Purpose: To infer the prognostic value of simultaneous androgen receptor (AR) and TP53 profiling in liquid biopsies from metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients starting a new line of AR signalling inhibitors (ARSi). Experimental design: Between March 2014 and April 2017, we recruited mCRPC patients (n=168) prior to ARSi in a cohort study encompassing 10 European centres. Blood samples were collected for comprehensive profiling of CellSearch-enriched circulating tumour cells (CTCs) and circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). Targeted CTC RNA-seq allowed the detection of eight AR splice variants (ARVs). Low-pass whole-genome and targeted gene-body sequencing of AR and TP53 was applied to identify amplifications, loss-of-heterozygosity, mutations and structural rearrangements in ctDNA. Clinical or radiological progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and independent associations were determined using multivariable Cox-regression models. Results: Overall, no single AR perturbation remained associated with adverse prognosis after multivariable analysis. Instead, tumour burden estimates (CTC counts, ctDNA fraction, and visceral metastases) were significantly associated with PFS. TP53 inactivation harbored independent prognostic value (HR 1.88, 95%CI 1.18-3.00, p = 0.008), and outperformed ARV expression and detection of genomic AR alterations. Using Cox coefficient analysis of clinical parameters and TP53 status, we identified three prognostic groups with differing PFS estimates (median, 14.7 vs 7.51 vs 2.62 months, p < 0.0001), which was validated in an independent mCRPC cohort (n=202) starting first-line ARSi (median, 14.3 vs 6.39 vs 2.23 months, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In an all-comer cohort, tumour burden estimates and TP53 outperform any AR perturbation to infer prognosis.

Assessing circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising method to evaluate somatic mutations from solid tumors in a minimally‐invasive way. In a group of twelve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients undergoing liver metastasectomy, from each patient DNA from cell‐free DNA (cfDNA), the primary tumor, metastatic liver tissue, normal tumor‐adjacent colon or liver tissue, and whole blood were obtained. Investigated was the feasibility of a targeted NGS approach to identify somatic mutations in ctDNA. This targeted NGS approach was also compared with NGS preceded by mutant allele enrichment using synchronous coefficient of drag alteration technology embodied in the OnTarget assay, and for selected mutations with digital PCR (dPCR). All tissue and cfDNA samples underwent IonPGM sequencing for a CRC‐specific 21‐gene panel, which was analyzed using a standard and a modified calling pipeline. In addition, cfDNA, whole blood and normal tissue DNA were analyzed with the OnTarget assay and with dPCR for specific mutations in cfDNA as detected in the corresponding primary and/or metastatic tumor tissue. NGS with modified calling was superior to standard calling and detected ctDNA in the cfDNA of 10 patients harboring mutations in APC, ATM, CREBBP, FBXW7, KRAS, KMT2D, PIK3CA and TP53. Using this approach, variant allele frequencies in plasma ranged predominantly from 1 to 10%, resulting in limited concordance between ctDNA and the primary tumor (39%) and the metastases (55%). Concordance between ctDNA and tissue markedly improved when ctDNA was evaluated for KRAS, PIK3CA and TP53 mutations by the OnTarget assay (80%) and digital PCR (93%). Additionally, using these techniques mutations were observed in tumor‐adjacent tissue with normal morphology in the majority of patients, which were not observed in whole blood. In conclusion, in these mCRC patients with oligometastatic disease NGS on cfDNA was feasible, but had limited sensitivity to detect all somatic mutations present in tissue. Digital PCR and mutant allele enrichment before NGS appeared to be more sensitive to detect somatic mutations.

Preclinical and clinical studies have reported that human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression yields resistance to endocrine therapies. Here the prevalence and prognostic impact of HER2-positive circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were investigated retrospectively in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with a HER2-negative primary tumor receiving endocrine therapy. Additionally, the prevalence and prognostic significance of HER2-positive CTCs were explored in a chemotherapy cohort, as well as the prognostic impact of the estrogen receptor (ER) CTC status in both cohorts. Included were MBC patients with a HER2-negative primary tumor, with ≥1 detectable CTC, starting a new line of treatment. CTCs were enumerated using the CellSearch system, characterized for HER2 with the CellSearch anti-HER2 phenotyping reagent, and characterized for ER mRNA expression. Primary end point was progression-free rate after 6 months (PFR6months) of endocrine treatment in HER2-positive versus HER2-negative CTC patients. HER2-positive CTCs were present in 29% of all patients. In the endocrine cohort (n=72), the PFR6months was 53% for HER2-positive versus 68% for HER2-negative CTC patients (P=.23). In the chemotherapy cohort (n=82), no prognostic value of HER2-positive CTCs on PFR6months was observed either. Discordances in ER status between the primary tumor and CTCs occurred in 25% of all patients but had no prognostic value in exploratory survival analyses. Discordances regarding HER2 status and ER status between CTCs and the primary tumor occurred frequently but had no prognostic impact in our MBC patient cohorts.

Mutations and splice variants in the estrogen receptor (ER) gene, ESR1, may yield endocrine resistance in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. These putative endocrine resistance markers are likely to emerge during treatment, and therefore, its detection in liquid biopsies, such as circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and cell‐free DNA (cfDNA), is of great interest. This research aimed to determine whether ESR1 mutations and splice variants occur more frequently in CTCs of MBC patients progressing on endocrine treatment. In addition, the presence of ESR1 mutations was evaluated in matched cfDNA and compared to CTCs. CellSearch‐enriched CTC fractions (≥5/7.5 mL) of two MBC cohorts were evaluated, namely (a) patients starting first‐line endocrine therapy (n = 43, baseline cohort) and (b) patients progressing on any line of endocrine therapy (n = 40, progressing cohort). ESR1 hotspot mutations (D538G and Y537S/N/C) were evaluated in CTC‐enriched DNA using digital PCR and compared with matched cfDNA (n = 18 baseline cohort; n = 26 progressing cohort). Expression of ESR1 full‐length and 4 of its splice variants (∆5, ∆7, 36 kDa, and 46 kDa) was evaluated in CTC‐enriched mRNA. It was observed that in the CTCs, the ESR1 mutations were not enriched in the progressing cohort (8%), when compared with the baseline cohort (5%) (P = 0.66). In the cfDNA, however, ESR1 mutations were more prevalent in the progressing cohort (42%) than in the baseline cohort (11%) (P = 0.04). Three of the same mutations were observed in both CTCs and cfDNA, 1 mutation in CTCs only, and 11 in cfDNA only. Only the ∆5 ESR1 splice variant was CTC‐specific expressed, but was not enriched in the progressing cohort. In conclusion, sensitivity for detecting ESR1 mutations in CTC‐enriched fractions was lower than for cfDNA. ESR1 mutations detected in cfDNA, rarely present at the start of first‐line endocrine therapy, were enriched at progression, strongly suggesting a role in conferring endocrine resistance in MBC.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and alterations in DNA damage response genes. This has also led to widespread use of genomic testing in all patients with mCRPC. The current review will give an overview of (1) the current understanding of the interplay between DNA damage response and PARP enzymes; (2) the clinical landscape of PARP inhibitors, including the combination of PARP inhibitors with other agents such as androgen-receptor signaling agents; (3) biomarkers related to PARP inhibitor response and resistance; and (4) considerations for interpreting genomic testing results and treating patients with PARP inhibitors.