RESUMO
CONTEXT: Testing for mutations in Breast Cancer Gene 1/2 (BRCA) has emerged as a novel decision-making tool for clinicians. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring pathogenic BRCA mutations can benefit from poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) and platinum treatments, whereas the impact of the mutation on sensitivity to cabazitaxel and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-ligand therapy is currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of PARPi, platinum, cabazitaxel, and PSMA-ligand therapies in BRCA-positive mCRPC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Databases were queried in February 2022. We performed data synthesis by using both proportional and individual patient data. For prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline [PSA50]) evaluation, we pooled event rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival analyses with individual patient data were performed with the mixed-effect Cox proportional hazard model and single-arm random-effect analysis, providing pooled medians. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 23 eligible studies with 901 BRCA-positive mCRPC patients. PSA50 response rates for PARPi and platinum were 69% (CI: 53-82%), and 74% (CI: 49-90%), respectively. Analyses of OS data showed no difference between PARPi and platinum treatments (hazard ratio: 0.86; CI: 0.49-1.52; p = 0.6). The single-arm OS and PFS analyses revealed similarities among different PARPis; pooled PFS and OS medians were 9.7 mo (CI: 8.1-12.5) and 17.4 mo (CI: 12.7-20.1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data revealed that different PARPis were similarly effective in terms of PFS and OS. Moreover, we found that PARPi and platinum therapy were comparable in terms of PSA50 response rate and OS, highlighting that platinum is a valid treatment option for BRCA-positive mCRPC patients. However, prospective interventional studies comparing these agents are essential to provide a higher level of evidence. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we found that different poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors had similar efficacy, and platinum was a valid treatment option in BRCA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.
RESUMO
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.
