Open Access

A systematic review of the prevalence of DNA damage response gene mutations in prostate cancer

  • Authors:
    • Shona H. Lang
    • Stephanie L. Swift
    • Heath White
    • Kate Misso
    • Jos Kleijnen
    • Ruben G.W. Quek
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: July 16, 2019     https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2019.4842
  • Pages: 597-616
  • Copyright: © Lang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Several ongoing international prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials are exploring therapies that target the DNA damage response (DDR) pathway. This systematic review summarizes the prevalence of DDR mutation carriers in the unselected (general) PC and familial PC populations. A total of 11 electronic databases, 10 conference proceedings, and grey literature sources were searched from their inception to December 2017. Studies reporting the prevalence of somatic and/or germline DDR mutations were summarized. Metastatic PC (mPC), castration‑resistant PC (CRPC) and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) subgroups were included. A total of 11,648 records were retrieved, and 80 studies (103 records) across all PC populations were included; 59 records were of unselected PC and 13 records of familial PC. Most data were available for DDR panels (n=12 studies), ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM; n=13), breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)1 (n=14) and BRCA2 (n=20). ATM, BRCA2 and partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) had the highest mutation rates (≥4%). Median prevalence rates for DDR germline mutations were 18.6% in PC (range, 17.2‑19%; three studies, n=1,712), 11.6% in mPC (range, 11.4‑11.8%; two studies, n=1,261) and 8.3% in mCRPC (range, 7.5‑9.1%; two studies, n=738). Median prevalence rates for DDR somatic mutations were 10.7% in PC (range, 4.9‑22%; three studies, n=680), 13.2% in mPC (range, 10‑16.4%; two studies, n=105) and not reported (NR) in mCRPC. The prevalence of DDR germline and/or somatic mutations was 27% in PC (one study, n=221), 22.67% in mCRPC (one study, n=150) and NR in mPC. In familial PC, median mutation prevalence was 12.1% (range, 7.3‑16.9%) for germline DDR (two studies, n=315) and 3.7% (range, 1.3‑7.9%) for BRCA2 (six studies, n=945). In total, 88% of studies were at a high risk of bias. The prevalence of DDR gene mutations in PC varied widely within somatic subgroups depending on study size, genetic screening techniques, DDR mutation definition and PC diagnosis; somatic and/or germline DDR mutation prevalence was in the range of 23‑27% in PC. These findings support DDR mutation testing for all patients with PC (including those with mCRPC). With the advent of the latest clinical practice PC guidelines highlighting the importance of DDR mutation screening, and ongoing mCRPC clinical trials evaluating DDR mutation‑targeted drugs, future larger epidemiological studies are warranted to further quantify the international burden of DDR mutations in PC.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

September 2019
Volume 55 Issue 3

Print ISSN: 1019-6439
Online ISSN:1791-2423

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
APA
Lang, S.H., Swift, S.L., White, H., Misso, K., Kleijnen, J., & Quek, R.G. (2019). A systematic review of the prevalence of DNA damage response gene mutations in prostate cancer. International Journal of Oncology, 55, 597-616. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2019.4842
MLA
Lang, S. H., Swift, S. L., White, H., Misso, K., Kleijnen, J., Quek, R. G."A systematic review of the prevalence of DNA damage response gene mutations in prostate cancer". International Journal of Oncology 55.3 (2019): 597-616.
Chicago
Lang, S. H., Swift, S. L., White, H., Misso, K., Kleijnen, J., Quek, R. G."A systematic review of the prevalence of DNA damage response gene mutations in prostate cancer". International Journal of Oncology 55, no. 3 (2019): 597-616. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2019.4842