Helen Mossop

DNA-Repair Defects and Olaparib in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, but current treatments are not based on molecular stratification. We hypothesized that metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancers with DNA-repair defects would respond to poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition with olaparib. METHODS We conducted a phase 2 trial in which patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with olaparib tablets at a dose of 400 mg twice a day. The primary end point was the response rate, defined either as an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or as a reduction of at least 50% in the prostate-specific antigen level or a confirmed reduction in the circulating tumor-cell count from 5 or more cells per 7.5 ml of blood to less than 5 cells per 7.5 ml. Targeted next-generation sequencing, exome and transcriptome analysis, and digital polymerase-chain-reaction testing were performed on samples from mandated tumor biopsies. RESULTS Overall, 50 patients were enrolled; all had received prior treatment with docetaxel, 49 (98%) had received abiraterone or enzalutamide, and 29 (58%) had received cabazitaxel. Sixteen of 49 patients who could be evaluated had a response (33%; 95% confidence interval, 20 to 48), with 12 patients receiving the study treatment for more than 6 months. Next-generation sequencing identified homozygous deletions, deleterious mutations, or both in DNA-repair genes--including BRCA1/2, ATM, Fanconis anemia genes, and CHEK2--in 16 of 49 patients who could be evaluated (33%). Of these 16 patients, 14 (88%) had a response to olaparib, including all 7 patients with BRCA2 loss (4 with biallelic somatic loss, and 3 with germline mutations) and 4 of 5 with ATM aberrations. The specificity of the biomarker suite was 94%. Anemia (in 10 of the 50 patients [20%]) and fatigue (in 6 [12%]) were the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events, findings that are consistent with previous studies of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with the PARP inhibitor olaparib in patients whose prostate cancers were no longer responding to standard treatments and who had defects in DNA-repair genes led to a high response rate. (Funded by Cancer Research UK and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682772; Cancer Research UK number, CRUK/11/029.).

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

Summary Background Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. Methods CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b–T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. Findings Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9–77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0–90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5–92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4–88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68–1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99–1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

Summary Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial. Methods The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b–T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923. Findings 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4–64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months. Interpretation The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Diffusion-weighted Imaging as a Treatment Response Biomarker for Evaluating Bone Metastases in Prostate Cancer: A Pilot Study

Purpose To determine the usefulness of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to assess the response of bone metastases to treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Materials and Methods A phase II prospective clinical trial of the poly-(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in mCRPC included a prospective magnetic resonance (MR) imaging substudy; the study was approved by the institutional research board, and written informed consent was obtained. Whole-body DWI was performed at baseline and after 12 weeks of olaparib administration by using 1.5-T MR imaging. Areas of abnormal signal intensity on DWI images in keeping with bone metastases were delineated to derive total diffusion volume (tDV); five target lesions were also evaluated. Associations of changes in volume of bone metastases and median apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with response to treatment were assessed by using the Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression; correlation with prostate-specific antigen level and circulating tumor cell count were assessed by using Spearman correlation (r). Results Twenty-one patients were included. All six responders to olaparib showed a decrease in tDV, while no decrease was observed in all nonresponders; this difference between responders and nonresponders was significant (P = .001). Increases in median ADC were associated with increased odds of response (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00, 1.15; P = .04). A positive association was detected between changes in tDV and best percentage change in prostate-specific antigen level and circulating tumor cell count (r = 0.63 [95% CI: 0.27, 0.83] and r = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.51, 0.90], respectively). When assessing five target lesions, decreases in volume were associated with response (odds ratio for volume increase, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.99; P = .037). Conclusion This pilot study showed that decreases in volume and increases in median ADC of bone metastases assessed with whole-body DWI can potentially be used as indicators of response to olaparib in mCRPC. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Clinical Outcome of Prostate Cancer Patients with Germline DNA Repair Mutations: Retrospective Analysis from an International Study

