effects and a risk of infection and sepsis, and alternative tests such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are currently being trialled for their accuracy and safety in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer.

Phosphoprotein phosphatase 1-interacting proteins as therapeutic targets in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is a major public health concern worldwide, being one of the most prevalent cancers in men. Great improvements have been made both in terms of early diagnosis and therapeutics. However, there is still an urgent need for reliable biomarkers that could overcome the lack of cancer-specificity of prostate-specific antigen, as well as alternative therapeutic targets for advanced metastatic cases. Reversible phosphorylation of proteins is a post-translational modification critical to the regulation of numerous cellular processes. Phosphoprotein phosphatase 1 (PPP1) is a major serine/threonine phosphatase, whose specificity is determined by its interacting proteins. These interactors can be PPP1 substrates, regulators, or even both. Deregulation of this protein-protein interaction network alters cell dynamics and underlies the development of several cancer hallmarks. Therefore, the identification of PPP1 interactome in specific cellular context is of crucial importance. The knowledge on PPP1 complexes in prostate cancer remains scarce, with only 4 holoenzymes characterized in human prostate cancer models. However, an increasing number of PPP1 interactors have been identified as expressed in human prostate tissue, including the tumor suppressors TP53 and RB1. Efforts should be made in order to identify the role of such proteins in prostate carcinogenesis, since only 26 have yet well-recognized roles. Here, we revise literature and human protein databases to provide an in-depth knowledge on the biological significance of PPP1 complexes in human prostate carcinogenesis and their potential use as therapeutic targets for the development of new therapies for prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer screening

Universal screening for prostate cancer (Pca) using prostate-specific antigen-based testing is not recommended, as the potential harms of screening (overdiagnosis and overtreatment) outweigh potential benefits. The case for Pca screening requires a paradigm shift, which emphasizes the risks of screening over the risks of undetected cancer. Physicians are encouraged to use shared decision making with patients who express an interest in Pca screening, taking into account both the patient's screening preferences and individual risk profile. New models of care informed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are intended to assist clinicians in providing recommended preventive services.

Role of Engrailed-2 (EN2) as a prostate cancer detection biomarker in genetically high risk men

Controversy surrounds the use of PSA as a biomarker for prostate cancer detection, leaving an unmet need for a novel biomarker in this setting; urinary EN2 may identify individuals with clinically relevant prostate cancer. Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are at increased risk of clinically significant prostate cancer and may benefit from screening. Urine samples from 413 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and controls were evaluated. Subjects underwent annual PSA screening with diagnostic biopsy triggered by PSA > 3.0 ng/ml; 21 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Urinary EN2 levels were measured by ELISA and had a sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 89.3% for cancer detection. There was no statistically significant difference in EN2 levels according to genetic status or Gleason score. Urinary EN2 may be useful as a non-invasive early biomarker for prostate cancer detection in genetically high-risk individuals.

Identifying and exploiting defects in the Fanconi anemia/BRCA pathway in oncology

Defects in components of DNA repair pathways are responsible for numerous hereditary cancer syndromes and are also common in many sporadic malignancies. Inherited mutations in the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 or components of the Fanconi anemia (FA) complex incite genomic instability and predispose to malignancy. The products of the BRCA and FA genes participate in a conserved DNA damage repair pathway that is responsible for repairing interstrand crosslinks and double-strand DNA breaks by homologous recombination. While the genetic instability resulting from FA/BRCA dysfunction contributes to cancer pathogenesis, deficiency of these genes also lends to therapeutic exploitation. Crosslinking agents and ionizing radiation induce damage in cancer cells that requires the FA/BRCA pathway to be resolved; thus cancers that are deficient in BRCA1, BRCA2, or any other component of the FA/BRCA pathway are hypersensitive to these agents. Moreover, emerging synthetic lethal strategies offer opportunities to selectively target cancer cells with defects in homologous recombination. Conversely, enhanced activity of the FA/BRCA pathway is responsible for acquired resistance to specific therapeutic agents, suggesting that both dysfunction and hyperfunction of the FA/BRCA repair machinery are rational targets for cancer therapy. Selection of specific cytotoxic agents based on repair capacity may improve responses and enable personalized cytotoxic chemotherapy. This article reviews the FA/BRCA pathway and current approaches to identify deficiencies within it, discusses synthetic lethality and enhanced repair capacity as causes of therapeutic hypersensitivity and resistance, respectively, and highlights recent studies that have linked FA/BRCA pathway function with therapeutic efficacy.

Germline BRCA1 mutations increase prostate cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PrCa) is one of the most common cancers affecting men but its aetiology is poorly understood. Family history of PrCa, particularly at a young age, is a strong risk factor. There have been previous reports of increased PrCa risk in male BRCA1 mutation carriers in female breast cancer families, but there is a controversy as to whether this risk is substantiated. We sought to evaluate the role of germline BRCA1 mutations in PrCa predisposition by performing a candidate gene study in a large UK population sample set.

METHODS

We screened 913 cases aged 36–86 years for germline BRCA1 mutation, with the study enriched for cases with an early age of onset. We analysed the entire coding region of the BRCA1 gene using Sanger sequencing. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification was also used to assess the frequency of large rearrangements in 460 cases.

RESULTS

We identified 4 deleterious mutations and 45 unclassified variants (UV). The frequency of deleterious BRCA1 mutation in this study is 0.45%; three of the mutation carriers were affected at age 65 years and one developed PrCa at 69 years. Using previously estimated population carrier frequencies, deleterious BRCA1 mutations confer a relative risk of PrCa of ~3.75-fold, (95% confidence interval 1.02–9.6) translating to a 8.6% cumulative risk by age 65.

CONCLUSION

This study shows evidence for an increased risk of PrCa in men who harbour germline mutations in BRCA1. This could have a significant impact on possible screening strategies and targeted treatments.