Journal of Oncology

Journal of Oncology / 2020 / Article
Special Issue

BRCA Mutations in Cancer: Implications for Tumor Biology, Surveillance, and Treatment

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 4986365 |

Carlo Messina, Carlo Cattrini, Davide Soldato, Giacomo Vallome, Orazio Caffo, Elena Castro, David Olmos, Francesco Boccardo, Elisa Zanardi, "BRCA Mutations in Prostate Cancer: Prognostic and Predictive Implications", Journal of Oncology, vol. 2020, Article ID 4986365, 7 pages, 2020.

BRCA Mutations in Prostate Cancer: Prognostic and Predictive Implications

Academic Editor: Angela Toss
Received30 Jun 2020
Accepted19 Aug 2020
Published07 Sep 2020


Despite chemotherapy and novel androgen-receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSi) have been approved during the last decades, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains a lethal disease with poor clinical outcomes. Several studies found that germline or acquired DNA damage repair (DDR) defects affect a high percentage of mCRPC patients. Among DDR defects, BRCA mutations show relevant clinical implications. BRCA mutations are associated with adverse clinical features in primary tumors and with poor outcomes in patients with mCRPC. In addition, BRCA mutations predict good response to poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, such as olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. However, concerns still remain on the role of extensive mutational testing in prostate cancer patients, given the implications for patients and for their progeny. The present comprehensive review attempts to provide an overview of BRCA mutations in prostate cancer, focusing on their prognostic and predictive roles.

1. Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common neoplasm in men worldwide and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Western countries [1]. In the USA, 165,000 new cases and 29,000 deaths are estimated annually due to PCa [2]. Despite a median overall survival (OS) of 42.1 months, the failure-free survival (FFS) was only 11.2 months in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa enrolled in the control arm of the STAMPEDE trial [3]. Moreover, PCa patients live most of their natural history of disease in the castration-resistant setting, and in the last decade, the approval of six novel treatments for the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPC), spanning from chemotherapy agents (docetaxel and cabazitaxel), androgen-receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSi, i.e., enzalutamide and abiraterone), vaccines (sipuleucel-T), and bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals (radium-223), has dramatically changed the management of mCRPC [4]. Despite meaningful advances in PCa care, the clinical outcome of mCRPC patients is still poor, and the median OS is unsatisfactory, ranging approximately between 18 and 36 months [4]. A better understanding of the molecular characterization of mCRPC patients is an urgent medical need in order to better define diagnosis and prognosis and to deliver appropriate treatment. PCa is one of the most heritable human tumors [5]; the integrative analysis of advanced prostate cancer has revealed that approximately 90% of mCRPC patients harbor clinically actionable germline and somatic alterations [6]. In this scenario, DNA damage repair defects (DDR) represent 25% of these alterations, with BRCA2 mutations representing the most frequent event [68]. Inherited mutations in BRCA genes are associated with an increased risk of developing breast, ovarian, prostate, and other cancers [7, 8]. DDR genes are involved in the mechanisms of genomic stability, repairing DNA aberrations during the cell cycle, ensuring a correct mitotic cell division, and distribution of the genomic material to the daughter cells [9]. In order to solve threats generated by DNA damage, cells have developed several processes of DNA-damage response that detect DNA lesions, signal their presence, and promote the repair [10]. If the extent of DNA damage is beyond repair capacity, alternative signalling pathways lead to apoptosis of potentially dangerous mutated cells [11]. Several DNA repair pathways are involved to cope with different DNA lesions, and they usually occur by a common general program [12]. BRCA1/2 is a protein encoded by the major oncogene responsible for the susceptibility of breast and ovarian cancers and plays a key role in the system of the homologous recombination (HR), working simultaneously with several enzymes to protect the genome from double DNA strand breaks [13]. BRCA2 mutations are a strong negative prognostic factor associated with short metastasis-free survival (MFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in patients with mCRPC [14]. Moreover, BRCA mutations can predict response to poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and to platinum salts [15, 16]. The following attempts to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on BRCA mutations in patients suffering from PCa, highlighting their prevalence and prognostic and predictive role, as well as their implications for hereditary cancer and genetic counselling.