Background: Germline DNA damage repair gene mutation (gDDRm) is found in >10% of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). Their prognostic and predictive impact relating to standard therapies is unclear. Objective: To determine whether gDDRm status impacts benefit from established therapies in mPC. Design, setting, and participants: This is a retrospective, international, observational study. Medical records were reviewed for 390 mPC patients with known gDDRm status. All 372 patients from Royal Marsden (UK), Weill-Cornell (NY), and University of Washington (WA) were previously included in a prevalence study (Pritchard, NEJM 2016); the remaining 18 were gBRCA1/2m carriers, from the kConFab consortium, Australia. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) data were collected. To account for potential differences between cohorts, a mixed-effect model (Weibull distribution) with random intercept per cohort was used. Results and limitations: The gDDRm status was known for all 390 patients (60 carriers of gDDRm [gDDRm +], including 37 gBRCA2m, and 330 cases not found to carry gDDRm [gDDRm–]); 74% and 69% were treated with docetaxel and abiraterone/enzalutamide, respectively, and 36% received PARP inhibitors (PARPi) and/or platinum. Median OS from castration resistance was similar among groups (3.2vs 3.0 yr, p = 0.73). Median docetaxel PFS for gDDRm+ (6.8 mo) was not significantly different from that for gDDRm- (5.1 mo), and RRs were similar (gDDRm+ = 61%; gDDRm- = 54%). There were no significant differences in median PFS and RR on first-line abiraterone/enzalutamide (gDDRm+ = 8.3 mo, gDDRm- = 8.3 mo; gDDRm+ = 46%, gDDRm- = 56%). Interaction test for PARPi/platinum and gDDRm+ resulted in an OS adjusted hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.28–1.25; p = 0.17). Results are limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis. Conclusions: mPC patients with gDDRm appeared to benefit from standard therapies similarly to the overall population; prospective studies are ongoing to investigate the impact of PARPi/platinum. Patient summary: Patients with inherited DNA repair mutations benefit from standard therapies similarly to other metastatic prostate cancer patients.

Abstract CT322: DNA repair defects and antitumor activity with PARP inhibition: TOPARP, a phase II trial of olaparib in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

Introduction: Next generation sequencing (NGS) has identified genomic aberrations causing DNA repair defects in sporadic metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We hypothesized that single agent olaparib would have antitumor activity in a sub-population of mCRPC patients (pts) and that exome and transcriptome studies would identify this population. Methods: TOPARP is an open-label, investigator-initiated phase II trial with a novel multi-step adaptive design (CRUK/11/029). The first part of the study (TOPARP-A) has a two-stage design evaluating the antitumor activity of single agent olaparib in unselected mCRPC pts (p0 = 0.05; p1 = 0.20; α = 0.02; β = 0.10) with a preplanned analysis to identify a biomarker defined sensitive subgroup. Primary endpoint, response rate (RR), was defined as objective response by RECIST 1.1 and/or PSA fall ≥50% and/or confirmed circulating tumor cell (CTC) count falls from ≥5 to Results: Fifty pts were enrolled from 7 UK centers; all had had prior docetaxel, 48 (96%) prior abiraterone and 29 (58%) prior cabazitaxel. Overall, 16 of 49 evaluable pts experienced a response (RR 32.7%, 95% CI: 20.0 to 47.5), with 11 and 4 pts having been on treatment for >6 and >12 months respectively at data cut-off. NGS identified homozygous deletions and/or putatively deleterious mutations in DNA repair genes in 15/49 (30.6%) evaluable pts. While a majority of these genomic aberrations occurred in BRCA2 and ATM, biallelic loss of other relevant genes, including members of the Fanconi Anemia complementation group and CHEK2, were also observed. Among these fifteen pts, 13 (86.7%) responded to olaparib. All seven pts with BRCA2 loss (somatic [4/7] or germline [3/7]) and 4/5 pts with ATM truncating mutations responded to olaparib. The specificity of the biomarker suite was 94% in this population. Conversely, PTEN loss and ERG rearrangements were not associated with response. Finally, consistent with previous studies of olaparib, anemia (10/50, 20%) and fatigue (6/50, 12%) were the most common grade>3 adverse events, with 13 (26%) pts requiring a dose reduction. Conclusions: Olaparib has durable antitumor activity in heavily pre-treated pts with sporadic mCRPC with a 32.7% overall response rate. Genomic defects in DNA repair genes associate with olaparib sensitivity in sporadic mCRPC, offering a possibility for the very first molecular treatment stratification of advanced prostate cancer. Citation Format: Joaquin Mateo, Shahneen Sandhu, Susana Miranda, Suzanne Carreira, Suneil Jain, Christy Ralph, Andrew Protheroe, Syed Hussain, Robert Jones, Tony Elliot, Ursula McGovern, Alexa Gillman, Claire Paulding, Helen Mossop, Nuria Porta, Diletta Bianchini, Zafeiris Zafeiriou, Gunther Boysen, Daniel Nava Rodrigues, Penelope Flohr, George Seed, Jane Goodall, Ines Figueiredo, Raquel Perez-Lopez, Nina Tunariu, Aurelius Omlin, Roberta Ferraldeschi, Lakshmi P. Kunju, Rosalind Eeles, Gerhardt Attard, Dan Robinson, Arul Chinnaiyan, Emma Hall, Johann S. de Bono. DNA repair defects and antitumor activity with PARP inhibition: TOPARP, a phase II trial of olaparib in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr CT322. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-CT322

