Su, Christopher

AbstractBackgroundPARP (poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) are now standard of care in metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with select mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, but patients with ATM‐ and BRCA2 mutations may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist in response to taxanes, which may inform treatment sequencing decisions.MethodsmCRPC patients (N = 158) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were retrospectively identified from 11 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan−Meier analyses were performed and Cox hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for progression‐free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy.ResultsFifty‐eight patients with ATM mutations and 100 with BRCA2 mutations were identified. Fourty‐four (76%) patients with ATM mutations received taxane only or taxane before PARPi, while 14 (24%) received PARPi only or PARPi before taxane. Patients with ATM mutations had longer PFS when taxane was given first versus PARPi given first (HR: 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37−1.50]; p = 0.40). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with ATM mutations who received taxane first (HR: 0.56 [CI: 0.20−1.54]; p = 0.26). Among patients with BRCA2 mutations, 51 (51%) received taxane first and 49 (49%) received PARPi first. In contrast, patients with BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS when PARPi was given first versus taxane given first (HR: 0.85 [CI: 0.54−1.35]; p = 0.49). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with BRCA2 mutations who received PARPi first (HR: 0.75 [CI: 0.41−1.37]; p = 0.35).ConclusionsOur retrospective data suggest differential response between ATM and BRCA2 mutated prostate cancers in terms of response to PARPi and to taxane chemotherapy. When considering the sequence of PARPi versus taxane chemotherapy for mCRPC with DDR mutations, ATM, and BRCA2 mutation status may be helpful in guiding choice of initial therapy.

PURPOSE Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA 50 responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.

Objectives To evaluate outcomes of patients achieving a post‐treatment pathological stage of <ypT2N0 at radical cystectomy (RC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) to identify an optimal definition of pathological response. Patients and Methods Patients from 10 international centres who underwent NAC for cT2–4aN0–1 MIBC and achieved <ypT2N0 disease at RC were included. The primary outcome was time to recurrence, either local or distant. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to evaluate associations between clinicopathological variables and outcomes. Results A total of 625 patients were included. The median age was 66 years and 80% were male. Gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC, 56%) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (MVAC)/dose‐dense (dd)MVAC (32%) were the most common NAC regimens. ypT0, pure ypTis, ypTa ±ypTis and ypT1 ± ypTis were attained in 58.1%, 20.0%, 7.6% and 14.2% of patients, respectively. The cumulative incidence of recurrence at 5 years was 9%, 16%, 29% and 30%, respectively. Pathological stage was prognostic for recurrence, with ypTa ± Tis (hazard ratio [HR] 3.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40–7.30) and ypT1 ± Tis disease (HR 4.03, 95% CI 2.13–7.63) associated with a significantly higher recurrence risk. Pure ypTis (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.82–3.38) and the type of NAC regimen (ddMVAC: HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.55–4.56; MVAC: HR 1.18, 9%% CI 0.25–5.54; reference: GC) were not associated with recurrence. Conclusion We propose that optimal pathological response after NAC be defined as attainment of ypT0N0/ypTisN0 at RC. Patients with ypTaN0 or ypT1N0 disease (with or without Tis) at RC displayed a significantly higher risk of recurrence and may be candidates for trials investigating adjuvant therapy.