1.1. Prevalence of BRCA Mutations in Prostate Cancers

The incidence of germline mutation in DDR genes among men with metastatic PCa varies between 11% and 33%, and it is significantly higher compared to the incidence in men with localized PCa [15, 17]. In a landmark study, Pritchard and colleagues showed that 11% of 692 patients with metastatic PCa harbored inherited mutations in 16 DDR genes [17]. The most frequent aberration was BRCA2 (5.3%) followed by ATM (1.6%), CHEK2 (1.9%), BRCA1 (0.9%), and RAD51 (0.4%). Mutation frequency did not differ based on PCa family history or age at diagnosis [17]. In a multi-institutional integrative clinical sequencing analysis, 23% of 150 mCRPC biopsies were found to be positive for DDR aberrations. BRCA2 was mutated in 13% of samples followed by ATM (7.3%), MSH2 (2%), BRCA1, FANCA, MLH1, and RAD51 (0.3%) [15].

Several studies showed a different genomic landscape in mCRPC compared to localized PCa [6, 18]. In a large retrospective study, Robinson et al. analyzed 680 primary tumors and 333 mCRPC biopsies [6]. The authors identified germline and/or somatic DDR defects in 10% of primary tumors and 27% of metastatic samples. The different molecular profile between localized PCa and metastatic lesions might be a direct consequence of tumor evolution under the selective pressure of ARSi or chemotherapy. However, small subpopulations of variant clones might be already present in primary tumors and might expand during the development of metastatic disease.

In this regard, Mateo and colleagues profiled 470 treatment-naïve PCa biopsies from patients who developed lethal mCRPC; of these, 61 patients had matched samples of primary tumors and metastatic lesions [19]. DDR gene aberrations (BRCA2 7%; CDK12 5%; and ATM 4%), TP53 (27%), and PTEN (12%) were commonly detected. Interestingly, while AR, TP53, and RB1 mutations were more commonly found in mCRPC lesions compared to primary tumors, DDR mutations had similar prevalence in primary and mCRPC settings [19]. These findings suggested that the use of prostate biopsy might be useful to profile patients for DDR mutations, avoiding rebiopsies of metastatic lesions that are potentially dangerous and time-consuming. Moreover, these data supported the testing for DDR defects in earlier stages of PCa as many of these alterations are already present during the initial phases of PCa development. However, given the limits of the study by Mateo and colleagues, further studies are needed. In fact, the retrospective design of this study did not take into account different treatments received in the mCRPC setting and heterogeneity in primary tumors that might have resulted in different profile between primary and mCRPC lesions.

1.2. Clinical Implications of BRCA Mutations in Prostate Cancers

PCa is a clinically heterogeneous disease. Patients commonly show variable responses to treatments that result in different clinical outcomes. This clinical variability may reflect molecular heterogeneity. Therefore, molecular profiling could have a meaningful translational relevance, allowing to distinguish PCa with indolent behaviour from those with a lethal course. Several studies explored the prognostic role of BRCA mutations in localized PCa and in mCRPC patients treated with standard therapies [20]. In a large retrospective study, BRCA1/2 mutations correlated with higher Gleason score, nodal involvement, metastatic disease at diagnosis, and T3/4 stage [14]. Moreover, BRCA2 was an independent prognostic factor that was associated with poorer outcomes. In localized PCa, the 5-year CSS and MFS were significantly shorter in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (82% vs. 96%; 77% vs. 93%, respectively) [14]. Given conflicting results reported in retrospective studies, it is currently uncertain whether BRCA2 mutation may affect the clinical outcome of mCRPC patients treated with standard treatments [21, 22]. Annala and colleagues retrospectively analyzed 319 charts of mCRPC patients, including 22 germline DDR (gDDR) carriers (16 BRCA2-mutated). Interestingly, gDDR carriers had a significant shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than noncarriers (3.3 vs. 6.2 months, ) when treated with first-line ARSi [21].

