Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer.

Toward development of a precision medicine framework for metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), we established a multi-institutional clinical sequencing infrastructure to conduct prospective whole-exome and transcriptome sequencing of bone or soft tissue tumor biopsies from a cohort of 150 mCRPC affected individuals. Aberrations of AR, ETS genes, TP53, and PTEN were frequent (40%-60% of cases), with TP53 and AR alterations enriched in mCRPC compared to primary prostate cancer. We identified new genomic alterations in PIK3CA/B, R-spondin, BRAF/RAF1, APC, ß-catenin, and ZBTB16/PLZF. Moreover, aberrations of BRCA2, BRCA1, and ATM were observed at substantially higher frequencies (19.3% overall) compared to those in primary prostate cancers. 89% of affected individuals harbored a clinically actionable aberration, including 62.7% with aberrations in AR, 65% in other cancer-related genes, and 8% with actionable pathogenic germline alterations. This cohort study provides clinically actionable information that could impact treatment decisions for these affected individuals.

PROMISE Registry: A prostate cancer registry of outcomes and germline mutations for improved survival and treatment effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Recently approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer have created a need for correlated analyses of patient outcomes data via germline genetic mutation status. Genetic registries address these gaps by identifying candidates for recently approved targeted treatments, expanding clinical trial data examining specific gene mutations, and understanding effects of targeted treatments in the real-world setting. METHODS: The PROMISE Registry is a 20-year (5-year recruitment, 15-year follow-up), US-wide, prospective genetic registry for prostate cancer patients. Five thousand patients will be screened through an online at-home germline testing to identify and enroll 500 patients with germline mutations, including: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in genes of interest. Patients will be followed for 15 years and clinical data with real time patient reported outcomes will be collected. Eligible patients will enter long-term follow-up (6-month PRO surveys and medical record retrieval). As a virtual study with patient self-enrollment, the PROMISE Registry may fill gaps in genetics services in underserved areas and for patients within sufficient insurance coverage. RESULTS: The PROMISE Registry opened in May 2021. 2114 patients have enrolled to date across 48 US states and 23 recruiting sites. 202 patients have met criteria for long-term follow-up. PROMISE is on target with the study's goal of 5000 patients screened and 500 patients eligible for long-term follow-up by 2026. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMISE Registry is a novel, prospective, germline registry that will collect long-term patient outcomes data to address current gaps in understanding resulting from recently FDA-approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer. Through inclusion of a broad nationwide sample, including underserved patients and those unaffiliated with major academic centers, the PROMISE Registry aims to provide access to germline genetic testing and to collect data to understand disease characteristics and treatment responses across the disease spectrum for prostate cancer with rare germline genetic variants.

Phase 1b study of enzalutamide plus CC-115, a dual mTORC1/2 and DNA-PK inhibitor, in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

BACKGROUND: CC-115, a dual mTORC1/2 and DNA-PK inhibitor, has promising antitumour activity when combined with androgen receptor (AR) inhibition in pre-clinical models. METHODS: Phase 1b multicentre trial evaluating enzalutamide with escalating doses of CC-115 in AR inhibitor-naive mCRPC patients (n = 41). Primary endpoints were safety and RP2D. Secondary endpoints included PSA response, time-to-PSA progression, and radiographic progression. RESULTS: Common adverse effects included rash (31.7% Grades 1-2 (Gr); 31.7% Gr 3), pruritis (43.9% Gr 1-2), diarrhoea (37% Gr 1-2), and hypertension (17% Gr 1-2; 9.8% Gr 3). CC-115 RP2D was 5 mg twice a day. In 40 evaluable patients, 80% achieved ≥50% reduction in PSA (PSA50), and 58% achieved ≥90% reduction in PSA (PSA90) by 12 weeks. Median time-to-PSA progression was 14.7 months and median rPFS was 22.1 months. Stratification by PI3K alterations demonstrated a non-statistically significant trend towards improved PSA50 response (PSA50 of 94% vs. 67%, p = 0.08). Exploratory pre-clinical analysis suggested CC-115 inhibited mTOR pathway strongly, but may be insufficient to inhibit DNA-PK at RP2D. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of enzalutamide and CC-115 was well tolerated. A non-statistically significant trend towards improved PSA response was observed in patients harbouring PI3K pathway alterations, suggesting potential predictive biomarkers of response to a PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitor. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02833883.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part III: Salvage Therapy After Radiotherapy or Focal Therapy, Pelvic Nodal Recurrence and Oligometastasis, and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part III of a three-part series focusing on evaluation and management of suspected non-metastatic recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, evaluation and management of regional recurrence, management for molecular imaging metastatic recurrence, and future directions. Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and deliberate efforts for multidisciplinary care in prostate cancer will be required to optimize and improve the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients treated with salvage therapies in the future.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part I: Introduction and Treatment Decision-Making at the Time of Suspected Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part I of a three-part series focusing on treatment decision-making at the time of suspected biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic BCR after RP and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing work in the area of diagnostic tools (particularly imaging), biomarkers, radiation delivery, and biological manipulation with the evolving armamentarium of therapeutic agents will undoubtedly present new opportunities for patients to experience long-term control of their cancer while minimizing toxicity.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part II: Treatment Delivery for Non-metastatic Biochemical Recurrence After Primary Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part II of a three-part series focusing on treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing and personalizing the approach to salvage therapy remains an ongoing area of work in the field of genitourinary oncology and represents an area of research and clinical care that requires well-coordinated, multi-disciplinary efforts.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 3.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

