Daugaard, Gedske

According to the current WHO classification, noninvasive germ cell neoplasia of the testis comprises germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS), specific forms of intratubular germ cell neoplasia, and gonadoblastoma. Because type II germ cell tumors (GCT, type II) arise from GCNIS, accurate detection of precursor lesions is diagnostically important. In preparation for the 2024 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on genitourinary precursor lesions, which took place in Florence, Italy, an anonymous survey was distributed to ISUP members to assess current diagnostic practices regarding testicular precursor lesions. The literature and current WHO classification affirm the significance of precursor lesions in testicular tumours. Working Group 4—Precursor Lesions of the Testis—focused on their practical application by individual pathologists rather than establishing consensus from scientific data. There is strong agreement that GCNIS is the preferred and appropriate term for GCT precursor lesions and that its presence should be reported in cases of invasive GCT. Respondents also agree that “seminoma with intratubular nonseminoma” is the appropriate terminology for seminoma with an associated noninvasive nonseminomatous (embryonal carcinoma, yolk sac tumor, trophoblasts, or teratoma) component. Most pathologists prefer to use OCT3/4 as the primary immunohistochemical marker, and a panel was generally not considered necessary. No consensus is reached regarding the requirement for immunohistochemistry to confirm GCT precursor lesions in the testis. Three questions remain open: the value of subtyping intratubular lesions, the immunohistochemical approach to gonadoblastoma, and the criteria distinguishing Sertoli cell nodules from Sertoli cell tumors.

18 Background: TRITON3 (NCT02975934) is a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 study of rucaparib vs physician’s choice (docetaxel [DTX], abiraterone [ABI] or enzalutamide [ENZ]) in patients (pts) with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC with BRCA1/2 (BRCA) or ATM alterations. It was previously reported that rucaparib significantly improved the primary endpoint of radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) vs physician’s choice in pts with BRCA or ATM alterations. We report here the interim overall survival (OS) and also report on efficacy of rucaparib compared individually with either DTX or ABI/ENZ. Methods: Pts had disease progression after 1 prior second-generation androgen pathway inhibitor therapy in any setting and were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg BID or physician’s choice of DTX, ABI or ENZ. An ordered step-down multiple comparisons procedure was used to control the overall error rate. OS was a key secondary endpoint with rPFS as the primary endpoint tested first in the BRCA subgroup, then the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Subgroup analyses based on physician’s choice were exploratory. Results: As of August 25, 2022, 302 pts with BRCA and 103 pts with ATM alterations were randomized. OS maturity was 54% in the BRCA subgroup and 59% in the ITT population. rPFS and OS are shown. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) in the rucaparib, DTX and ABI/ENZ groups was asthenia/fatigue (61.1%, 67.6% and 57.6%, respectively). The most frequent grade ≥3 TEAE in the rucaparib, DTX and ABI/ENZ groups was anemia (23.7%), neutropenia (14.1%), and hypertension (10.2%), respectively. Conclusions: Rucaparib significantly improved rPFS vs either DTX or ABI/ENZ; safety was consistent with prior reports. Interim OS results suggest a trend towards improvement for rucaparib vs DTX or ABI/ENZ in pts with mCRPC and BRCA alterations. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Purpose: The PARP inhibitor rucaparib is approved in the United States for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and a deleterious germline and/or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alteration. While sequencing of tumor tissue is considered the standard for identifying patients with BRCA alterations (BRCA+), plasma profiling may provide a minimally invasive option to select patients for rucaparib treatment. Here, we report clinical efficacy in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC identified through central plasma, central tissue, or local genomic testing and enrolled in TRITON2. Patients and Methods: Patients had progressed after next-generation androgen receptor–directed and taxane-based therapies for mCRPC and had BRCA alterations identified by central sequencing of plasma and/or tissue samples or local genomic testing. Concordance of plasma/tissue BRCA status and objective response rate and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates were summarized. Results: TRITON2 enrolled 115 patients with BRCA+ identified by central plasma (n = 34), central tissue (n = 37), or local (n = 44) testing. Plasma/tissue concordance was determined in 38 patients with paired samples and was 47% in 19 patients with a somatic BRCA alteration. No statistically significant differences were observed between objective and PSA response rates to rucaparib across the 3 assay groups. Patients unable to provide tissue samples and tested solely by plasma assay responded at rates no different from patients identified as BRCA+ by tissue testing. Conclusions: Plasma, tissue, and local testing of mCRPC patients can be used to identify men with BRCA+ mCRPC who can benefit from treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib.

PURPOSE BRCA1 or BRCA2 ( BRCA) alterations are common in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and may confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We present results from patients with mCRPC associated with a BRCA alteration treated with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily in the phase II TRITON2 study. METHODS We enrolled patients who progressed after one to two lines of next-generation androgen receptor–directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Efficacy and safety populations included patients with a deleterious BRCA alteration who received ≥ 1 dose of rucaparib. Key efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 in patients with measurable disease as assessed by blinded, independent radiology review and by investigators) and locally assessed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline) rate. RESULTS Efficacy and safety populations included 115 patients with a BRCA alteration with or without measurable disease. Confirmed ORRs per independent radiology review and investigator assessment were 43.5% (95% CI, 31.0% to 56.7%; 27 of 62 patients) and 50.8% (95% CI, 38.1% to 63.4%; 33 of 65 patients), respectively. The confirmed PSA response rate was 54.8% (95% CI, 45.2% to 64.1%; 63 of 115 patients). ORRs were similar for patients with a germline or somatic BRCA alteration and for patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 alteration, while a higher PSA response rate was observed in patients with a BRCA2 alteration. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event was anemia (25.2%; 29 of 115 patients). CONCLUSION Rucaparib has antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC and a deleterious BRCA alteration, but with a manageable safety profile consistent with that reported in other solid tumor types.