Antonarakis et al. evaluated the clinical significance of gDDR mutations in 172 mCRPC receiving first-line ARSi. Notably, in contrast to what was reported by Annala et al. [21], ATM-BRCA1/2 carriers had a trend towards longer PFS than noncarriers (15 vs. 10.8 months, ) [23]. Conversely, Mateo et al. found no difference in PFS on first-line ARSi (8.3 months in both groups) between gDDR carriers (n = 330) and noncarriers (n = 60) [22].

PROREPAIR-B was the first prospective trial designed to elucidate the prognostic impact of BRCA1/2, ATM, and PALB2 on CSS of mCRPC patients. All patients enrolled in this trial have not been treated with platinum or PARP inhibitors. Although the study failed to reach the primary endpoint of improved CSS between gDDR carriers (n = 68) and noncarriers (n = 351) (23.3 vs. 33.2 months; ), germline BRCA2 mutation (gBRCA2) was confirmed to be an independent prognostic factor that negatively affected CSS (17.4 months in gBRCA2 vs. 33.2 months in nonmutated patients; ) [24]. In a non-preplanned subgroup analysis of PROREPAIR-B, gBRCA2 mutation was also predicted for shorter CSS in mCRPC patients treated with the sequence docetaxel-ARSi compared to noncarriers (median 28.4 vs. 10.7 months, ) [24]. In contrast, CSS of gBRCA2 carriers did not differ from that of noncarriers in patients treated with the sequence ARSi-docetaxel (31.2 vs. 24 months, ) [24]. This finding suggests that the choice of first-line therapy may affect the outcome of gBRCA2 patients, and these results may explain the aforementioned conflicting results from the three retrospective series [21, 22]. The multicenter and ambispective BRCA2MEN study is currently planned to validate the role of BRCA2 as a predictive biomarker to select the first-line therapy (ARSi vs. taxane) in patients with mCRPC.

1.3. Targeting BRCA Mutations in Prostate Cancer
1.3.1. Platinum Agents

Platinum-based chemotherapy, alkylating DNA, induces genomic strand breaks that may be translated in a synthetic lethality in tumor cells with DDR mutation. Carboplatin is a standard treatment for BRCA1/2 patients in breast [25, 26]. and ovarian cancer [27]. Satraplatin provided a significant reduction in the risk of progression or death (HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.77; ) in a randomized phase 3 trial that enrolled unselected mCRPC patients who had progressed to prior taxane [28]. However, this benefit did not translate in OS advantage compared to placebo (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.15; ).

Retrospective series and case reports also described the potential efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in mCRPC patients harboring gBRCA2 mutations [29, 30]. A retrospective study carried out at Dana-Farber Institute assessed the activity of carboplatin AUC 3–5 and docetaxel 60–75 mg/mq in 141 mCRPC patients who were previously progressed to standard therapies [16]. The combo significantly improved the rate of PSA decline in 6 out of 8 BRCA2 carriers compared to 23 out of 133 noncarriers (), and improved OS was also observed (18.9 in BRCA2 carriers vs. 9.5 months in noncarriers) [16].

Several ongoing trials are evaluating the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in mCRPC patients selected for DDR mutations [3133].

1.3.2. PARP Inhibitors

DDR defects cause the accumulation of genomic mutations in cancer cells, eventually leading to their proliferation, immortalization, and acquisition of an aggressive phenotype [34].

In vitro models showed that BRCA1- and BRCA2-defective cells are sensitive to PARP inhibitors, whereas BRCA1- and BRCA2-proficient cells are resistant [34].

