RNASEH2B loss and PARP inhibition in advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have suggested antitumor activity from PARP inhibition beyond homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). RNASEH2B loss is unrelated to HRD and preclinically sensitizes to PARP inhibition. The current study reports on RNASEH2B protein loss in advanced prostate cancer and its association with RB1 protein loss, clinical outcome and clonal dynamics during treatment with PARP inhibition in a prospective clinical trial. METHODS: Whole tumor biopsies from multiple cohorts of patients with advanced prostate cancer were interrogated using whole-exome sequencing (WES), RNA sequencing (bulk and single nucleus) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for RNASEH2B and RB1. Biopsies from patients treated with olaparib in the TOPARP-A and TOPARP-B clinical trials were used to evaluate RNASEH2B clonal selection during olaparib treatment. RESULTS: Shallow co-deletion of RNASEH2B and adjacent RB1, co-located at chromosome 13q14, was common, deep co-deletion infrequent, and gene loss associated with lower mRNA expression. In castration-resistant PC (CRPC) biopsies, RNASEH2B and RB1 mRNA expression correlated, but single nucleus RNA sequencing indicated discordant loss of expression. IHC studies showed that loss of the two proteins often occurred independently, arguably due to stochastic second allele loss. Pre- and post-treatment metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) biopsy studies from BRCA1/2 wildtype tumors, treated on the TOPARP phase II trial, indicated that olaparib eradicates RNASEH2B-loss tumor subclones. CONCLUSION: PARP inhibition may benefit men suffering from mCRPC by eradicating tumor subclones with RNASEH2B loss. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT01682772FUNDING. AstraZeneca; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council; Cancer Research UK; Prostate Cancer UK; Movember Foundation; Prostate Cancer Foundation.

A review of trials investigating ctDNA-guided adjuvant treatment of solid tumors: The importance of trial design.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) holds promise as a biomarker for guiding adjuvant treatment decisions in solid tumors. This review systematically assembles ongoing and published trials investigating ctDNA-directed adjuvant treatment strategies. A total of 57 phase II/III trials focusing on ctDNA in minimal residual disease (MRD) detection were identified, with a notable increase in initiation over recent years. Most trials target stage II or III colon/colorectal cancer, followed by breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Trial methodologies vary, with some randomizing ctDNA-positive patients between standard-of-care (SoC) treatment and intensified regimens, while others aim to de-escalate therapy in ctDNA-negative patients. Challenges in trial design include the need for randomized controlled trials to establish clinical utility for ctDNA, ensuring adherence to standard treatment in control arms, and addressing the ethical dilemma of withholding treatment in high-risk ctDNA-positive patients. Longitudinal ctDNA surveillance emerges as a strategy to improve sensitivity for recurrence, particularly in less proliferative tumor types. However, ctDNA as longitudinal marker is often not validated yet. Ultimately, designing effective ctDNA interventional trials requires careful consideration of feasibility, meaningful outcomes, and potential impact on patient care.