Abstract 3973: Diffusion-weighted imaging of bone metastases as treatment response biomarker in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION: Response assessment of bone metastases (BM) remains a challenge for drug development in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as standard imaging techniques, computed tomography and bone scintigraphy, fail to characterize BM. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is a functional MRI technique that studies the motion of water molecules within a tissue informing on cellularity. We hypothesized that changes in whole body (WB) DWI informs on BM response to treatment in mCRPC. METHODS: We conducted a phase II trial of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in mCRPC (TOPARP-A; CRUK/11/029); the primary endpoint was response rate defined using RECIST 1.1, PSA falls of ≥50% and conversion of circulating tumour cell (CTC) counts from ≥5 to RESULTS: Overall, 33/42 pt consented to the WB-DWI substudy of whom 21 had WB-DWI at baseline and at 12w. Of these 29% (6/21) were classified as responders to olaparib as per the primary endpoint definition and had not progressed prior to 12w. At baseline, median CTC count was 46 CTC/7.5ml blood and median PSA was 411 ng/ml for this cohort. When assessing all the areas of DWI signal abnormality, median volume of BM per patient was 445ml and mADC was 782 x10-6 mm2/s. Baseline CTC counts and PSA were significantly associated with volume of BM (ρ = 0.59, p = 0.005; ρ = 0.64, p = 0.002 respectively). All pts who responded to olaparib showed a decrease in volume of BM (median -41.1%, range -58.8%, -6.3%), whilst in non-responders a decrease was not observed in any pt (median 20.7%, range 0.0%, 76.9%); the difference between responders and non-responders was statistically significant (p = 0.001). Increases in mADC after 12 weeks of treatment were associated with increased odds of response (Odds Ratio: 1.08, 95% CI 1.00, 1.15, p = 0.04). Additionally, we detected a significant positive association between changes in volume of BM estimated by DWI and best percentage change in PSA and CTC (ρ = 0.63, p = 0.002 and ρ = 0.77, p CONCLUSION: Decrease in volume and increase in mADC of BM assessed by WB-DWI are indicators of response to olaparib in BM from mCRPC. These data require validation but support the use of WB-DWI for assessing BM during treatment. Citation Format: Raquel Perez-Lopez, Matthew D. Blackledge, Helen Mossop, Joaquin Mateo, David Collins, Veronica A. Morgan, Alison McDonald, Shahneen Sandhu, Aurelius Omlin, Diletta Bianchini, Zafeiris Zafeiriou, Pasquale Rescigno, Michael Kolinsky, Daniel Nava Rodrigues, Penny Flohr, Berni Ebbs, Gemma Fowler, Nuria Porta, Emma Hall, Martin Leach, Johann S. de Bono, Dow-Mu Koh, Nina Tunariu. Diffusion-weighted imaging of bone metastases as treatment response biomarker in prostate cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 3973.

