Purpose: Not all patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have sufficient tumor tissue available for multigene molecular testing. Furthermore, samples may fail because of difficulties within the testing procedure. Optimization of screening techniques may reduce failure rates; however, a need remains for additional testing methods to detect cancers with alterations in homologous recombination repair genes. We evaluated the utility of plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in identifying deleterious BRCA1, BRCA2 (BRCA), and ATM alterations in screened patients with mCRPC from the phase III PROfound study. Patients and Methods: Tumor tissue samples were sequenced prospectively at Foundation Medicine, Inc. (FMI) using an investigational next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay based on FoundationOne®CDx to inform trial eligibility. Matched ctDNA samples were retrospectively sequenced at FMI, using an investigational assay based on FoundationOne®Liquid CDx. Results: 81% (503/619) of ctDNA samples yielded an NGS result, of which 491 had a tumor tissue result. BRCA and ATM status in tissue compared with ctDNA showed 81% positive percentage agreement and 92% negative percentage agreement, using tissue as reference. At variant-subtype level, using tissue as reference, concordance was high for nonsense (93%), splice (87%), and frameshift (86%) alterations but lower for large rearrangements (63%) and homozygous deletions (27%), with low ctDNA fraction being a limiting factor. Conclusions: We demonstrate that ctDNA can greatly complement tissue testing in identifying patients with mCRPC and BRCA or ATM alterations who are potentially suitable for receiving targeted PARP inhibitor treatments, particularly patients with no or insufficient tissue for genomic analyses.

Purpose: Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis is used for genotyping advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); monitoring dynamic ctDNA changes may be used to predict outcomes. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective, exploratory analysis of two phase III trials [AURA3 (NCT02151981), FLAURA (NCT02296125)]. All patients had EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm; ex19del or L858R) advanced NSCLC; AURA3 also included T790M-positive NSCLC. Osimertinib (FLAURA, AURA3), or comparator EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI; gefitinib/erlotinib; FLAURA), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (AURA3) was given. Plasma EGFRm was analyzed at baseline and Weeks 3/6 by droplet digital PCR. Outcomes were assessed by detectable/non-detectable baseline plasma EGFRm and plasma EGFRm clearance (non-detection) at Weeks 3/6. Results: In AURA3 (n = 291), non-detectable versus detectable baseline plasma EGFRm had longer median progression-free survival [mPFS; HR, 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33–0.68; P < 0.0001]. In patients with Week 3 clearance versus non-clearance (n = 184), respectively, mPFS (months; 95% CI) was 10.9 (8.3–12.6) versus 5.7 (4.1–9.7) with osimertinib and 6.2 (4.0–9.7) versus 4.2 (4.0–5.1) with platinum-pemetrexed. In FLAURA (n = 499), mPFS was longer with non-detectable versus detectable baseline plasma EGFRm (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41–0.70; P < 0.0001). For Week 3 clearance versus non-clearance (n = 334), respectively, mPFS was 19.8 (15.1 to not calculable) versus 11.3 (9.5–16.5) with osimertinib and 10.8 (9.7–11.1) versus 7.0 (5.6–8.3) with comparator EGFR-TKI. Similar outcomes were observed by Week 6 clearance/non-clearance. Conclusions: Plasma EGFRm analysis as early as 3 weeks on-treatment has the potential to predict outcomes in EGFRm advanced NSCLC.

Purpose: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) induce synthetic lethality in homologous recombination repair (HRR)-deficient tumors and are used to treat breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers. Multiple PARPi resistance mechanisms exist, most resulting in restoration of HRR and protection of stalled replication forks. ATR inhibition was highlighted as a unique approach to reverse both aspects of resistance. Recently, however, a PARPi/WEE1 inhibitor (WEE1i) combination demonstrated enhanced antitumor activity associated with the induction of replication stress, suggesting another approach to tackling PARPi resistance. Experimental Design: We analyzed breast and ovarian patient-derived xenoimplant models resistant to PARPi to quantify WEE1i and ATR inhibitor (ATRi) responses as single agents and in combination with PARPi. Biomarker analysis was conducted at the genetic and protein level. Metabolite analysis by mass spectrometry and nucleoside rescue experiments ex vivo were also conducted in patient-derived models. Results: Although WEE1i response was linked to markers of replication stress, including STK11/RB1 and phospho-RPA, ATRi response associated with ATM mutation. When combined with olaparib, WEE1i could be differentiated from the ATRi/olaparib combination, providing distinct therapeutic strategies to overcome PARPi resistance by targeting the replication stress response. Mechanistically, WEE1i sensitivity was associated with shortage of the dNTP pool and a concomitant increase in replication stress. Conclusions: Targeting the replication stress response is a valid therapeutic option to overcome PARPi resistance including tumors without an underlying HRR deficiency. These preclinical insights are now being tested in several clinical trials where the PARPi is administered with either the WEE1i or the ATRi.

Prostate cancer is among the most common diseases worldwide. Despite recent progress with treatments, patients with advanced prostate cancer have poor outcomes and there is a high unmet need in this population. Understanding molecular determinants underlying prostate cancer and the aggressive phenotype of disease can help with design of better clinical trials and improve treatments for these patients. One of the pathways often altered in advanced prostate cancer is DNA damage response (DDR), including alterations in BRCA1/2 and other homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Alterations in the DDR pathway are particularly prevalent in metastatic prostate cancer. In this review, we summarise the prevalence of DDR alterations in primary and advanced prostate cancer and discuss the impact of alterations in the DDR pathway on aggressive disease phenotype, prognosis and the association of germline pathogenic¹ alterations in DDR genes with risk of developing prostate cancer.

Advanced genomic techniques such as Next-Generation-Sequencing (NGS) and gene expression profiling, including NanoString, are vital for the development of personalised medicines, as they enable molecular disease classification. This has become increasingly important in the treatment of cancer, aiding patient selection. However, it requires efficient nucleic acid extraction often from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE). Here we provide a comparison of several commercially available manual and automated methods for DNA and/or RNA extraction from FFPE cancer cell line samples from Qiagen, life Technologies and Promega. Differing extraction geometric mean yields were evaluated across each of the kits tested, assessing dual DNA/RNA extraction vs. specialised single extraction, manual silica column based extraction techniques vs. automated magnetic bead based methods along with a comparison of subsequent nucleic acid purity methods, providing a full evaluation of nucleic acids isolated. Out of the four RNA extraction kits evaluated the RNeasy FFPE kit, from Qiagen, gave superior geometric mean yields, whilst the Maxwell 16 automated method, from Promega, yielded the highest quality RNA by quantitative real time RT-PCR. Of the DNA extraction kits evaluated the PicoPure DNA kit, from Life Technologies, isolated 2–14× more DNA. A miniaturised qPCR assay was developed for DNA quantification and quality assessment. Careful consideration of an extraction kit is necessary dependent on quality or quantity of material required. Here we provide a flow diagram on the factors to consider when choosing an extraction kit as well as how to accurately quantify and QC the extracted material.