ADP-ribosylation is involved in several cellular processes, including cell growth and differentiation, apoptosis, and transcriptional regulation. However, ADP-ribosylation has a significant role in DNA repair and genome stability, promoting double-strand break repair via homologous recombination [35]. The blockade of PARP1 through the use of PARP inhibitors or alkylating agents causes accumulation of DNA damages in DDR-defective tumor cells, resulting in a synthetic lethality (Figure 1) [36]. Several PARP inhibitors have been developed and are under investigation in clinical research for mCRPC patients (see Table 1) [37]. Olaparib was the first PARP inhibitor that showed significant activity in patients with mCRPC who had progressed to standard treatments. In a phase II trial, 50 heavily pretreated, molecularly unselected, mCRPC patients received olaparib 400 mg twice a day until progression or unacceptable toxicities [15]. The primary composite endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR), defined according to RECIST 1.1 criteria or as a reduction of at least 50% in PSA levels or a confirmed reduction in the circulating tumor-cell count from 5 or more cells to less than 5 cells per 7.5 ml of blood [15]. The prevalence of gDDR alterations was 33%. In the whole population, 16 out of 49 evaluable patients had a response (33%; 95% CI, 20 to 48). Among patients with gDDR, 88% had a response to olaparib [15]. Moreover, olaparib significantly improved PFS (median 9.8 vs. 2.7 months; ) and OS (median 13.8 months vs. 7.5 months ) of gDDR-mutated mCRPC patients compared to biomarker-negative patients [15]. In the randomized phase II TOPARP-B trial, 92 heavily pretreated mCRPC patients, selected for the presence of gDDR mutations, were randomized 1 : 1 to receive olaparib 400 mg twice daily or olaparib 300 mg twice daily [38]. The primary endpoint was defined as the presence of one of the following outcomes: radiological ORR assessed by RECIST 1.1 criteria, PSA response ≥50%, or circulating tumor-cell count conversion (from ≥5 cells per 7.5 mL blood at baseline to <5 cells per 7.5 mL blood). The primary endpoint was met. Composite response was achieved in 25 out of 46 patients receiving olaparib 400 mg (54.3%; 95% CI, 39.0–69.1) and in 18 out of 46 patients enrolled in olaparib 300 mg arm (39.1%; 25.1–54.6). The composite response was lower in patients treated with olaparib 300 mg, not reaching the prespecified criteria for success. However, almost 30% of patients treated with a higher dose of olaparib discontinued the treatment or reduced the schedule due to the development of grade 3-4 adverse events. Moreover, this trial showed that BRCA2-mutated patients had the greatest benefit from olaparib compared to those harboring CDK12 or ATM mutations. This trial suggested that the type of DDR mutation and olaparib dose had predictive implications. However, the type of mutation was not a stratification criterion for randomization; therefore, an allocation bias might have affected the results. The olaparib 300 mg arm was enriched of CDK12 patients, and this unbalance may have caused a lower benefit in this group of patients [38].