Differential responses to taxanes and PARP inhibitors in ATM- versus BRCA2-mutated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: PARP (poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) are now standard of care in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with select mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, but patients with ATM- and BRCA2 mutations may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist in response to taxanes, which may inform treatment sequencing decisions. METHODS: mCRPC patients (N = 158) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were retrospectively identified from 11 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed and Cox hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for progression-free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients with ATM mutations and 100 with BRCA2 mutations were identified. Fourty-four (76%) patients with ATM mutations received taxane only or taxane before PARPi, while 14 (24%) received PARPi only or PARPi before taxane. Patients with ATM mutations had longer PFS when taxane was given first versus PARPi given first (HR: 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-1.50]; p = 0.40). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with ATM mutations who received taxane first (HR: 0.56 [CI: 0.20-1.54]; p = 0.26). Among patients with BRCA2 mutations, 51 (51%) received taxane first and 49 (49%) received PARPi first. In contrast, patients with BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS when PARPi was given first versus taxane given first (HR: 0.85 [CI: 0.54-1.35]; p = 0.49). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with BRCA2 mutations who received PARPi first (HR: 0.75 [CI: 0.41-1.37]; p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective data suggest differential response between ATM and BRCA2 mutated prostate cancers in terms of response to PARPi and to taxane chemotherapy. When considering the sequence of PARPi versus taxane chemotherapy for mCRPC with DDR mutations, ATM, and BRCA2 mutation status may be helpful in guiding choice of initial therapy.

Phase II trial of CV301 vaccine combined with atezolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

CV301 comprises recombinant poxviruses, Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) and Fowlpox (FPV), encoding CEA, MUC-1, and co-stimulatory Molecules (TRICOM) ICAM-1, LFA-3, and B7-1. MVA-BN-CV301 is used for priming and FPV-CV301 is used for boosting. A Phase 2, single-arm trial was designed to evaluate CV301 plus atezolizumab as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) (Cohort 1) or progressing after platinum chemotherapy (Cohort 2). MVA-CV301 was given subcutaneously (SC) on Days 1 and 22 and FPV-CV301 SC from day 43 every 21 days for 4 doses, then tapered gradually over up to 2 years. Atezolizumab 1200 mg IV was given every 21 days. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Overall, 43 evaluable patients received therapy: 19 in Cohort 1; 24 in Cohort 2; nine experienced ≥ Grade 3 therapy-related adverse events. In Cohort 1, one had partial response (PR) (ORR 5.3%, 90% CI 0.3, 22.6). In Cohort 2, 1 complete response and 1 PR were noted (ORR 8.3%, 90% CI 1.5, 24.0). The trial was halted for futility. Patients exhibiting benefit demonstrated T-cell response to CEA and MUC-1. The trial illustrates the challenges in the development of vaccines, which should be guided by robust preclinical data.

Genetic Testing Among Patients with High-Risk Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate Cancers.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends genetic testing in patients with potentially hereditary breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers (HBOPP). Knowledge of genetic mutations impacts decisions about screening and treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 28,586 HBOPP patients diagnosed from 2013 to 2019 was conducted using a linked administrative-cancer database in the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER area. Guideline-concordant testing (GCT) was assessed annually according to guideline updates. Frequency of testing according to patient/cancer characteristics was evaluated using chi-squared tests, and factors associated with receipt of genetic testing were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Testing occurred in 17% of HBOPP patients, increasing from 9% in 2013 to 21% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Ovarian cancer had the highest testing (40%) and prostate cancer the lowest (4%). Age < 50, female sex, non-Hispanic White race, commercial insurance, urban location, family history of HBOPP, and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) were associated with increased testing (all p < 0.05). GCT increased from 38% in 2013 to 44% in 2019, and was highest for early age at breast cancer diagnosis, TNBC, male breast cancer, and breast cancer with family history of HBOPP (all > 70% in 2019), and lowest for metastatic prostate cancer (6%). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of genetic testing for HBOPP cancer has increased over time. Though GCT is high for breast cancer, there are gaps in concordance among patients with other cancers. Increasing provider and patient education, genetic counseling, and insurance coverage for testing among HBOPP patients may improve guideline adherence.

Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

Poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitor and androgen receptor signaling inhibitor for all comers for first-line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: is gene sequencing out?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The landscape for first-line therapy (1L) of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is rapidly shifting. In the past 2 years, three phase 3 trials have examined the addition of a poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) to an androgen receptor-signaling inhibitor (ARSI) in 1L. The FDA and the EMA recently considered whether one of these combinations should be approved for "all comers." Here, we review the trial designs, assays for homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm) and BRCA mutations ( BRCA m), and predictive capacity of mutational status on treatment efficacy to understand the basis for the FDA decision. RECENT FINDINGS: The phase 3 trials, PROpel, MAGNITUDE, and TALAPRO-2, each compared PARPi and ARSI to placebo (PBO) plus ARSI. PROpel and TALAPRO-2 (cohort 1) included all comers (i.e., no prospective biomarker selection), while MAGNITUDE prospectively assigned patients to HRRm and HRR nonmutated cohorts and TALAPRO-2 (cohort 2) included only those with HRRm. Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was the primary endpoint, and overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint in all trials. Although rPFS with a PARPi and ARSI was improved versus PBO with ARSI, major conclusions differed. SUMMARY: The nuances and interpretation of these trials provide an understanding of the rationale for the FDA's decision to restrict the approval of olaparib and abiraterone and prednisone (AAP) as 1L therapy to those with biomarker evidence of BRCA m.

Quality of life in the year after new diagnosis with advanced prostate cancer for Black and White individuals living in the US.

PURPOSE: To assess differences in baseline and longitudinal quality of life among Black and White individuals in the US with advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN) including US participants newly diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and identifying their race as Black or White from 2017 to 2023. Participants completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 Quality of Life (QoL) Survey at study enrollment and every 3 months thereafter for up to 1 year of follow-up reporting 15 scale scores ranging from 0 to 100 (higher functioning and lower symptom scores represent better quality of life). Linear mixed effects models with race and month of questionnaire completion were fit for each scale, and model coefficients were used to assess differences in baseline and longitudinal QoL by race. RESULTS: Eight hundred and seventy-nine participants were included (20% identifying as Black) at 38 US sites. Compared to White participants at baseline, Black participants had worse constipation (mean 6.3 percentage points higher; 95% CI 2.9-9.8), financial insecurity (5.7 (1.4-10.0)), and pain (5.1 (0.9-9.3)). QoL decreased over time similarly by race; most notably, role functioning decreased by 0.7 percentage points (95% CI -0.8, -0.5) per month. CONCLUSION: There are notable differences in quality of life at new diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer for Black and White individuals, and quality of life declines similarly in the first year for both groups. Interventions that address specific aspects of quality of life in these patients could meaningfully improve the overall survivorship experience.

Germline genetics of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: An important fraction (>/~10%) of men with high-risk, localized prostate cancer and metastatic prostate cancer carry germline (heritable) pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (also known as mutations) in DNA repair genes. These can represent known or suspected autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndromes. Growing evidence suggests that pathogenic variants in key genes involved in homologous recombination and mismatch DNA repair are important in prostate cancer initiation and/or the development of metastases. AIMS: Here we provide a comprehensive review regarding individual genes and available literature regarding risks for developing prostate cancer, and discuss current national guidelines for germline genetic testing in the prostate cancer population and treatment implications. RESULTS: The association with prostate cancer risk and treatment implications is best understood for those with germline mutations of BRCA2, with emerging data supporting associations with ATM, CHEK2, BRCA1, HOXB13, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, TP53 and NBN. Treatment implications in the metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer setting include rucaparib and olaparib, and pembrolizumab with potential clinical trial opportunities in earlier disease settings. DISCUSSION: The data summarized in this review has led to the expansion of national guidelines for germline genetic testing in prostate cancer. We review these guidelines, and discuss the importance of cascade genetic testing of relatives, diverse populations with attention to inclusion, as well as prostate cancer screening updates and clinical trial opportunities for men who carry genetic risk factors for prostate cancer.

