Combining PARP Inhibitors and Androgen Receptor Signalling Inhibitors in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Quantitative Synthesis and Meta-analysis

Copyright \ua9 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V. CONTEXT: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are established treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficiency after androgen receptor signalling inhibitor (ARSI) failure. New PARPi + ARSI combinations have been tested in all comers, although their clinical relevance in HRR-proficient tumours remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively synthesise evidence from randomised trials assessing the efficacy and safety of PARPi + ARSI combinations for first-line treatment of mCRPC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library databases up to February 28, 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PARPi + ARSI versus placebo + ARSI for first-line treatment of mCRPC were eligible. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction and assessed the risk of bias, while a third reviewer evaluated the eligibility criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, three phase 3 RCTs were included in the systematic review: PROPEL, MAGNITUDE, and TALAPRO-2. A total of 2601 patients with mCRPC were enrolled. Two of these trials (PROPEL and TALAPRO-2) assessed the radiographic progression-free survival benefit of PARPi + ARSI for first-line treatment of mCRPC, independent of HRR status. The pooled hazard ratio was 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.72). The pooled hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.98), indicating a 16% reduction in the risk of death among patients who received the combination. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this meta-analysis support the use of ARSI + PARPi combinations in biomarker-unselected mCRPC. However, such combinations might be less clinically relevant in HRR-proficient cancers, especially considering the change in treatment landscape for mCRPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at outcomes from trials testing combinations of two classes of drugs (PARP inhibitors and ARSI) in advanced prostate cancer. We found that these combinations seem to work regardless of gene mutations identified as biomarkers of response to PARP inhibitors when used on their own

Targeting androgen-independent pathways: new chances for patients with prostate cancer?

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay treatment for advanced prostate cancer (PC). Most patients eventually progress to a condition known as castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), characterized by lack of response to ADT. Although new androgen receptor signaling (ARS) inhibitors and chemotherapeutic agents have been introduced to overcome resistance to ADT, many patients progress because of primary or acquired resistance to these agents. This comprehensive review aims at exploring the mechanisms of resistance and progression of PC, with specific focus on alterations which lead to the activation of androgen receptor (AR)-independent pathways of survival. Our work integrates available clinical and preclinical data on agents which target these pathways, assessing their potential clinical implication in specific settings of patients. Given the rising interest of the scientific community in cancer immunotherapy strategies, further attention is dedicated to the role of immune evasion in PC

GU-CA-COVID: a clinical audit among Italian genitourinary oncologists during the first COVID-19 outbreak

Background: Considering the growing genitourinary (GU) cancer population undergoing systemic treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we planned a clinical audit in 24 Italian institutions treating GU malignancies. Objective: The primary objective was investigating the clinical impact of COVID-19 in GU cancer patients undergoing ICI-based therapy during the first outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in Italy. Design, setting, and participants: The included centers were 24 Oncology Departments. Two online forms were completed by the responsible Oncology Consultants, respectively, for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients receiving at least one administration of ICIs between 31 January 2020 and 30 June 2020. Results and limitation: In total, 287 mRCC patients and 130 mUC patients were included. The COVID-19 incidence was, respectively, 3.5%, with mortality 1%, in mRCC patients and 7.7%, with mortality 3.1%, in mUC patients. In both groups, 40% of patients developing COVID-19 permanently discontinued anticancer treatment. The pre-test SARS-CoV-2 probability in the subgroup of patients who underwent nasal/pharyngeal swab ranged from 14% in mRCC to 26% in mUC. The main limitation of the work was its nature of audit: data were not recorded at the single-patient level. Conclusion: GU cancer patients undergoing active treatment with ICIs have meaningful risk factors for developing severe events from COVID-19 and permanent discontinuation of therapy after the infection. Treatment delays due to organizational issues during the pandemic were unlikely to affect the treatment outcome in this population

Etoposide and topoisomerase II inhibition for aggressive prostate cancer: Data from a translational study

Background: Etoposide phosphate (VP-16) is a topoisomerase 2 (TOP2) inhibitor that demonstrated activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We investigated the sensitivity of prostate cancer (PCa) cells (LNCaP, 22Rv1, PC3, DU145, PDB and MDB) to VP-16 and the possible relationship between VP-16 activity and TOP2 expression. The activity of VP-16 was compared with that of docetaxel, enzalutamide and olaparib. The prevalence and clinical significance of TOP2 genetic and transcriptomic alterations was also explored in mCRPC. Methods: Cell cultures and crystal violet cell proliferation assays were performed. Specific antibodies were used in western blots analyses of cell protein extracts. Datasets were analyzed in cBioportal. Results: VP-16 was active in all PCa cell lines analyzed and demonstrated increased activity in PC3 and DU145 cells. VP-16 was more cytotoxic compared to the other treatments, except for LNCaP and 22Rv1, which were more sensitive to docetaxel. Maintenance of antiandrogen treatment in MDB and PDB increased sensitivity to VP-16, docetaxel and enzalutamide. TOP2A was found overexpressed in 22Rv1, DU145 and PC3, whereas TOP2B was overexpressed in 22Rv1 and PDB. In the mCRPC datasets analysis, TOP2A mRNA overexpression was associated with worse patients\u2019 prognosis, with the molecular features of neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) and with lower androgen receptor (AR) score. Patients overexpressing TOP2A mRNA were more likely to harbor RB1 loss. Conclusions: Specific subpopulations of patients with aggressive variant prostate cancer (AVPC) could benefit from VP-16 treatment. TOP2A overexpression, rather than TOP2B, might be a good biomarker to predict response to VP-16

Medical Liability in Cancer Care During COVID-19 Pandemic: Heroes or Guilty?

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak rapidly became a public health emergency affecting particularly the frail category as cancer patients. This led oncologists to radical changes in patient management, facing the unprecedent issue whether treatments in oncology could be postponed without compromising their efficacy. Purpose: To discuss legal implications in oncology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perspective: Treatment delay is not always feasible in oncology where the timing often plays a key role and may impact significantly in prognosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the oncologists were found between the anvil and the hammer, on the one hand the need to treat cancer patients aiming to improve clinical benefits, and on the other hand the goal to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection avoiding or delaying immunosuppressive treatments and hospital exposure. Therefore, two rising scenarios with possible implications in both criminal and civil law are emerging. Firstly, oncologists may be “accused” of having delayed or omitted the diagnosis and/or treatments with consequent worsening of patients' outcome. Secondly, oncologists can be blamed for having exposed patients to hospital environment considered at risk for COVID-19 transmission. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical decision making should be well-balanced through a careful examination between clinical performance status, age, comorbidities, aim of the treatment, and the potential risk of COVID-19 infection in order to avoid the risk of suboptimal cancer care with potential legal repercussion. Moreover, all cases should be discussed in the oncology team or in the tumor board in order to share the best strategy to adopt case by case