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.

Genome-wide profiling of non-smoking-related lung cancer cells reveals common RB1 rearrangements associated with histopathologic transformation in EGFR-mutant tumors.

BACKGROUND: The etiology and the molecular basis of lung adenocarcinomas (LuADs) in nonsmokers are currently unknown. Furthermore, the scarcity of available primary cultures continues to hamper our biological understanding of non-smoking-related lung adenocarcinomas (NSK-LuADs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We established patient-derived cancer cell (PDC) cultures from metastatic NSK-LuADs, including two pairs of matched EGFR-mutant PDCs before and after resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and then performed whole-exome and RNA sequencing to delineate their genomic architecture. For validation, we analyzed independent cohorts of primary LuADs. RESULTS: In addition to known non-smoker-associated alterations (e.g. RET, ALK, EGFR, and ERBB2), we discovered novel fusions and recurrently mutated genes, including ATF7IP, a regulator of gene expression, that was inactivated in 5% of primary LuAD cases. We also found germline mutations at dominant familiar-cancer genes, highlighting the importance of genetic predisposition in the origin of a subset of NSK-LuADs. Furthermore, there was an over-representation of inactivating alterations at RB1, mostly through complex intragenic rearrangements, in treatment-naive EGFR-mutant LuADs. Three EGFR-mutant and one EGFR-wild-type tumors acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy, respectively, and histology on re-biopsies revealed the development of small-cell lung cancer/squamous cell carcinoma (SCLC/LuSCC) transformation. These features were consistent with RB1 inactivation and acquired EGFR-T790M mutation or FGFR3-TACC3 fusion in EGFR-mutant tumors. CONCLUSIONS: We found recurrent alterations in LuADs that deserve further exploration. Our work also demonstrates that a subset of NSK-LuADs arises within cancer-predisposition syndromes. The preferential occurrence of RB1 inactivation, via complex rearrangements, found in EGFR-mutant tumors appears to favor SCLC/LuSCC transformation under growth-inhibition pressures. Thus RB1 inactivation may predict the risk of LuAD transformation to a more aggressive type of lung cancer, and may need to be considered as a part of the clinical management of NSK-LuADs patients.