Alexandra O Sokolova1, Catherine H Marshall2, Rebeca Lozano3,4, Roman Gulati5, Elisa M Ledet6, Navonil De Sarkar5, Petros Grivas5,7, Celestia S Higano5,7, Bruce Montgomery7, Peter S Nelson5,7, David Olmos3,4, Vadim Sokolov6, Michael T Schweizer5,7, Todd A Yezefski7, Evan Y Yu5,7, Channing J Paller2, Oliver Sartor8, Elena Castro3,4,9, Emmanuel S Antonarakis2, Heather H Cheng5,7. 1. Division of Medical Oncology, Oregon Health Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 2. Division on Medical Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Prostate Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Division on Medical Oncology, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Madrid, Spain. 4. Division on Medical Oncology, Genitourinary Cancer Traslational Research Group, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga, Malaga, Spain. 5. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA. 6. Systems Engineering and Operations Research Department, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA. 7. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 8. Division on Medical Oncology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. 9. Division on Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria y Regional de Málaga, Málaga, Spain.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Michael J Hall; Ryan Bernhisel; Elisha Hughes; Katie Larson; Eric T Rosenthal; Nanda A Singh; Johnathan M Lancaster; Allison W Kurian Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2021-01-28
Authors: Elizabeth C Page; Elizabeth K Bancroft; Mark N Brook; Melissa Assel; Mona Hassan Al Battat; Sarah Thomas; Natalie Taylor; Anthony Chamberlain; Jennifer Pope; Holly Ni Raghallaigh; D Gareth Evans; Jeanette Rothwell; Lovise Maehle; Eli Marie Grindedal; Paul James; Lyon Mascarenhas; Joanne McKinley; Lucy Side; Tessy Thomas; Christi van Asperen; Hans Vasen; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Janneke Ringelberg; Thomas Dyrsø Jensen; Palle J S Osther; Brian T Helfand; Elena Genova; Rogier A Oldenburg; Cezary Cybulski; Dominika Wokolorczyk; Kai-Ren Ong; Camilla Huber; Jimmy Lam; Louise Taylor; Monica Salinas; Lidia Feliubadaló; Jan C Oosterwijk; Wendy van Zelst-Stams; Jackie Cook; Derek J Rosario; Susan Domchek; Jacquelyn Powers; Saundra Buys; Karen O'Toole; Margreet G E M Ausems; Rita K Schmutzler; Kerstin Rhiem; Louise Izatt; Vishakha Tripathi; Manuel R Teixeira; Marta Cardoso; William D Foulkes; Armen Aprikian; Heleen van Randeraad; Rosemarie Davidson; Mark Longmuir; Mariëlle W G Ruijs; Apollonia T J M Helderman van den Enden; Muriel Adank; Rachel Williams; Lesley Andrews; Declan G Murphy; Dorothy Halliday; Lisa Walker; Annelie Liljegren; Stefan Carlsson; Ashraf Azzabi; Irene Jobson; Catherine Morton; Kylie Shackleton; Katie Snape; Helen Hanson; Marion Harris; Marc Tischkowitz; Amy Taylor; Judy Kirk; Rachel Susman; Rakefet Chen-Shtoyerman; Allan Spigelman; Nicholas Pachter; Munaza Ahmed; Teresa Ramon Y Cajal; Janez Zgajnar; Carole Brewer; Neus Gadea; Angela F Brady; Theo van Os; David Gallagher; Oskar Johannsson; Alan Donaldson; Julian Barwell; Nicola Nicolai; Eitan Friedman; Elias Obeid; Lynn Greenhalgh; Vedang Murthy; Lucia Copakova; Sibel Saya; John McGrath; Peter Cooke; Karina Rønlund; Kate Richardson; Alex Henderson; Soo H Teo; Banu Arun; Karin Kast; Alexander Dias; Neil K Aaronson; Audrey Ardern-Jones; Chris H Bangma; Elena Castro; David Dearnaley; Diana M Eccles; Karen Tricker; Jorunn Eyfjord; Alison Falconer; Christopher Foster; Henrik Gronberg; Freddie C Hamdy; Vigdis Stefansdottir; Vincent Khoo; Geoffrey J Lindeman; Jan Lubinski; Karol Axcrona; Christos Mikropoulos; Anita Mitra; Clare Moynihan; Gadi Rennert; Mohnish Suri; Penny Wilson; Tim Dudderidge; Judith Offman; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Andrew Vickers; Hans Lilja; Rosalind A Eeles Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Maha Hussain; Joaquin Mateo; Karim Fizazi; Fred Saad; Neal Shore; Shahneen Sandhu; Kim N Chi; Oliver Sartor; Neeraj Agarwal; David Olmos; Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Guilhem Roubaud; Mustafa Özgüroğlu; Jinyu Kang; Joseph Burgents; Christopher Gresty; Claire Corcoran; Carrie A Adelman; Johann de Bono Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-09-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexander S Carlson; Rigo I Acevedo; Daniel M Lim; Roman Gulati; Agnes Gawne; Alexandra O Sokolova; Heather H Cheng; Peter S Nelson; R Bruce Montgomery; Evan Y Yu; Michael T Schweizer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 3.240