Search

More than 20% of metastatic prostate cancer carries genomic defects involving DNA damage repair pathways, mainly in homologous recombination repair-related genes. The recent approval of olaparib has paved the way to precision medicine for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer with PARP inhibitors in this subset of patients, especially in the case of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants. In face of this new therapeutic opportunity, many issues remain unsolved. This narrative review aims to describe the relationship between homologous recombination repair deficiency and prostate cancer, the techniques used to determine homologous recombination repair status in prostate cancer, the crosstalk between homologous recombination repair and the androgen receptor pathway, the current evidence on PARP inhibitors activity in metastatic prostate cancer also in homologous recombination repair-proficient tumors, as well as emerging mechanisms of resistance to PARP inhibitors. The possibility of combination therapies including a PARP inhibitor is an attractive option, and more robust data are awaited from ongoing phase II and phase III trials outlined in this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligand PET has been recently incorporated into international guidelines for several different indications in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. However, there are still some open questions regarding the role of PSMA ligand PET in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). The aim of this work is to assess the clinical value of PSMA ligand PET/CT in patients with CRPC. Results: PSMA ligand PET has demonstrated higher detection rates in comparison to conventional imaging and allows for a significant reduction in the number of M0 CRPC patients. However, its real impact on patients' prognosis is still an open question. Moreover, in CRPC patients, PSMA ligand PET presents some sensitivity and specificity limitations. Due to its heterogeneity, CRPC may present a mosaic of neoplastic clones, some of which could be PSMA−/FDG+, or vice versa. Likewise, unspecific bone uptake (UBU) and second primary neoplasms (SNPs) overexpressing PSMA in the neoangiogenic vessels represent potential specificity issues. Integrated multi-tracer imaging (PSMA ligand and [18F]FDG PET) together with a multidisciplinary discussion could allow for reaching the most accurate evaluation of each patient from a precision medicine point of view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Bone metastases and health are crucial issues in prostate cancer patient management. The aim of our review was to describe the biology of bone metastases and their clinical implications in prostate cancer patients, and current therapeutic strategies. In addition, "bone health" should be evaluated and specific treatments considered. In this way, we aimed to attract attention to the risk of both "bad" bone health and bone metastasis, and also to the available care options for these patients. Clinically relevant bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity and mortality for prostate cancer patients. Distinct phenotypes are described: osteoblastic, the more common osteolytic and mixed. A molecular classification has been also proposed. Bone metastases start with the tropism of cancer cells to the bone through different multi-step tumor–host interactions, as described by the "metastatic cascade" model. Understanding these mechanisms, although far from being fully elucidated, could offer several potential targets for prevention and therapy. Moreover, the prognosis of patients is markedly influenced by skeletal-related events. They can be correlated not only with bone metastases, but also with "bad" bone health. There is a close correlation between osteoporosis—a skeletal disorder with decreased bone mass and qualitative alterations—and prostate cancer, in particular when treated with androgen deprivation therapy, a milestone in its treatment. Systemic treatments for prostate cancer, especially with the newest options, have improved the survival and quality of life of patients with respect to skeletal-related events; however, all patients should be evaluated for "bone health" and osteoporotic risk, both in the presence and in the absence of bone metastases. Treatment with bone-targeted therapies should be evaluated even in the absence of bone metastases, as described in special guidelines and according to a multidisciplinary evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]