PURPOSE: To analyze the baseline clinicopathologic characteristics of prostate tumors with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations and the prognostic value of those mutations on prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study analyzed the tumor features and outcomes of 2,019 patients with PCa (18 BRCA1 carriers, 61 BRCA2 carriers, and 1,940 noncarriers). The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate the associations between BRCA1/2 status and other PCa prognostic factors with overall survival (OS), cause-specific OS (CSS), CSS in localized PCa (CSS_M0), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and CSS from metastasis (CSS_M1). RESULTS: PCa with germline BRCA1/2 mutations were more frequently associated with Gleason ≥ 8 (P = .00003), T3/T4 stage (P = .003), nodal involvement (P = .00005), and metastases at diagnosis (P = .005) than PCa in noncarriers. CSS was significantly longer in noncarriers than in carriers (15.7 v 8.6 years, multivariable analyses [MVA] P = .015; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.8). For localized PCa, 5-year CSS and MFS were significantly higher in noncarriers (96% v 82%; MVA P = .01; HR = 2.6%; and 93% v 77%; MVA P = .009; HR = 2.7, respectively). Subgroup analyses confirmed the poor outcomes in BRCA2 patients, whereas the role of BRCA1 was not well defined due to the limited size and follow-up in this subgroup. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that BRCA1/2 mutations confer a more aggressive PCa phenotype with a higher probability of nodal involvement and distant metastasis. BRCA mutations are associated with poor survival outcomes and this should be considered for tailoring clinical management of these patients.
PURPOSE: To analyze the baseline clinicopathologic characteristics of prostate tumors with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations and the prognostic value of those mutations on prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study analyzed the tumor features and outcomes of 2,019 patients with PCa (18 BRCA1 carriers, 61 BRCA2 carriers, and 1,940 noncarriers). The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate the associations between BRCA1/2 status and other PCa prognostic factors with overall survival (OS), cause-specific OS (CSS), CSS in localized PCa (CSS_M0), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and CSS from metastasis (CSS_M1). RESULTS: PCa with germline BRCA1/2 mutations were more frequently associated with Gleason ≥ 8 (P = .00003), T3/T4 stage (P = .003), nodal involvement (P = .00005), and metastases at diagnosis (P = .005) than PCa in noncarriers. CSS was significantly longer in noncarriers than in carriers (15.7 v 8.6 years, multivariable analyses [MVA] P = .015; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.8). For localized PCa, 5-year CSS and MFS were significantly higher in noncarriers (96% v 82%; MVA P = .01; HR = 2.6%; and 93% v 77%; MVA P = .009; HR = 2.7, respectively). Subgroup analyses confirmed the poor outcomes in BRCA2 patients, whereas the role of BRCA1 was not well defined due to the limited size and follow-up in this subgroup. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that BRCA1/2 mutations confer a more aggressive PCa phenotype with a higher probability of nodal involvement and distant metastasis. BRCA mutations are associated with poor survival outcomes and this should be considered for tailoring clinical management of these patients.
Authors: R M Giusti; J L Rutter; P H Duray; L S Freedman; M Konichezky; J Fisher-Fischbein; M H Greene; B Maslansky; A Fischbein; S B Gruber; G Rennert; R D Ronchetti; S M Hewitt; J P Struewing; J Iscovich Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: David J Gallagher; Angel M Cronin; Matthew I Milowsky; Michael J Morris; Jasmine Bhatia; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Roger Chou; Jennifer M Croswell; Tracy Dana; Christina Bougatsos; Ian Blazina; Rongwei Fu; Ken Gleitsmann; Helen C Koenig; Clarence Lam; Ashley Maltz; J Bruin Rugge; Kenneth Lin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: S M Edwards; D G R Evans; Q Hope; A R Norman; Y Barbachano; S Bullock; Z Kote-Jarai; J Meitz; A Falconer; P Osin; C Fisher; M Guy; S G Jhavar; A L Hall; L T O'Brien; B N Gehr-Swain; R A Wilkinson; M S Forrest; D P Dearnaley; A T Ardern-Jones; E C Page; D F Easton; R A Eeles Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Naomi Williams; Laura J Hughes; Emma L Turner; Jenny L Donovan; Freddie C Hamdy; David E Neal; Richard M Martin; Chris Metcalfe Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-04-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Peter C Fong; Timothy A Yap; David S Boss; Craig P Carden; Marja Mergui-Roelvink; Charlie Gourley; Jacques De Greve; Jan Lubinski; Susan Shanley; Christina Messiou; Roger A'Hern; Andrew Tutt; Alan Ashworth; John Stone; James Carmichael; Jan H M Schellens; Johann S de Bono; Stan B Kaye Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bella Kaufman; Ronnie Shapira-Frommer; Rita K Schmutzler; M William Audeh; Michael Friedlander; Judith Balmaña; Gillian Mitchell; Georgeta Fried; Salomon M Stemmer; Ayala Hubert; Ora Rosengarten; Mariana Steiner; Niklas Loman; Karin Bowen; Anitra Fielding; Susan M Domchek Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kristóf Arvai; Péter Horváth; Bernadett Balla; Anna M Tőkés; Bálint Tobiás; István Takács; Zsolt Nagy; Péter Lakatos; János P Kósa Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Richard Walker; Alyssa Louis; Alejandro Berlin; Sheri Horsburgh; Robert G Bristow; John Trachtenberg Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Howard B Lieberman; Alex J Rai; Richard A Friedman; Kevin M Hopkins; Constantinos G Broustas Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2018-01-14 Impact factor: 1.241
Authors: Sofia Maia; Marta Cardoso; Paula Paulo; Manuela Pinheiro; Pedro Pinto; Catarina Santos; Carla Pinto; Ana Peixoto; Rui Henrique; Manuel R Teixeira Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.375