Clinical trialPhaseStudy drugStrategyPrimary endpoint

NCT02861573IOlaparibPembrolizumab + olaparib in postdocetaxel settingRR (PSA50)
NCT03874884IOlaparibOlaparib + 177Lu-PSMA in mCRPCDLTs, MTD, RP2D
NCT03205176IOlaparibOlaparib ± AZD5153 (BRD4/BET bromodomain inhibitor) in mCRPCDLT
NCT02484404I/IIOlaparibOlaparib ± ceridanib ± MEDI4736 (anti-PD-1) in mCRPCRP2D, AE
NCT03317392I/IIOlaparibRa223 ± olaparib in mCRPC patients with bone metastasesMTD, rPFS
NCT03787680IIOlaparibOlaparib + ATR inhibitor (AZD6738) in second-line settingRR
NCT03012321IIOlaparibOlaparib ± abiraterone/prednisone in first-line settingPFS
NCT03434158IIOlaparibOlaparib for patients who are responding after docetaxel chemotherapyrPFS
NCT03263650IIOlaparibOlaparib for patients who are responding after cabazitaxel plus carboplatinPFS
NCT03516812IIOlaparibOlaparib + testosterone enanthate in postabiraterone/enzalutamide settingRR (PSA50)
NCT02893917IIOlaparibOlaparib ± cediranib in second-line settingrPFS
NCT03732820IIIOlaparibAbiraterone/prednisone ± olaparib in first-line settingrPFS
NCT03834519IIIOlaparibOlaparib plus pembrolizumab versus abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide after chemotherapy and ARSiOS and PFS
NCT03076203INiraparibNiraparib + radium-223MTD
NCT03431350I/IINiraparibNiraparib + abiraterone/prednisone or JNJ-63723283 in post-ARSi settingAE, ORR
NCT02854436IINiraparibNiraparib in postdocetaxel and post-ARSi settingsORR
NCT03748641IIINiraparibAbiraterone/prednisone ± niraparib in first-line settingrPFS
NCT04179396IRucaparibRucaparib + abiraterone or enzalutamide in mCRPCPK, AE
NCT03840200IRucaparibRucaparib + ipatasertib in mCRPC after ARSiAE, DLTs, PSA response
NCT04253262I/IIRucaparibRucaparib + copanlisib (PI3K inhibitor) in mCRPC progressing after ARSiMTD, ORR
NCT03840200I/IIRucaparibRucaparib + ipatasertib after ARSiAE, DLT, RR (PSA)
NCT03572478I/IIRucaparibRucaparib vs. rucaparib + nivolumab vs. nivolumabDLT
NCT02952534IIRucaparibRucaparib in postdocetaxel and post-ARSi settingsORR
NCT03338790IIRucaparibNivolumab + rucaparib or docetaxel or enzalutamideORR
NCT03442556IIRucaparibRucaparib for patients who are responding after docetaxel plus carboplatinrPFS
NCT02975934IIIRucaparibRucaparib vs. abiraterone/enzalutamide/docetaxel in second-line settingrPFS
NCT04019327I/IITalazoparibTalazoparib + temozolomide in mCRPC without DNA damage repair mutation after at least one ARSiAE, ORR
NCT04052204I/IITalazoparibTalazoparib + avelumab + bempegaldesleukin in mCRPCDLT, ORR
NCT03330405IITalazoparibAvelumab plus talazoparib in advanced solid tumorsDLT, ORR
NCT03148795IITalazoparibTalazoparib in postdocetaxel and postabiraterone/enzalutamide settingsORR
NCT03395197IIITalazoparibEnzalutamide ± talazaparib in first-line settingrPFS
NCT04182516INMS-03305293NMS-03305293 (PARP inhibitor) in mCRPCFirst cycle DLTs

RR: response rate; PSA50: decline in PSA level ≥50% than baseline; MTD: maximum tolerated dose; rPFS: radiological progression-free survival; PFS: progression-free survival; OS: overall survival; AE: adverse events; ORR: objective response rate; DLT: dose-limiting toxicities; MTD: maximum tolerated dose; RP2D: recommended phase II dose; and PK: pharmacokinetic.

The role of DDR defects in predicting response to PARP inhibitors was more consistently demonstrated in the phase III PROFOUND trial, which randomized 387 mCRPC patients who were progressing to prior ARSi. Patients were allocated in two cohorts based on the presence of specific DDR defects (cohort A including BRCA1/2 or ATM and cohort B including other DDR defects). Olaparib 300 mg twice daily and second-line ARSi were administered in a 2 : 1 ratio [39]. The primary endpoint was radiological PFS (rPFS). Patients in cohort A treated with olaparib reported a median rPFS of 7.4 months compared to 3.55 months in those in the same cohort treated with ARSi (HR 0.34 (95% CI, 0.25–0.47), ). The PFS benefit was consistent throughout all subgroups within the prespecified subgroup analysis. Similar to that observed in the TOPARP-B trial [38], BRCA2-mutant patients had a better benefit from olaparib than patients harboring CDK12 or ATM mutations. The interim OS analysis also favored the olaparib arm (HR 0.64, 0.43–0.97), despite more than 80% of patients in the control group did crossover after disease progression. The ORR was 33% and 2.3% for experimental and control groups, respectively. Based on these findings, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for olaparib in mCRPC patients with germline or somatic deleterious homologous recombination repair gene mutations who had progressed to prior ARSi on May 19, 2020.