Abstract 4340: DNA repair genes aberrations in germline DNA in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients

INTRODUCTION: DNA repair defects are found in mCRPC and are therapeutically actionable; germline BRCA mutation-associated (gBRCA) prostate cancer has a poor prognosis. We hypothesized that metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is enriched for germline DNA repair mutations and that these may be relevant to patient outcome. METHODS: Targeted-sequencing for DNA repair genes was conducted in germline DNA from patients consenting to 3 clinical trials between 2013-2015. Germline DNA was extracted from saliva or buccal swabs using the Oragene kit; libraries were constructed using a customized Qiagen panel and sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq. Family history and clinical data were prospectively collected. For time to event analyses unadjusted Cox regression models were used and comparisons were made using log-rank tests. RESULTS: Germline samples from 154 mCRPC patients were available. Median age at diagnosis was 61years (y), median time to castration-resistance was 14.5 months (m) and median overall survival (OS) from initial diagnosis of prostate cancer was 106.8m; 69% (91/131; 24 N/A) of patients were initially diagnosed with Gleason≥8 tumors. 130/154 (84.4%) and 131/154 (85.0%) received Docetaxel and Abiraterone respectively. Of 154 patients, 4 were previously known to be gBRCA2 mutation carriers and were removed from the prevalence analysis but included in the clinical analyses; 22/150 (14.7%, 95%CI 9.4-21.4%) harboured a truncating or frameshift mutation in a DNA repair gene (9 BRCA2, 6%; 4 ATM, 2.7%; 2 PALB2, 1.3%, 1 each for CHEK2, FANCI, MRE11A, NBN, RAD51C, RAD51D and MSH6). Overall, patients with any germline DNA repair aberrations had a worse median OS (75.8 vs 106.8 m; log-rank p = 0.04). Time to resistance to primary hormonal ablation was shorter specifically for gBRCA2 mutations carriers (11.0 vs 14.8 m; log-rank p = 0.01) but not for non-BRCA2 repair aberrations. Age at diagnosis was similar in patients with or without DNA repair germline mutations (median 61.3 vs 61.7y, Mann-Whitney p = 0.41) as well as frequency of Gleason≥8 tumors (16/21 [76%] vs 75/109 [68%]; Mann-Whitney p = 0.23) Response rates to Docetaxel (14/18 [77.8%] vs 64/94 [68.1%]; Fisher exact p = 0.67) and Abiraterone (10/21 [47.6%] vs 44/94 [46.8%]; Fisher exact p = 0.73) were similar among individuals with and without mutations. Family cancer history was collected in 125/154 cases (81%). While having cases of ovarian/prostate/breast/pancreas cancers in these patients’ families associated with a higher likelihood of finding a germline mutation (Odds Ratio 3.36, p = 0.03), 5 of 68 (7.4%) men with no cases of ovarian/prostate/breast/pancreas cancers registered in their families carried a germline mutation in a DNA repair gene. CONCLUSIONS: mCRPC is enriched for patients with germline mutations in DNA repair genes (15%), with 6% having gBRCA2 mutation. Germline DNA repair aberrations are associated with a worse prognosis from mCRPC. Citation Format: JOAQUIN MATEO, Suzanne Carreira, Helen Mossop, Pasquale Rescigno, Michael Kolinsky, Elena Castro, Ada Balasopoulou, Jo Hunt, Desamparados Roda, Claudia Bertan, Jane Goodall, Susana Miranda, Penny Flohr, Nuria Porta, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, David Olmos, Christopher J. Lord, Emma Hall, Ros Eeles, Johann S. de Bono. DNA repair genes aberrations in germline DNA in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 4340.