https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2025.13635
BRCA mutations and prostate cancer: should urologist improve daily clinical practice?
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 17 April 2025
Introduction: To evaluate BRCA1-2 (breast cancer) detection in men with high risk PCa, including the oncological consequences for the patient and family members.
Materials and Methods: From January 2023 to December 2024, 52 men (median age 73 years;) with confirmed PCa diagnosis underwent somatic and germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 assessment; 11/52 (21%) patients documented a family history of cancer. Patients were at different clinical stages: high-grade (71% had a Gleason score ≥ 8), locally advanced (54% of cases) and/or metastatic PCa (46% of cases) at initial diagnosis, hormone-sensitive and/or castration-resistant PCa (38.2% of cases) at clinical progression. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues and next generation sequencing (NGS) analyses of BRCA genes were evaluated on 52 samples (prostate biopsies or definitive samples) collected at Gravina Hospital (Caltagirone, Italy) from different Sicilian pathology departments. The therapeutic and clinical impact of genetic testing for BRCA somatic and germline mutations was evaluated for patients and their families.
Results: All FFPE cases were successfully genotyped, with a good library and sequencing CQ metrics for all genes of interest; 10/52 (19.2%) patients had somatic or germline BRCA mutations, specifically, 3/52 (5.7%) had somatic and 7/52 (13.5%) had germline mutations. In the seven cases with germline variants, 4/7 (57%) had a family history of PCa or other diseases, while the remaining 3/7 (43%) patients had no hereditary predisposition. All identified genetic variants were related to the BRCA2 gene; after genetic screening of the corresponding relatives, various members of the analysed families carried the mutation identified in the proband, so that cancer prevention and/or active surveillance was possible.
Conclusions: NGS analysis for BRCA genetic testing using FFPE tissue in the clinical setting of patients with high-grade and/or metastatic PCa appears to be a valuable tool, not only for therapeutic purposes, but also to identify families with genetic predisposition who may be underdiagnosed according to canonical criteria.
Downloads
Kote-Jarai Z, Leongamornlert D, Saunders E, et al. BRCA2 is a moderate penetrance gene contributing to young-onset prostate cancer: implications for genetic testing in prostate cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2011; 105:1230-1234.
Sengodan SK, Sreelatha KH, Nadhan R, Srinivas P. Regulation of epithelial to mesenchymal transition by BRCA1 in breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018; 123:74-82.
Bertwistle D, Swift S, Marston NJ, et al. Nuclear location and cell cycle regulation of the BRCA2 protein1. Cancer Res. 1997;57:5485-5488.
Castro E, Goh C, Olmos D, et al. Germline BRCA mutations are associated with higher risk of nodal involvement, distant metastasis, and poor survival outcomes in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1748-1757.
Taylor RA, Fraser M, Livingstone J, et al. Germline BRCA2 mutations drive prostate cancers with distinct evolutionary trajectories. Nat Commun. 2017; 8:13671.
Pepe P, Aragona F. Incidence of insignificant prostate cancer using free/total PSA: results of a case-finding protocol on 14,453 patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010; 13:316-319.
Pepe P, Panella P, D'Arrigo L, et al. Should men with serum prostate-specific antigen < or =4 ng/ml and normal digital rectal examination undergo a prostate biopsy? A literature review. Oncology. 2006; 70:81-98.
Aragona F, Pepe P, Motta M, et al. Incidence of prostate cancer in Sicily: results of a multicenter case-findings protocol. Eur Urol. 2005;47:569-74.
Pepe P, Aragona F. Prostate cancer detection rate at repeat saturation biopsy: PCPT risk calculator versus PCA3 score versus casefinding protocol. Can J Urol. 2013; 20:6620-6624.
Pepe P, D'Urso D, Garufi A, et al. Multiparametric MRI apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) accuracy in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. In Vivo. 2017; 31:415-418.
Pepe P, Fraggetta F, Galia A, et al. PCA3 score and prostate cancer diagnosis at repeated saturation biopsy. Which cut-off: 20 or 35? Int Braz J Urol. 2012; 38:489-495.
Pepe P, Aragona F. PCA3 score vs PSA free/total accuracy in prostate cancer diagnosis at repeat saturation biopsy. Anticancer Res. 2011; 31:4445-4449.
Page EC, Bancroft EK, Brook MN, et al. Interim results from the IMPACT study: evidence for prostate-specific antigen screening in BRCA2 mutation carriers. Eur Urol. 2019; 76:831-842.
Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pennisi M, et al. Detection rate of anterior prostate cancer in 226 patients submitted to initial and repeat transperineal biopsy. Urol Int. 2014; 93:189-192.
Pepe P, Pepe L, Tamburo M, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and prostate cancer diagnosis: which SUVmax value? In Vivo. 2023;37:1318-1322.
Pepe P, Pennisi M. Targeted biopsy in men high risk for prostate cancer: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT versus mpMRI. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2023; 21:639-642.
Salemi M, Pettinato A, Fraggetta F, et al. Expression of miR-132 and miR-212 in prostate cancer and metastatic lymph node: Case report and revision of the literature. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 92:209.
Pepe P, Pepe L, Cosentino S, et al. Detection rate of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. mpMRI targeted biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer. Anticancer Res. 2022; 42:3011-3015.
Pepe P, Pepe L, Tamburo M, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. mpMRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022; 94:274-277.
Pepe P, Pennisi M. Should 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT replace CT and bone scan in clinical staging of high-risk prostate cancer? Anticancer Res. 2022; 42:1495-1498.
Pepe P, Pepe L, Fiorentino V, et al. PSMA PET/CT accuracy in diagnosing prostate cancer nodes metastases. In Vivo. 2024;38:2880-2885.
Kechin A, Khrapov E, Boyarskikh U, et al. BRCA-analyzer: Automatic workflow for processing NGS reads of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Comput Biol Chem. 2018; 77:297-306.
Kalampokis N, Zabaftis C, Spinos T, et al. Review on the role of BRCA mutations in genomic screening and risk stratification of prostate cancer. Curr Oncol. 2024; 31:1162-1169.
Giri VN, Knudsen KE, Kelly WK, et al. Implementation of germline testing for prostate cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019. J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38:2798-2811.
Pepe P, Aragona F. Prostate needle biopsy: 12 vs. 18 cores -- is it necessary? Urol Int. 2005;74:19-22.
Pepe P, Pennisi M. Morbidity following transperineal prostate biopsy: our experience in 8.500 men. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022; 94:155-159.
Robinson D, Van Allen EM, Wu YM, et al. Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer. Cell. 2015; 161:1215-1228.
Hommerding M, Hommerding O, Bernhardt M, et al. Real-world data on the prevalence of BRCA1/2 and HRR gene mutations in patients with primary and metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2024; 42:491.
Bancroft EK, Page EC, Castro E, et al. Targeted prostate cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the initial screening round of the IMPACT study. Eur Urol. 2014; 66:489-499.
Carter HB, Helfand B, Mamawala M, et al. Germline mutations in ATM and BRCA1/2 are associated with grade reclassification in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2019; 75:743-749.
Pepe P, Cimino S, Garufi A, et al. Detection rate for significant cancer at confirmatory biopsy in men enrolled in active surveillance protocol: 20 cores vs 30 cores vs MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016; 88:300-303.
Pepe P, Roscigno M, Pepe L, et al. Could 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT evaluation reduce the number of scheduled prostate biopsies in men enrolled in active surveillance protocols? J Clin Med. 2022;11:3473.
Pepe P, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F. How many cores should be obtained during saturation biopsy in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance? Experience in 875 patients submitted to repeat prostate biopsy. Urology. 2020; 137:133-137.
Tilki D, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANMESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II-2024 Update: treatment of relapsing and metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2024; 86:164-182.
Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, et al. Prostate cancer, version 4.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2023; 21: 1067-1096.
Pepe P, Fandella A, Barbera M, et al. Advances in radiology and pathology of prostate cancer: a review for the pathologist. Pathologic. 2024; 116:1-12.
Cimadamore A, Rescigno P, Conteduca V, et al. SIUrO best practice recommendations to optimize BRCA 1/2 gene testing from DNA extracted from bone biopsy in mCRPC patients (BRCA Optimal Bone Biopsy Procedure: BOP). Virchows Arch. 2023; 483:579-589.
Russo A, Incorvaia L, Capoluongo E, et al. Implementation of preventive and predictive BRCA testing in patients with breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer: a position paper of Italian Scientific Societies. ESMO Open. 2022; 7:100459.
Loeb S, Byrne N, Walter D, et al. Knowledge and practice regarding prostate cancer germline testing among urologists: Gaps to address for optimal implementation. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2020; 25:100212.
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.