Dataset Information

Pathogenic Germline DNA Repair Gene and HOXB13 Mutations in Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Germline mutations in DNA repair (DR) genes and susceptibility genes CDKN2A and HOXB13 have previously been associated with prostate cancer (PC) incidence and/or progression. However, the role and prevalence of this class of mutations in metastatic PC (mPC) are not fully understood.

Patients and methods

To evaluate the frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs/LPVs) in men with mPC, this study sequenced 38 DR genes, CDKN2A, and HOXB13 in a predominantly white cohort of 317 patients with mPC. A PC registry at the University of Utah was used for patient sample acquisition and retrospective clinical data collection. Deep target sequencing allowed for germline and copy number variant analyses. Validated PVs/LPVs were integrated with clinical and demographic data for statistical correlation analyses.

Results

All pathogenic variants were found in men self-reported as white, with a carrier frequency of 8.5% (DR genes, 7.3%; CDKN2A/HOXB13, 1.2%). Consistent with previous reports, mutations were most frequently identified in the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. It was also found that 50% of identified PVs/LPVs were categorized as founder mutations with European origins. Correlation analyses did not support a trend toward more advanced or earlier-onset disease in comparisons between carriers and noncarriers of deleterious DR or HOXB13 G84E mutations.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate a lower prevalence of germline PVs/LPVs in an unselected, predominantly white mPC cohort than previously reported, which may have implications for the design of clinical trials testing targeted therapies. Larger studies in broad and diverse populations are needed to more accurately define the prevalence of germline mutations in men with mPC.

SUBMITTER: Boyle JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7446531 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pathogenic Germline DNA Repair Gene and <i>HOXB13</i> Mutations in Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Boyle Julie L JL Hahn Andrew W AW Kapron Ashley L AL Kohlmann Wendy W Greenberg Samantha E SE Parnell Timothy J TJ Teerlink Craig C CC Maughan Benjamin L BL Feng Bing-Jian BJ Cannon-Albright Lisa L Agarwal Neeraj N Cooney Kathleen A KA

JCO precision oncology 20200304

<h4>Purpose</h4>Germline mutations in DNA repair (DR) genes and susceptibility genes <i>CDKN2A</i> and <i>HOXB13</i> have previously been associated with prostate cancer (PC) incidence and/or progression. However, the role and prevalence of this class of mutations in metastatic PC (mPC) are not fully understood.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>To evaluate the frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs/LPVs) in men with mPC, this study sequenced 38 DR genes, <i>CDKN2A</i>, and < ...[more]

