Circulating Biomarkers Predictive of Treatment Response in Patients with Hormone-sensitive or Castration-resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Androgen receptor Circulating biomarkers Circulating tumor cells DNA damage repair Homologous recombination repair Liquid biopsy Metastatic prostate cancer PARP inhibitor Treatment prediction

Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
31 May 2024
Historique:
received: 08 03 2024
revised: 26 04 2024
accepted: 09 05 2024
medline: 2 6 2024
pubmed: 2 6 2024
entrez: 1 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) harbors genomic alterations that may predict targeted therapy efficacy. These alterations can be identified not only in tissue but also directly in biologic fluids (ie, liquid biopsies), mainly blood. Liquid biopsies may represent a safer and less invasive alternative for monitoring patients treated for mPCa. Current research focuses on the description and validation of novel predictive biomarkers to improve precision medicine in mPCa. Our aim was to systematically review the current evidence on liquid biopsy biomarkers for predicting treatment response in mPCa. We systematically searched Medline, Web of Science, and evidence-based websites for publications on circulating biomarkers in mPCa between March 2013 and February 2024 for review. Endpoints were: prediction of overall survival, biochemical or radiographic progression-free survival after treatment (chemotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors [ARPIs], immunotherapy, or PARP inhibitors [PARPIs]). For each biomarker, the level of evidence (LOE) for clinical validity was attributed: LOE IA and IB, high level of evidence; LOE IIB and IIC, intermediate level; and LOE IIIC and LOE IV-VD, weak level. The predictive value of each biomarker for the response to several therapies was evaluated in both metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In patients with mCRPC, BRCA1/2 or ATM mutations predicted response to ARPIs (LOE IB) and PARPIs (LOE IIB), while AR-V7 transcripts or AR-V7 protein levels in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) predicted response to ARPIs and taxanes (LOE IB). CTC quantification predicted response to cabazitaxel, abiraterone, and radium-223 (LOE IIB), while TP53 alterations predicted response to BRCA1/2, ATM, and AR alterations detected in liquid biopsies may help clinicians in management of patients with mPCa. The other circulating biomarkers did not reach the LOE required for routine clinical use and should be validated in prospective independent studies. We reviewed studies assessing the value of biomarkers in blood or urine for management of metastatic prostate cancer. The evidence indicates that some biomarkers could help in selecting patients eligible for specific treatments.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) harbors genomic alterations that may predict targeted therapy efficacy. These alterations can be identified not only in tissue but also directly in biologic fluids (ie, liquid biopsies), mainly blood. Liquid biopsies may represent a safer and less invasive alternative for monitoring patients treated for mPCa. Current research focuses on the description and validation of novel predictive biomarkers to improve precision medicine in mPCa. Our aim was to systematically review the current evidence on liquid biopsy biomarkers for predicting treatment response in mPCa.
METHODS METHODS
We systematically searched Medline, Web of Science, and evidence-based websites for publications on circulating biomarkers in mPCa between March 2013 and February 2024 for review. Endpoints were: prediction of overall survival, biochemical or radiographic progression-free survival after treatment (chemotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors [ARPIs], immunotherapy, or PARP inhibitors [PARPIs]). For each biomarker, the level of evidence (LOE) for clinical validity was attributed: LOE IA and IB, high level of evidence; LOE IIB and IIC, intermediate level; and LOE IIIC and LOE IV-VD, weak level.
KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS UNASSIGNED
The predictive value of each biomarker for the response to several therapies was evaluated in both metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In patients with mCRPC, BRCA1/2 or ATM mutations predicted response to ARPIs (LOE IB) and PARPIs (LOE IIB), while AR-V7 transcripts or AR-V7 protein levels in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) predicted response to ARPIs and taxanes (LOE IB). CTC quantification predicted response to cabazitaxel, abiraterone, and radium-223 (LOE IIB), while TP53 alterations predicted response to
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS
BRCA1/2, ATM, and AR alterations detected in liquid biopsies may help clinicians in management of patients with mPCa. The other circulating biomarkers did not reach the LOE required for routine clinical use and should be validated in prospective independent studies.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
We reviewed studies assessing the value of biomarkers in blood or urine for management of metastatic prostate cancer. The evidence indicates that some biomarkers could help in selecting patients eligible for specific treatments.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.05.003 PMID: 38824003
pubmed: 38824003
pii: S2588-9311(24)00132-9
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.05.003
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Michael Baboudjian (M)

Department of Urology, North Academic Hospital, AP-HM, Marseille, France.

Arthur Peyrottes (A)

Service d'Urologie et de Transplantation Rénale, Hôpital Saint-Louis, AP-HP, Université de Paris, Paris, France.

Charles Dariane (C)

Department of Urology, European Hospital Georges-Pompidou, University Paris Cité, Paris, France; UMR-S1151, CNRS UMR-S8253 Institut Necker Enfants Malades, Paris, France.

Gaëlle Fromont (G)

INSERM UMR1069, Nutrition Croissance et Cancer, University of Tours, Tours, France; Department of Pathology, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France.

Jérôme Alexandre Denis (JA)

INSERM UMR_S938, CRSA, Biologie et Thérapeutiques du Cancer, Saint-Antoine University Hospital, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France; Service de Biochimie Endocrinienne et Oncologique, Oncobiologie Cellulaire et Moléculaire, GH Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Paris, France.

Gaëlle Fiard (G)

Department of Urology, CHU Grenoble Alpes, University of Grenoble Alpes CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC, Grenoble, France.

Diana Kassab (D)

Association Française d'Urologie, Paris, France.

Sylvain Ladoire (S)

Department of Medical Oncology, Platform of Transfer in Biological Oncology, Georges François Leclerc Cancer Center, Dijon, France; University of Burgundy-Franche Comté, Dijon, France; INSERM U1231, Dijon, France.

Jacqueline Lehmann-Che (J)

INSERM U976, Immunologie Humaine, Pathophysiologie, Immunothérapie, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France; UF Oncologie Moléculaire, Hôpital Saint-Louis, AP-HP, Paris, France.

Guillaume Ploussard (G)

Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint-Fonsegrives, France; Department of Urology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.

Morgan Rouprêt (M)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France; Faculty of Medicine, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.

Philippe Barthélémy (P)

Medical Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe, Strasbourg, France.

Guilhem Roubaud (G)

Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France.

Pierre-Jean Lamy (PJ)

Biopathologie et Génétique des Cancers, Institut Médical d'Analyse Génomique, Imagenome, Inovie, Montpellier, France; Unité de Recherche Clinique, Clinique Beausoleil, Montpellier, France. Electronic address: pierre-jean.lamy@inovie.fr.

Classifications MeSH