feres with plasma cfDNA testing in patients with advanced prostate cancer. There is a risk for widespread misdiagnosis and overtreatment of men with PARPi using currently available commercial cfDNA assays. We recommend that all cfDNA testing in patients with prostate cancer include a whole-blood control to distinguish CHIP from prostate cancer variants. ARTICLE INFORMATION

PURPOSE Ductal prostate cancer (dPC) is a rare variant of prostatic adenocarcinoma associated with poor outcomes. Although its histopathologic features are well characterized, the underlying molecular hallmarks of this aggressive subtype are not well described. We sought to provide a comprehensive overview of the spectrum of mutations associated with dPC. METHODS Three case series across multiple institutions were assembled. All patients had a diagnosis of dPC, and histopathologic classification was confirmed by an expert genitourinary pathologist. Case series 1 included men who were prospectively enrolled in a tumor sequencing study at the University of Washington (n = 22). Case series 2 and 3 included archival samples from men treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital (n = 21) and University of Calgary (n = 8), respectively. Tumor tissue was sequenced on a targeted next-generation sequencing assay, UW-OncoPlex, according to previously published methods. The frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutations are reported. RESULTS Overall, 25 patients (49%) had at least one DNA damage repair gene alteration, including seven (14%) with a mismatch repair gene mutation and 16 (31%) with a homologous repair mutation. Germline autosomal dominant mutations were confirmed or suspected in 10 patients (20%). Activating mutations in the PI3K pathway (n = 19; 37%), WNT pathway (n = 16; 31%), and MAPK pathway (n = 8; 16%) were common. CONCLUSION This study strongly suggests that dPCs are enriched for actionable mutations, with approximately 50% of patients demonstrating DNA damage repair pathway alteration(s). Patients with dPC should be offered next-generation sequencing to guide standard-of-care treatment (eg, immune checkpoint inhibitors) or triaged toward an appropriate clinical trial (eg, poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitors).

BackgroundMicrosatellite instability (MSI) is now being used as a sole biomarker to guide immunotherapy treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. Yet current molecular diagnostic tests for MSI have not been evaluated for use in prostate cancer.MethodsWe evaluated two next-generation sequencing (NGS) MSI-detection methods, MSIplus (18 markers) and MSI by Large Panel NGS (> 60 markers), and compared the performance of each NGS method to the most widely used 5-marker MSI-PCR detection system. All methods were evaluated by comparison to targeted whole gene sequencing of DNA mismatch-repair genes, and immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair genes, where available.ResultsIn a set of 91 prostate tumors with known mismatch repair status (29-deficient and 62-intact mismatch-repair) MSIplus had a sensitivity of 96.6% (28/29) and a specificity of 100% (62/62), MSI by Large Panel NGS had a sensitivity of 93.1% (27/29) and a specificity of 98.4% (61/62), and MSI-PCR had a sensitivity of 72.4% (21/29) and a specificity of 100% (62/62).ConclusionsWe found that the widely used 5-marker MSI-PCR panel has inferior sensitivity when applied to prostate cancer and that NGS testing with an expanded panel of markers performs well. In addition, NGS methods offer advantages over MSI-PCR, including no requirement for matched non-tumor tissue and an automated analysis pipeline with quantitative interpretation of MSI-status.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-018-0341-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Precision oncology entails making treatment decisions based on a tumor's molecular characteristics. For prostate cancer, identifying clinically relevant molecular subgroups is challenging, as molecular profiling is not routine outside of academic centers. Since histologic variants of other cancers correlates with specific genomic alterations, we sought to determine if ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (dPC) – a rare and aggressive histopathologic variant – was associated with any recurrent actionable mutations. Tumors from 10 consecutive patients with known dPC were sequenced on a targeted next-generation DNA sequencing panel. The median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range, 40–73). Four (40%) patients had metastases upon presentation. Archival tissue from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostate tissue samples from nine patients and a biopsy of a metastasis from one patient with castration-resistant prostate cancer were available for analysis. Nine of 10 samples had sufficient material for tumor sequencing. Four (40%) patients' tumors had a mismatch repair (MMR) gene alteration (N = 2, MSH2; N = 1, MSH6; and N = 1, MLH1), of which 3 (75%) had evidence of hypermutation. Sections of the primary carcinomas of three additional patients with known MMR gene alterations/hypermutation were histologically evaluated; two of these tumors had dPC. MMR mutations associated with hypermutation were common in our cohort of dPC patients. Since hypermutation may predict for response to immune checkpoint blockade, the presence of dPC may be a rapid means to enrich populations for further screening. Given our small sample size, these findings require replication.

IMPORTANCE Somatic mosaic mutations in PPM1D have been reported in patients with breast cancer, lung cancer, and ovarian cancer (OC), but cause or effect has not been established. OBSERVATIONS To test the hypothesis that somatic mosaic mutations are associated with chemotherapy exposure, we used massively parallel sequencing to quantitate mutations in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of 686 women with primary OC (n = 412) or relapsed OC (n = 274). The frequency of somatic mosaic PPM1D mutations in PBMCs was significantly associated with prior chemotherapy (P < .001), and, in patients exposed to chemotherapy, with older age at blood draw (recurrent OC odds ratio [OR], 17.24; 95%CI, 6.80–43.69; and primary OC postchemotherapy OR, 4.82; 95%CI, 1.43–16.18). In contrast, somatic mosaic mutations in TP53 were not significantly associated with chemotherapy or age. In sequential PBMC samples harvested from 13 patients with OC near diagnosis and after a median of 2 different chemotherapy regimens, somatic mosaic PPM1D mutations increased in 11 individuals (84.6%) and TP53 mutations appeared in 2 (15.4%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Chemotherapy exposure and age influence the accumulation of PPM1D-mutated PBMC clones. Care should be taken to control for chemotherapy exposure and age at blood draw when testing the association of somatic mosaic mutations in PBMCs with cancer risk.