The predictive value of DDR mutations was also confirmed in the preliminary findings from two phase II trials, TRITON-2 [40, 41] and GALAHAD [42], which investigated the activity of two other PARP inhibitors in patients with DDR-deficient mCRPC. In TRITON-2, mCRPC patients who had previously progressed to at least one ARSi and a taxane-based chemotherapy were screened for germline or somatic alterations in DDR genes. A total of 190 patients were treated with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily; the vast majority (98 pts) had BRCA1/2 alterations; and the remaining patients had alterations in ATM (57 pts), CDK12 (14), CHECK2 (7), and other genes (14 patients). ORR was 43.9% for patients with BRCA alterations, 9.5% for ATM, and 0% for the others. A similar pattern was observed for PSA response [41, 42]. On the basis of the preliminary results of the TRITON-2 trial, FDA announced on 15 May 2020 the accelerated approval of rucaparib for BRCA1/2 mCRPC patients progressing to prior ARSi or taxane.

In the GALAHAD trial, 165 patients with mCRPC and DDR defects progressing to at least one prior ARSi and taxane-based chemotherapy received niraparib 300 mg once daily. DDR positivity was defined by biallelic alterations in BRCA1/2, ATM, CHECK2, and other genes identified in plasma or tissue. ORR was the primary endpoint of the study. Patients who carried biallelic BRCA mutations achieved higher ORR (41% vs. 9%) and rPFS (8.2 months vs. 5.3) compared to those who did not harbor BRCA alterations [42]. It should be highlighted that the PROFOUND and the TRITON-2 trials evaluated mono- and biallelic alterations in DDR genes in tumor tissue and tumor tissue or plasma, respectively. Conversely, the GALAHAD trial required biallelic alterations in plasma samples to confirm eligibility. It is currently unknown whether the type and origin of BRCA mutations (germline vs. somatic and monoallelic vs. biallelic) could affect the response to treatment with PARP inhibitors.

1.4. Relevance of Germline Testing and Genetic Counselling

The high prevalence of DDR mutations and the clinical implications for their prognostic and predictive role have progressively led the international guidelines to implement recommendations for genetic and germline testing. The Philadelphia consensus conference recommends to test all patients with metastatic PCa, both in hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant settings, and in all patients with a significant family history of PCa or of tumors in the hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome or Lynch syndrome spectrum. In metastatic PCa, both germline testing and somatic testing can be performed, and large gene panels can be used; however, the test should prioritize genes with more relevant clinical implications such as BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair (MMR). Furthermore, when somatic mutations are identified in BRCA2 or BRCA1, germline evaluation should also be performed due to the implications for all related family members. For patients with nonmetastatic PCa, the Philadelphia consensus suggests to use reflex testing, which consists of initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing, with a particular focus on BRCA2 results to personalize the strategies of active surveillance [43]. The US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend genetic testing (somatic and/or germline) for patients with high, very-risk, regional, and metastatic PCa or with a significant family history for cancer [44]. The recently published European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend germline screening for all patients with mPCa and to consider genetic testing in patients with localized PCa and a family history suggestive for hereditary cancer predisposition [45]. Multidisciplinary discussion and integration with genetic services are fundamental to decide when and whether a genetic test should be performed and to select the appropriate therapeutic and diagnostic strategies. The IMPACT study is evaluating a screening strategy in men with gBRCA1/2 in order to define how to manage the population at a higher risk of PCa development in the presence of the BRCA2 mutation [46]. Annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests and a biopsy for PSA >3 ng/ml are performed. Preliminary results revealed a higher incidence of PCa in gBRCA2 mutation carriers (3.3% vs. 2.6% in gBRCA1 mutation carriers, <2% for controls). Final results are awaited to be aware of the optimal screening strategies for this population.

2. Conclusions

Despite the development of several treatment options for mCRPC patients, metastatic PCa remains a lethal disease with poor prognosis [4]. Molecular characterization of mCRPC patients should be routinely integrated into the clinics in order to select patients who are more likely to respond to targeted agents and to minimize toxicities from unnecessary therapies. Furthermore, the emerging role of BRCA2 underlines the growing importance of genetic counselling and the multidisciplinary approach in the management of PCa patients. Recent evidence highlights that gBRCA2 is an independent prognostic factor associated with shorter CSS in mCRPC patients, and the type of first-line treatment might affect the outcome of gBRCA2 carriers [24]. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that gBRCA2 is a strong predictor of response to PARP inhibitors. The role of PARP inhibitors in non-BRCA DDR mCRPC patients remains less clear, and further studies should investigate this specific issue.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.


