DNA Repair Gene Alterations and PARP Inhibitor Response in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

• DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7020
• Publication Date: 2018-08-11T21:15:16Z
• Authors: Eric Lu; George V. Thomas; Yiyi Chen; Alexander W. Wyatt; Paul Lloyd; Jack Youngren; David Quigley; Raymond Bergan; Shawna Bailey; Tomasz M. Beer; Felix Y. Feng; Eric J. Small; Joshi J. Alumkal
• Keywords: BRCA2 Protein; Male; DNA Repair; Middle Aged; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Prognosis; 3. Good health; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; 03 medical and health sciences; Treatment Outcome; 0302 clinical medicine; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Mutation; Biomarkers, Tumor; Humans; Aged; Retrospective Studies

Background: PARP inhibition is a promising therapeutic strategy for the treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose tumors harbor homologous recombination DNA repair gene alterations. However, questions remain for many practicing clinicians about which patients are ideally suited for PARP inhibitor treatment. This report details our institutional experience using PARP inhibitor therapy in patients whose tumors harbored specific DNA repair gene alterations. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients at Oregon Health & Science University who were treated with PARP inhibition. We identified 8 patients and determined the impact of the specific DNA repair gene alterations on tumor response and time on treatment with PARP inhibition. Results: A number of DNA repair gene alterations were identified. Three patients had pathogenic BRCA2 mutations and one had a BRCA2 mutation of uncertain significance. Conversely, the 4 other patients' tumors harbored alterations in other DNA repair genes, none of which were clearly pathogenic. A statistically significant difference in benefit was seen between patients whose tumors harbored BRCA2 gene alterations and those whose tumors did not, as measured by >50% decline in prostate-specific antigen levels (100% vs 0%; P=.03) and duration on therapy (31.4 vs 6.4 weeks; P=.03). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that not all DNA repair alterations are equally predictive of PARP inhibitor response. Importantly, all responding patients had tumors harboring BRCA2 DNA repair alterations, including one without a known pathogenic mutation. Conversely, among the 4 nonresponders, several DNA repair alterations in genes other than BRCA2 were identified that were not clearly pathogenic. This demonstrates the need to carefully examine the functional relevance of the DNA repair alterations identified, especially in genes other than BRCA2, when considering patients for PARP inhibitor treatment.