PMID: 32923906

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Inherited mutations in DNA-repair genes such as BRCA2 are associated with increased risks of lethal prostate cancer. Although the prevalence of germline mutations in DNA-repair genes among men with localized prostate cancer who are unselected for family predisposition is insufficient to warrant routine testing, the frequency of such mutations in patients with metastatic prostate cancer has not been established. METHODS:We recruited 692 men with documented metastatic prostate cancer who were unselected for family history of cancer or age at diagnosis. We isolated germline DNA and used multiplex sequencing assays to assess mutations in 20 DNA-repair genes associated with autosomal dominant cancer-predisposition syndromes. RESULTS:A total of 84 germline DNA-repair gene mutations that were presumed to be deleterious were identified in 82 men (11.8%); mutations were found in 16 genes, including BRCA2 (37 men [5.3%]), ATM (11 [1.6%]), CHEK2 (10 [1.9% of 534 men with data]), BRCA1 (6 [0.9%]), RAD51D (3 [0.4%]), and PALB2 (3 [0.4%]). Mutation frequencies did not differ according to whether a family history of prostate cancer was present or according to age at diagnosis. Overall, the frequency of germline mutations in DNA-repair genes among men with metastatic prostate cancer significantly exceeded the prevalence of 4.6% among 499 men with localized prostate cancer (P<0.001), including men with high-risk disease, and the prevalence of 2.7% in the Exome Aggregation Consortium, which includes 53,105 persons without a known cancer diagnosis (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In our multicenter study, the incidence of germline mutations in genes mediating DNA-repair processes among men with metastatic prostate cancer was 11.8%, which was significantly higher than the incidence among men with localized prostate cancer. The frequencies of germline mutations in DNA-repair genes among men with metastatic disease did not differ significantly according to age at diagnosis or family history of prostate cancer. (Funded by Stand Up To Cancer and others.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Inherited DNA-repair gene mutations are more prevalent in men with advanced prostate cancer than previously thought, but their clinical implications are not fully understood. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the clinical significance of germline DNA-repair gene alterations in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving next-generation hormonal therapy (NHT), with a particular emphasis on BRCA/ATM mutations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We interrogated 50 genes for pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline mutations using leukocyte DNA from 172 mCRPC patients beginning treatment with first-line NHT with abiraterone or enzalutamide. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:We assessed the impact of germline DNA-repair gene mutation status on ?50% and ?90% PSA responses, PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical/radiologic progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Survival outcomes were adjusted using propensity score-weighted multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:Among 172 mCRPC patients included, germline mutations (in any DNA-repair gene) were found in 12% (22/172) of men, and germline BRCA/ATM mutations specifically in 5% (9/172) of men. In unadjusted analyses, outcomes to first-line NHT were better in men with germline BRCA/ATM mutations (vs no mutations) with respect to PSA-PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47; p=0.061), PFS (HR 0.50; p=0.090), and OS (HR 0.28; p=0.059). In propensity score-weighted multivariable analyses, outcomes were superior in men with germline BRCA/ATM mutations with respect to PSA-PFS (HR 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.92; p=0.027), PFS (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.98; p=0.044), and OS (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12-0.99; p=0.048), but not in men with non-BRCA/ATM germline mutations (all p>0.10). These results require prospective validation, and our conclusions are limited by the small number of patients (n=9) with BRCA/ATM mutations. CONCLUSIONS:Outcomes to first-line NHT appear better in mCRPC patients harboring germline BRCA/ATM mutations (vs no mutations), but not for patients with other non-BRCA/ATM germline mutations. PATIENT SUMMARY:Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and harboring germline mutations in BRCA1/2 and ATM benefit from treatment with abiraterone and enzalutamide.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Germline DNA damage repair gene mutations (gDDRm) have been found in approximately 12% of patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). Previous studies of the clinical impact of gDDRm have mainly been in the setting of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of gDDRm in de novo metastatic and castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS:We retrospectively collected the records of 139 consecutive men with de novo mCSPC who initially received systemic therapies following guidelines. This included 128 patients who underwent genetic testing at our center and 11 patients referred to our center after being identified as gDDRm carriers. Time to mCRPC was collected. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis were used to analyze the association between gDDRm and clinical outcomes. Survival outcomes were adjusted using multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS:Of the 139 patients with de novo mCSPC, 28 gDDRm carriers were identified. Median time progressing to mCRPC was significantly shorter in patients carrying gDDRm than in those without mutations (8.3 vs 13.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; p < .001). Moreover, median progression time was almost halved in BRCA2 carriers (6.3 vs. 13.2 months; HR, 3.73; p < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed that the presence of gDDRm indicated poor therapy response regardless of disease volume and prostate-specific antigen nadir within the first 7 months. Presence of gDDRm remained independently associated with increased risk of progression to mCRPC in multivariate analysis (adjusted HR, 1.98; p = .006). CONCLUSION:Our study suggested that positive gDDRm status predicted rapid progression to castration resistance in patients with de novo mCSPC. We propose identifying gDDRm status at the time of diagnosis for mCSPC patients, considering it is the first step of tailoring individualized treatment. In addition, DNA repair genes were a good therapeutic target for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, and our results call for more frontline targeted therapy trials in gDDRm carriers to prolong the progression time. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Results of this study suggested that positive germline DNA damage repair gene mutation (gDDRm) status predicted earlier progression to castration resistance in patients with de novo metastatic and castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). These findings indicated the importance of intense therapy for some subgroups of mCSPC, especially for mCSPC harboring gDDRm with low-volume disease. Moreover, gDDRm was a good therapeutic target for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, and these findings call for more molecular marker driven trials moving to the mTNPC setting.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an urgent need to identify factors specifically associated with aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) risk. We investigated whether rare pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or deleterious (P/LP/D) germline variants in DNA repair genes are associated with aggressive PCa risk in a case-case study of aggressive vs nonaggressive disease.MethodsParticipants were 5545 European-ancestry men, including 2775 nonaggressive and 2770 aggressive PCa cases, which included 467 metastatic cases (16.9%). Samples were assembled from 12 international studies and germline sequenced together. Rare (minor allele frequency < 0.01) P/LP/D variants were analyzed for 155 DNA repair genes. We compared single variant, gene-based, and DNA repair pathway-based burdens by disease aggressiveness. All statistical tests are 2-sided.ResultsBRCA2 and PALB2 had the most statistically significant gene-based associations, with 2.5% of aggressive and 0.8% of nonaggressive cases carrying P/LP/D BRCA2 alleles (odds ratio [OR] = 3.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.94 to 5.25, P = 8.58 × 10-7) and 0.65% of aggressive and 0.11% of nonaggressive cases carrying P/LP/D PALB2 alleles (OR = 6.31, 95% CI = 1.83 to 21.68, P = 4.79 × 10-4). ATM had a nominal association, with 1.6% of aggressive and 0.8% of nonaggressive cases carrying P/LP/D ATM alleles (OR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.10 to 3.22, P = .02). In aggregate, P/LP/D alleles within 24 literature-curated candidate PCa DNA repair genes were more common in aggressive than nonaggressive cases (carrier frequencies = 14.2% vs 10.6%, respectively; P = 5.56 × 10-5). However, this difference was non-statistically significant (P = .18) on excluding BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM. Among these 24 genes, P/LP/D carriers had a 1.06-year younger diagnosis age (95% CI = -1.65 to 0.48, P = 3.71 × 10-4).ConclusionsRisk conveyed by DNA repair genes is largely driven by rare P/LP/D alleles within BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM. These findings support the importance of these genes in both screening and disease management considerations.