CC was supported by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Research Fellowship (2019-2020).


  1. C. Fitzmaurice, C. Allen, R. M. G. Barber et al., “Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study,” JAMA Oncology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 524–548, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. R. L. Siegel, K. D. Miller, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2018,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 7–30, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. N. D. James, M. R. Sydes, N. W. Clarke et al., “Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial,” The Lancet, vol. 387, no. 10024, pp. 1163–1177, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. S. Gillessen, A. Omlin, G. Attard et al., “Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: recommendations of the St Gallen Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2015,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1589–1604, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. L. A. Mucci, J. B. Hjelmborg, J. R. Harris et al., “Familial risk and heritability of cancer among twins in Nordic Countries,” JAMA, vol. 315, no. 1, pp. 68–76, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. D. Robinson, E. M. Van Allen, Y. M. Wu et al., “Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer,” Cell, vol. 162, no. 2, p. 454, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. Z. Kote-Jarai, D. Leongamornlert, D. Leongamornlert et al., “BRCA2 is a moderate penetrance gene contributing to young-onset prostate cancer: implications for genetic testing in prostate cancer patients,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 105, no. 8, pp. 1230–1234, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. R. Eeles, C. Goh, E. Castro et al., “The genetic epidemiology of prostate cancer and its clinical implications,” Nature Reviews Urology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 18–31, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. H. C. Reinhardt and M. B. Yaffe, “Phospho-Ser/Thr-binding domains: navigating the cell cycle and DNA damage response,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 563–580, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. S. P. Jackson and J. Bartek, “The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease,” Nature, vol. 461, no. 7267, pp. 1071–1078, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. H. C. Reinhardt and B. Schumacher, “The p53 network: cellular and systemic DNA damage responses in aging and cancer,” Trends in Genetics, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 128–136, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. F. Dietlein, L. Thelen, and H. C. Reinhardt, “Cancer-specific defects in DNA repair pathways as targets for personalized therapeutic approaches,” Trends in Genetics, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 326–339, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. R. Roy, J. Chun, and S. N. Powell, “BRCA1 and BRCA2: different roles in a common pathway of genome protection,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. E. Castro, C. Goh, D. Olmos et al., “Germline BRCA mutations are associated with higher risk of nodal involvement, distant metastasis, and poor survival outcomes in prostate cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, no. 14, pp. 1748–1757, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. J. Mateo, S. Carreira, S. Sandhu et al., “DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 373, no. 18, pp. 1697–1708, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. M. M. Pomerantz, S. Spisák, L. Jia et al., “The association between germline BRCA2 variants and sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy among men with metastatic prostate cancer,” Cancer, vol. 123, no. 18, pp. 3532–3539, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. C. C. Pritchard, J. Mateo, M. F. Walsh et al., “Inherited DNA-repair gene mutations in men with metastatic prostate cancer,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 375, no. 5, pp. 443–453, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. A. Abeshouse, J. Ahn, R. Akbani et al., “The molecular taxonomy of primary prostate cancer,” Cell, vol. 163, no. 4, pp. 1011–1025, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. J. Mateo, G. Seed, C. Bertan et al., “Genomics of lethal prostate cancer at diagnosis and castration-resistance,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 130, no. 4, pp. 1743–1751, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. P. Nombela, R. Lozano, A. Aytes et al., “BRCA2 and other DDR genes in prostate cancer,” Cancers (Basel), vol. 11, no. 3, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. Annala, W. J. Struss, E. W. Warner et al., “Treatment outcomes and tumor loss of heterozygosity in germline DNA repair-deficient prostate cancer,” European Urology, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 34–42, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. J. Mateo, H. H. Cheng, H. Beltran et al., “Clinical outcome of prostate cancer patients with germline DNA repair mutations: retrospective analysis from an international study,” European Urology, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 687–693, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. E. S. Antonarakis, C. Lu, B. Luber et al., “Germline DNA-repair gene mutations and outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving first-line abiraterone and enzalutamide,” European Urology, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 218–225, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. E. Castro, N. Romero-Laorden, A. Del