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.

Addition of androgen receptor-targeted agents to androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) historically represented the milestone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Recently, combining androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) or docetaxel with ADT significantly improved clinical outcomes in this setting. The efficacy of the combined use of an ARTA with docetaxel and ADT (triplet), however, was unknown, and often conflicting data derived from subgroup analysis of randomized phase III trials. In order to better define the benefits and risks of the triplet in mHSPC, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical trials. METHODS: A literature search with no data restriction using Medline/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and American Society of Clinical Oncology/European Society for Medical Oncology (ASCO/ESMO) Meeting abstracts was carried out up to April 2022. The meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint; progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were secondary endpoints. For OS and PFS, summary hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated; for safety, risk ratio (RR) was assessed. Random- or fixed-effects models were used, depending on studies heterogeneity. RESULTS: Five randomized clinical trials fulfilled the prespecified inclusion criteria. The triplet significantly improved OS (fixed-effect, HR = 0.74; P < 0.00001) and PFS (fixed-effect; HR = 0.50 for clinical PFS, HR = 0.49 for radiological PFS; P < 0.0001) compared with docetaxel plus ADT. We did not show heterogeneity between treatment efficacy and the disease burden, metachronous versus synchronous presentation, concomitant versus sequential strategy. Compared with docetaxel + ADT, the triplet did not increase the risk of adverse events (AEs) (RR = 1.00, P = 0.27 for any-grade AEs; RR = 1.13, P = 0.14 for severe AEs), except for severe hypertension (RR = 1.73, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Emerging evidence supports the combination of an ARTA plus docetaxel and ADT in mHSPC patients. Given the availability of several strategies in this setting, clinical characteristics and drug safety profile may help clinicians select the appropriate treatment for mHSPC patients who are more likely to benefit from treatment intensification.

Targeting androgen-independent pathways: new chances for patients with prostate cancer?

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay treatment for advanced prostate cancer (PC). Most patients eventually progress to a condition known as castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), characterized by lack of response to ADT. Although new androgen receptor signaling (ARS) inhibitors and chemotherapeutic agents have been introduced to overcome resistance to ADT, many patients progress because of primary or acquired resistance to these agents. This comprehensive review aims at exploring the mechanisms of resistance and progression of PC, with specific focus on alterations which lead to the activation of androgen receptor (AR)-independent pathways of survival. Our work integrates available clinical and preclinical data on agents which target these pathways, assessing their potential clinical implication in specific settings of patients. Given the rising interest of the scientific community in cancer immunotherapy strategies, further attention is dedicated to the role of immune evasion in PC.