Open AccessImpact of mutations in homologous recombination repair genes on treatment outcomes for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer
Author(s) -
Alexander Carlson,
Rigo I. Acevedo,
Daniel M. Lim,
Roman Gulati,
Agnes Gawne,
Alexandra Sokolova,
Heather H. Cheng,
Peter S. Nelson,
Robert B. Montgomery,
Evan Y. Yu,
Michael T. Schweizer
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0239686
Subject(s) - prostate cancer , medicine , oncology , dna repair , cancer , cancer research , biology , gene , genetics
A significant proportion of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harbor mutations in homologous recombination (HR) repair genes, with some of these mutations associating with increased tumor susceptibility to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy. While mutations in some HR repair genes (e.g., BRCA1/2 ) have been associated with a more aggressive clinical course, prior studies correlating HR mutational status with treatment response to androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) or taxane-based chemotherapy have yielded conflicting results. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis to assess clinical outcomes to conventional, regulatory-approved therapies in mCRPC patients with somatic (monoallelic and biallelic) and/or germline HR repair mutations compared to patients without alterations as determined by clinical-grade next-generation sequencing assays. The primary endpoint was PSA30/PSA50 response, defined as ≥30%/≥50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction from baseline. Secondary endpoints of PSA progression-free survival (pPFS) and clinical/radiographic progression-free survival (crPFS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results A total of 90 consecutively selected patients were included in this analysis, of which 33 (37%) were identified to have HR repair gene mutations. Age, race, Gleason score, prior surgery, and receipt of prior radiation therapy were comparable between carriers and non-carriers. There was no evidence that PSA30/PSA50 differed by HR gene mutational status. Median pPFS and crPFS ranged 3–14 months across treatment modalities, but there was no evidence either differed by HR gene mutational status (all p>0.05). There was also no difference in outcomes between those with BRCA2 or PALB2 mutations (n = 17) compared to those without HR repair mutations. Conclusion HR gene mutational status was associated with comparable clinical outcomes following treatment with ARSIs or taxane-based chemotherapy. Additional prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.