Pozo et al., “PROREPAIR-B: a prospective cohort study of the impact of germline DNA repair mutations on the outcomes of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 490–503, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. T. Byrski, J. Gronwald, T. Huzarski et al., “Pathologic complete response rates in young women with BRCA1-positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 375–379, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. G. Von Minckwitz, A. Schneeweiss, S. Loibl et al., “Neoadjuvant carboplatin in patients with triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto; GBG 66): a randomised phase 2 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 747–756, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. D. Yang, S. Khan, Y. Sun et al., “Association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with survival, chemotherapy sensitivity, and gene mutator phenotype in patients with ovarian cancer,” JAMA, vol. 306, no. 14, pp. 1557–1565, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. C. N. Sternberg, D. P. Petrylak, O. Sartor et al., “Multinational, double-blind, phase III study of prednisone and either satraplatin or placebo in patients with castrate-refractory prostate cancer progressing after prior chemotherapy: the SPARC trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 32, pp. 5431–5438, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. H. H. Cheng, C. C. Pritchard, T. Boyd, P. S. Nelson, and B. Montgomery, “Biallelic inactivation of BRCA2 in platinum-sensitive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer,” European Urology, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 992–995, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. Z. Zafeiriou, D. Bianchini, R. Chandler et al., “Genomic analysis of three metastatic prostate cancer patients with exceptional responses to carboplatin indicating different types of DNA repair deficiency,” European Urology, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 184–192, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. NCT02311764, Carboplatin in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer,
  32. NCT03652493, Trial Evaluating the Efficacy of CARBOPLATIN in Metastatic Prostate Cancer with Gene Alterations in the Homologous Recombination Pathway,
  33. NCT02598895, Docetaxel and Carboplatin in Treating Patients with Metastatic, Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer Containing Inactivated Genes in the BRCA 1/2 Pathway,
  34. L. A. Loeb, “Human cancers express a mutator phenotype: hypothesis, origin, and consequences,” Cancer Research, vol. 76, no. 8, pp. 2057–2059, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. M. Rouleau, A. Patel, M. J. Hendzel, S. H. Kaufmann, and G. G. Poirier, “PARP inhibition: PARP1 and beyond,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 293–301, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. H. Farmer, N. McCabe, C. J. Lord et al., “Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy,” Nature, vol. 434, no. 7035, pp. 917–921, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. J. Murai, S.-y. N. Huang, B. B. Das et al., “Trapping of PARP1 and PARP2 by clinical PARP inhibitors,” Cancer Research, vol. 72, no. 21, pp. 5588–5599, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. J. Mateo, N. Porta, D. Bianchini et al., “Olaparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DNA repair gene aberrations (TOPARP-B): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 162–174, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. J. de Bono, J. Mateo, K. Fizazi et al., “Olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 382, no. 22, pp. 2091–2102, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. W. Abida, D. Campbell, A. Patnaik et al., “846PDPreliminary results from the TRITON2 study of rucaparib in patients (pts) with DNA damage repair (DDR)-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): updated analyses,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. v327–v328, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. W. Abida, D. Campbell, A. Patnaik et al., “Non-BRCA DNA damage repair gene alterations and response to the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: analysis from the phase II TRITON2 study,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 2487–2496, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. M. R. Smith, S. K. Sandhu, W. K. Kelly et al., “LBA50Prespecified interim analysis of GALAHAD: a phase II study of niraparib in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and biallelic DNA-repair gene defects (DRD),” Annals of Oncology, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. v884–v885, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. V. N. Giri, K. E. Knudsen, W. K. Kelly et al., “Implementation of germline testing for prostate cancer: Philadelphia prostate cancer consensus conference 2019,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 38, no. 24, pp. 2798–2811, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, “Prostate cancer version 2,” 2020, View at: Google Scholar
  45. C. Parker, E. Castro, K. Fizazi et al., “On behalf of the ESMO guidelines commitee, prostate cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1119–1134, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. E. K. Bancroft, E. C. Page, E. Castro et al., “Targeted prostate cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the initial screening round of the IMPACT study,” European Urology, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 489–499, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Carlo Messina et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.