Search

The standard of care for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) was historically identified with platinum-based chemotherapy. Thanks to the advances in biological and genetic knowledge and technologies, new therapeutic agents have emerged in this setting recently: the immune checkpoint inhibitors and the fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors as the target therapy for patients harboring alterations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway. However, chasing a tumor's tendency to recur and progress, a new class of agents has more recently entered the scene, with promising results. Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are in fact the latest addition, with enfortumab vedotin being the first to receive accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December 2019, followed by sacituzumab govitecan. Many other ADCs are still under investigation. ADCs undoubtedly represent the new frontier, with the potential of transforming the management of mUC treatment in the future. Therefore, we reviewed the landscape of mUC treatment options, giving an insight into the molecular basis and mechanisms, and evaluating new therapeutic strategies in the perspective of more and more personalized treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: BRCA1:c.5017_5019del (p.His1673del) is a founder variant relatively frequent in Northern Italy. Despite previous suggestion of pathogenicity, variant classification in public databases is still conflicting, needing additional evidence. Methods: Maximum likelihood penetrance of breast/ovarian and other cancer types was estimated using full pedigree data from 53 informative Italian families. The effect of the variant on BRCA1‐ABRAXAS1 interaction was assessed using a GFP‐fragment reassembly‐based PPI assay. Results were combined with additional data from multiple sources to classify the variant according to ACMG/AMP classification rules specified for BRCA1/2. Results: Variant‐carriers displayed increased risk for ovarian cancer (HR = 33.0, 95% CI = 7.0–155.0; cumulative risk at age 70 = 27.6%, 95% CI = 12.6–40.0%) but not for breast cancer (HR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.2–2.2). An increased risk of uterine cancer (HR = 8.0, 95% CI = 1.03–61.6) emerged, warranting further evaluation. Likelihood‐ratio in favor of pathogenicity was 98898642.82 under assumption of standard BRCA1 breast and ovarian penetrance, and 104240832.84 after excluding breast cancer diagnoses (based on penetrance results). Functional analysis demonstrated that the variant abrogates the BRCA1‐ABRAXAS1 binding, supporting the PS3 code assignment within the ACMG/AMP rule‐based model. Collectively, these findings allowed to classify the variant as pathogenic. Conclusion: Pathogenicity of BRCA1:c.5017_5019del(p.His1673del) has been confirmed; however, breast cancer risk in Italian families is not increased, unlike in families from other countries and in carriers of most BRCA1 pathogenic variants. The knowledge of atypical risk profiles for this and other variants will pave the way for personalized management based on specific genotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]