A Patient-Centered Approach to Research Prioritization in Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Research priorities are often set by expert clinicians and researchers. We sought to apply an established process in patient-centered research to engage survivors and their caregivers in prioritizing research topics in prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prostate cancer patient survey network, formed in partnership with Us TOO and the National Alliance of State Prostate Cancer Coalitions, engaged in a series of mixed-methods studies to prioritize comparative effectiveness research questions. This was accomplished through an iterative process that included 2 survey rounds and multidisciplinary working groups. RESULTS: There were 591 and 706 survey respondents in the first and second rounds, respectively, with most having had localized prostate cancer (58.1%). Survey participants represented 45 states in the U.S. Five of the top 11 prioritized research questions related to treatment decision making and/or survivorship care. The following had the highest overall importance ratings: What is the comparative effectiveness of different 1) strategies to improve counseling regarding the side effects of prostate cancer treatment, 2) tools for decision making in localized prostate cancer and 3) sequences of treatments for metastatic prostate cancer? CONCLUSIONS: We present a unique, patient-centered list of prioritized research questions among prostate cancer patients and their caregivers. These research questions may inform funding decisions for organizations that support research, and should be considered as priorities for clinicians, researchers and institutions conducting prostate cancer research. Prostate cancer is a common disease that affects 1 in 9 men over their lifetime. Researchers usually identify questions to study without asking men with prostate cancer. We asked survivors of prostate cancer and their caregivers to help us. They identified research questions and topics that are important to them. Researchers can focus on this list of questions to help men with prostate cancer. Groups who pay for research studies can make these questions their priority.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarizes much of the panel's discussions for the 4.2022 and 1.2023 updates to the guidelines regarding systemic therapy for metastatic prostate cancer.

Barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling and germline testing have an increasingly important role for patients with prostate cancer (PCa); however, recent data suggests they are underutilized. Our objective was to perform a qualitative study of the barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation among physicians who manage PCa. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and urologists from different U.S. practice settings until thematic saturation was achieved at n = 14. The interview guide was based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases Framework to identify key determinants of practice. Interview transcripts were independently coded by ≥2 investigators using a constant comparative method. RESULTS: The decision to perform or refer for germline genetic evaluation is affected by factors at multiple levels. Although patient factors sometimes play a role, the dominant themes in the decision to conduct germline genetic evaluation were at the physician and organizational level. Physician knowledge, coordination of care, perceptions of the guidelines, and concerns about cost were most frequently discussed as the main factors affecting utilization of germline genetic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently numerous barriers to implementation of germline genetic evaluation for PCa. Efforts to expand physician education, to develop tools to enhance genetics in practice, and to facilitate coordination of care surrounding genetic evaluation are important to promote guideline-concordant care.

Efficacy of systemic therapies in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer harboring germline ATM versus BRCA2 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Among men with metastatic prostate cancer, about 10% have germline alterations in DNA damage response genes. Most studies have examined BRCA2 alone or an aggregate of BRCA1/2 and ATM. Emerging data suggest that ATM mutations may have distinct biology and warrant individual evaluation. The objective of this study is to determine whether response to prostate cancer systemic therapies differs between men with germline mutations in ATM (gATM) and BRCA2 (gBRCA2). METHODS: This is an international multicenter retrospective matched cohort study of men with prostate cancer harboring gATM or gBRCA2. PSA50 response (≥50% decline in prostate-specific antigen) was compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The study included 45 gATM and 45 gBRCA2 patients, matched on stage and year of germline testing. Patients with gATM and gBRCA2 had similar age, Gleason grade, and PSA at diagnosis. We did not observe differences in PSA50 responses to abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer between the two groups; however, 0/7 with gATM and 12/14 with gBRCA2 achieved PSA50 response to PARPi (p < .001). Median (95% confidence interval) overall survival from diagnosis to death was 10.9 years (9.5-not reached) versus 9.9 years (7.1-not reached, p = .07) for the gATM and gBRCA2 cohorts, respectively. Limitations include the retrospective design and lack of mutation zygosity data. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional therapies can be effective in gATM carriers and should be considered before PARPi, which shows limited efficacy in this group. Men with gATM mutations warrant prioritization for novel treatment strategies.

Comparison of germline mutations in African American and Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study is to evaluate germline genetic variants in African American men with metastatic prostate cancer as compared to those in Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer in an effort to understand the role of genetic factors in these populations. METHODS: African American and Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer who had germline testing using multigene panels were used to generate comparisons. Germline genetic results, clinical parameters, and family histories between the two populations were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 867 patients were included in this retrospective study, including 188 African American and 669 Caucasian patients. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of a pathogenic or likely-pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) between African American and Caucasian patients (p = .09). African American patients were more likely to have a variant of unknown significance than Caucasians (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95; p < .0001). BRCA1 PV/LPVs were higher in African Americans (OR = 4.86; p = .04). African American patients were less likely to have a PV/LPV in non-BRCA DNA repair genes (OR = 0.30; p = .008). Family history of breast (OR = 2.09; p = .002) or ovarian cancer (OR = 2.33; p = .04) predicted PV/LPVs in Caucasians but not African-Americans. This underscores the limitations of family history in AA men and the importance of personal history to guide germline testing in AA men. CONCLUSIONS: In metastatic prostate cancer patients, PV/LPVs of tested genes did not vary by race, BRCA1 PV/LPVs were more common in the African American subset. However, PV/LPVs in non-BRCA DNA repair genes were less likely to be encountered in African Americans. Family history associated with genetic testing results in Caucasians only.