The ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) pathway plays an essential role in suppressing replication stress from DNA damage and oncogene activation. Preclinical studies have shown that cancer cells with defective DNA repair mechanisms or cell cycle checkpoints may be particularly sensitive to ATR inhibitors. Preclinical and clinical data from early-phase trials on three ATR inhibitors (M6620, AZD6738, and BAY1895344), either as monotherapy or in combination, were reviewed. Data from ATR inhibitor-based combinational trials might lead to future expansion of this therapy to homologous recombination repair pathway-proficient cancers and potentially serve as a rescue therapy for patients who have progressed through poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors.

E2F1 enhances glycolysis through suppressing Sirt6 transcription in cancer cells

Purpose: Deleterious germline/somatic homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm) are present in ∼25% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Preclinically, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition demonstrated synergism with androgen receptor pathway (ARP)–targeted therapy. This trial evaluated the efficacy of ARP inhibitor versus PARP inhibitor versus their combination as first-line therapy in patients with mCRPC with HRRms. Patients and Methods: BRCAAway is a biomarker preselected, randomized, phase 2 trial. Patients with BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized 1:1:1 to Arm1: abiraterone (1,000 mg)/prednisone (5 mg BID) (Abi/pred), Arm2: olaparib (300 mg BID) (Ola), or Arm3: abiraterone/prednisone + olaparib (Abi/pred + Ola). Single-agent arms could cross over at progression. Exploratory Arm4 patients with other HRRms received olaparib alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints were objective response, PSA response, and safety. Results: Sixty-one of 165 eligible patients had BRCA1/2 or ATM mutations: median age: 67 (IQR, 62–73) years. Mutations: BRCA1 n = 3, BRCA2 n = 46, ATM n = 11, and multiple n = 1; 33 germline and 28 somatic mutations. Median PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)]: Abi/pred, 8.6 months (m; 2.9, 17), Ola, 14 m (8.4, 20), and Abi/pred + Ola, 39 m [22, not reached (NR)]. There were no G4/5 adverse events; 8/19 patients on Abi/pred treatment crossed over to Ola, and 8/21 vice versa. Median PFS (95% CI) from crossover: Ola-after-Abi/pred, 8.3 m (5.5, 15) and Abi/pred-after-Ola, 7.2 m (2.8, NR). Median PFS (95% CI) from randomization: Ola-after-Abi/pred, 16 m (7.8, 25) and Abi/pred-after-Ola, 16 m (11, NR). Seventeen of 165 patients with other HRRms received olaparib: median PFS (95% CI): 5.5 m (2, 11). Conclusions: In patients with mCRPC with BRCA1/2 or ATM HRRm, Abi/pred + Ola was well tolerated and demonstrated longer PFS versus either agent alone or sequentially.

Prostate cancer (PC) remains the most common malignancy and the second most common cause of cancer death in men. As a result of highly variable biological behavior and development of resistance to available agents under therapeutic pressure, optimal management is often unclear. Traditional surgical biopsies, even when augmented by genomic studies, may fail to provide adequate guidance for clinical decisions as these can only provide a snapshot of a dynamic process. Additionally, surgical biopsies are cumbersome to perform repeatedly and often involve risk. Liquid biopsies (LB) are defined as the analysis of either corpuscular (circulating tumor cells, extracellular vesicles) or molecular (circulating DNA or RNA) tumor-derived material. LB could more precisely identify clinically relevant alterations that characterize the metastatic potential of tumors, predict response to specific treatments or actively monitor for the emergence of resistance. These tests can potentially be repeated as often as deemed necessary and can detect real-time response to treatment with minimal inconvenience to the patient. In the current review, we consider common clinical scenarios to describe available LB assays in PC as a platform to explore existing evidence for their use in guiding decision making and to discuss current limitations to their adoption in the clinic.

Immunotherapy has emerged as an important approach for cancer treatment, but its clinical efficacy has been limited in prostate cancer compared to other malignancies. This review summarizes key immunotherapy strategies under evaluation for prostate cancer, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, bispecific T cell-engaging antibodies, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, therapeutic vaccines, and cytokines. For each modality, the rationale stemming from preclinical studies is discussed along with outcomes from completed clinical trials and strategies to improve clinical efficacy that are being tested in ongoing clinical trials. Imperative endeavors include biomarker discovery for patient selection, deciphering resistance mechanisms, refining cellular therapies such as CAR T cells, and early-stage intervention were reviewed. These ongoing efforts instill optimism that immunotherapy may eventually deliver significant clinical benefits and expand treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Purpose: CDK12 inactivation in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may predict immunotherapy responses. This phase 2 trial evaluated the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in patients with CDK12-altered mCRPC. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had mCRPC with deleterious CDK12 alterations and any prior therapies except ICI. Cohort A received ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) with nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for up to four cycles, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. Cohort C received nivolumab alone 480 mg every 4 weeks. Patients with CDK12-altered nonprostate tumors were enrolled in cohort B and not reported. The primary endpoint was a 50% reduction in PSA (PSA50). Key secondary endpoints included PSA progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and safety. Results: PSA was evaluable in 23 patients in cohort A and 14 in cohort C. Median lines of prior therapy were two in cohorts A and C, including any prior novel hormonal agent (74% and 79%) and chemotherapy (57% and 36%). The PSA50 rate was 9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1%–28%] in cohort A with two responders; neither had microsatellite instability or a tumor mutational burden >10 mutations/megabase. No PSA50 responses occurred in cohort C. Median PSA progression-free survival was 7.0 months (95% CI, 3.6–11.4) in cohort A and 4.5 months (95% CI, 3.4–13.8) in cohort C. Median overall survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.2–12.3) in cohort A and 13.8 months (95% CI, 3.6–not reached) in cohort C. Conclusions: There was minimal activity with ICI therapy in patients with CDK12-altered mCRPC.