Homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and overall survival prognosis within the STRATOS-P classification in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

5108 Background: DNA repair genomic alterations are associated with worse overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). It is less clear whether other genomic alterations may affect prognosis of actionable homologous recombination repair (HRR) and mismatch repair (MMR) genes in mHSPC. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study of veterans diagnosed with mHSPC (n=4401). Tumors with no alterations in HRR/MMR genes (DDRneg) were classified by the Somatic Tumor Risk Assessment for Overall Survival-Prostate (STRATOS-P) genomic system which stratifies patients into favorable, intermediate and unfavorable survival groups based on oncogenic alterations: Favorable, SPOP or no alterations; Intermediate, alterations in AR, BRCA2, CCND1, CDK12, FGF19, FGF3, FGF4, LYN, MYC, PTEN, RAD21, or TP53 ; Unfavorable, alterations in FGFR1, PRCK1, RB1 ,or both TP53 and PTEN . OS from metastatic diagnosis was determined using a multivariate Cox model controlling for age, Charleston comorbidity index (CCI) and PSA at diagnosis. Results: Among 4401 mHSPC patients, 1027 (23%) patient tumors had at least one oncogenic alteration in an HRR or MMR gene. Of 3374 DDR-Neg tumors, 1593 were classified as STRATOS-P-Favorable, 1357 as STRATOS-P-Intermediate, and 424 as STRATOS-P-Unfavorable. Comparing patients with tumors with oncogenic alterations in an HRR or MMR gene to patients with DDR-neg tumors showed that prognosis was worse in patients with tumor alterations in ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2, CDK12, ATR, PALB2, NBN and MMR genes compared to patients with STRATOS-P-Favorable tumors (Table). Prognosis was better in patients with tumor alterations in ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2, CDK12, BRCA1, FANCA and Lynch genes compared to STRATOS-P-Unfavorable tumors (Table). Conclusions: In patients with mHSPC, patients with HRR and MMR altered tumors have a worse prognosis compared to patients with STRATOS-P favorable tumors and better prognosis compared to patients with STRATOS-P unfavorable tumors. Overall, HRR and MRR gene alterations impact prognosis of mHSPC patients within the STRATOS-P classification and should be classified as intermediate risk. STRATOS-P-Favorable, DDRneg, n=1593 STRATOS-P-Unfavorable, DDRneg,n=424 Gene 1 n HR (95% CI) HR (95% CI) BRCA2 243 2.00 (1.62, 2.47) 0.69 (0.55, 0.87) CDK12 116 2.07 (1.66, 2.57) 0.74 (0.58, 0.94) ATM 259 1.55 (1.24, 1.96) 0.51 (0.39, 0.66) CHEK2 212 1.75 (1.21, 2.52) 0.50 (0.33, 0.76) ATR 38 2.05 (1.27, 3.31) 0.71 (0.43, 1.17) BRCA1 37 1.41 (0.81, 2.46) 0.48 (0.27, 0.84) FANCA 32 1.53 (0.82, 2.87) 0.51 (0.27, 0.97) NBN 23 2.59 (1.43, 4.68) 0.93 (0.51, 1.69) PALB2 21 2.31 (1.23, 4.37) 0.79 (0.40, 1.56) Lynch 128 1.72 (1.28, 2.33) 0.64 (0.47, 0.88) <jats:su

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2026-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.5108
Primary Topic
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and overall survival prognosis within the STRATOS-P classification in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

Luca Valle, Nicholas G. Nickols, R Bruce Montgomery, K. N. Maxwell et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
article

Homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and overall survival prognosis within the STRATOS-P classification in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

Luca Valle, Nicholas G. Nickols, R Bruce Montgomery, K. N. Maxwell, Matthew Rettig, Timothy Rebbeck, Ryan Hausler, Brent S. Rose, Candace Haroldsen, Michael J. Kelley, Kosj Yamoah, Martin W. Schoen, Jiannong Li, Isla Garraway, Heena Desai
article en

Abstract

5108 Background: DNA repair genomic alterations are associated with worse overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). It is less clear whether other genomic alterations may affect prognosis of actionable homologous recombination repair (HRR) and mismatch repair (MMR) genes in mHSPC. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study of veterans diagnosed with mHSPC (n=4401). Tumors with no alterations in HRR/MMR genes (DDRneg) were classified by the Somatic Tumor Risk Assessment for Overall Survival-Prostate (STRATOS-P) genomic system which stratifies patients into favorable, intermediate and unfavorable survival groups based on oncogenic alterations: Favorable, SPOP or no alterations; Intermediate, alterations in AR, BRCA2, CCND1, CDK12, FGF19, FGF3, FGF4, LYN, MYC, PTEN, RAD21, or TP53 ; Unfavorable, alterations in FGFR1, PRCK1, RB1 ,or both TP53 and PTEN . OS from metastatic diagnosis was determined using a multivariate Cox model controlling for age, Charleston comorbidity index (CCI) and PSA at diagnosis. Results: Among 4401 mHSPC patients, 1027 (23%) patient tumors had at least one oncogenic alteration in an HRR or MMR gene. Of 3374 DDR-Neg tumors, 1593 were classified as STRATOS-P-Favorable, 1357 as STRATOS-P-Intermediate, and 424 as STRATOS-P-Unfavorable. Comparing patients with tumors with oncogenic alterations in an HRR or MMR gene to patients with DDR-neg tumors showed that prognosis was worse in patients with tumor alterations in ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2, CDK12, ATR, PALB2, NBN and MMR genes compared to patients with STRATOS-P-Favorable tumors (Table). Prognosis was better in patients with tumor alterations in ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2, CDK12, BRCA1, FANCA and Lynch genes compared to STRATOS-P-Unfavorable tumors (Table). Conclusions: In patients with mHSPC, patients with HRR and MMR altered tumors have a worse prognosis compared to patients with STRATOS-P favorable tumors and better prognosis compared to patients with STRATOS-P unfavorable tumors. Overall, HRR and MRR gene alterations impact prognosis of mHSPC patients within the STRATOS-P classification and should be classified as intermediate risk. STRATOS-P-Favorable, DDRneg, n=1593 STRATOS-P-Unfavorable, DDRneg,n=424 Gene 1 n HR (95% CI) HR (95% CI) BRCA2 243 2.00 (1.62, 2.47) 0.69 (0.55, 0.87) CDK12 116 2.07 (1.66, 2.57) 0.74 (0.58, 0.94) ATM 259 1.55 (1.24, 1.96) 0.51 (0.39, 0.66) CHEK2 212 1.75 (1.21, 2.52) 0.50 (0.33, 0.76) ATR 38 2.05 (1.27, 3.31) 0.71 (0.43, 1.17) BRCA1 37 1.41 (0.81, 2.46) 0.48 (0.27, 0.84) FANCA 32 1.53 (0.82, 2.87) 0.51 (0.27, 0.97) NBN 23 2.59 (1.43, 4.68) 0.93 (0.51, 1.69) PALB2 21 2.31 (1.23, 4.37) 0.79 (0.40, 1.56) Lynch 128 1.72 (1.28, 2.33) 0.64 (0.47, 0.88) <jats:su

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 44(16_suppl)
Moffitt Cancer Center (US), University of California San Diego (US), VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System (US), VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US), Philadelphia VA Medical Center (US), Durham VA Medical Center (US), VA St. Louis Health Care System (US), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (US)
Prostate Cancer Foundation
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.