BACKGROUND: De novo neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) and treatment-emergent neuroendocrine prostate cancer (T-NEPC) are rare diseases with a poor prognosis. After first-line platinum chemotherapy, there is no consensus on second-line treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a pathologic diagnosis of de novo NEPC or T-NEPC between 2000 and 2020 who received first-line platinum and any second-line systemic therapy were selected and standardized clinical data was collected via the electronic health record at each institution. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) based on second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) to second-line therapy, PSA response, and time on treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (32 de novo NEPC, 26 T-NEPC) from 8 institutions were included. At de novo NEPC or T-NEPC diagnosis, the overall cohort had a median age of 65.0 years (IQR 59.2-70.3) and median PSA of 3.0 ng/dL (IQR 0.6-17.9). Following first-line platinum chemotherapy, 21 patients (36.2%) received platinum chemotherapy, 10 (17.2%) taxane monotherapy, 11 (19.0%) immunotherapy, 10 (17.2%) other chemotherapy, and 6 (16.2%) other systemic therapy. Among 41 evaluable patients, the ORR was 23.5%. The mOS after start of second-line therapy was 7.4 months (95% CI 6.1-11.9). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, patients with de novo NEPC or T-NEPC who received second-line therapy were treated with wide variety of treatment regimens, reflecting the lack of consensus in this setting. Most patients received chemotherapy-based treatments. Overall prognosis was poor and ORR was low in the second line regardless of treatment choice.

Pre-analytical factors can significantly affect circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis. However, there are few robust methods to rapidly assess sample quality and the impact of pre-analytical processing. To address this gap and to evaluate effects of DNA extraction methods and blood collection tubes on cfDNA yield and fragment size, we developed a multiplexed droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay with 5 short and 4 long amplicons targeting single copy genomic loci. Using this assay, we compared 7 cfDNA extraction kits and found cfDNA yield and fragment size vary significantly. We also compared 3 blood collection protocols using plasma samples from 23 healthy volunteers (EDTA tubes processed within 1 hour and Cell-free DNA Blood Collection Tubes processed within 24 and 72 hours) and found no significant differences in cfDNA yield, fragment size and background noise between these protocols. In 219 clinical samples, cfDNA fragments were shorter in plasma samples processed immediately after venipuncture compared to archived samples, suggesting contribution of background DNA by lysed peripheral blood cells. In summary, we have described a multiplexed ddPCR assay to assess quality of cfDNA samples prior to downstream molecular analyses and we have evaluated potential sources of pre-analytical variation in cfDNA studies.

Genome-wide fragmentation patterns in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma are strongly influenced by cellular origin due to variation in chromatin accessibility across cell types. Such differences between healthy and cancer cells provide the opportunity for development of novel cancer diagnostics. Here, we investigated whether analysis of cfDNA fragment end positions and their surrounding DNA sequences reveals the presence of tumor-derived DNA in blood. We performed genome-wide analysis of cfDNA from 521 samples and analyzed sequencing data from an additional 2147 samples, including healthy individuals and patients with 11 different cancer types. We developed a metric based on genome-wide differences in fragment positioning, weighted by fragment length and GC content [information-weighted fraction of aberrant fragments (iwFAF)]. We observed that iwFAF strongly correlated with tumor fraction, was higher for DNA fragments carrying somatic mutations, and was higher within genomic regions affected by copy number amplifications. We also calculated sample-level means of nucleotide frequencies observed at genomic positions spanning fragment ends. Using a combination of iwFAF and nine nucleotide frequencies from three positions surrounding fragment ends, we developed a machine learning model to differentiate healthy individuals from patients with cancer. We observed an area under the receiver operative characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.91 for detection of cancer at any stage and an AUC of 0.87 for detection of stage I cancer. Our findings remained robust with as few as 1 million fragments analyzed per sample, demonstrating that analysis of fragment ends can become a cost-effective and accessible approach for cancer detection and monitoring.

Delta-like protein 3 (DLL3) is highly expressed in solid tumors, including neuroendocrine carcinomas/neuroendocrine tumors (NEC/NET). Rovalpituzumab tesirine (Rova-T) is a DLL3-targeting antibody-drug conjugate. Patients with NECs and other advanced DLL3-expressing tumors were enrolled in this phase I/II study (NCT02709889). The primary endpoint was safety. Two hundred patients were enrolled: 101 with NEC/NET (large-cell NEC, gastroenteropancreatic NEC, neuroendocrine prostate cancer, and other NEC/NET) and 99 with other solid tumors (melanoma, medullary thyroid cancer [MTC], glioblastoma, and other). The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was 0.3 mg/kg every 6 weeks (q6w) for two cycles. At the RP2D, grade 3/4 adverse events included anemia (17%), thrombocytopenia (15%), and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (8%). Responses were confirmed in 15/145 patients (10%) treated at 0.3 mg/kg, including 9/69 patients (13%) with NEC/NET. Rova-T at 0.3 mg/kg q6w had manageable toxicity, with antitumor activity observed in patients with NEC/NET, melanoma, MTC, and glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. RESULTS: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. CONCLUSIONS: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

BACKGROUND: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. RESULTS: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

We studied 137 primary testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs) using high-dimensional assays of genomic, epigenomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic features. These tumors exhibited high aneuploidy and a paucity of somatic mutations. Somatic mutation of only three genes achieved significance-KIT, KRAS, and NRAS-exclusively in samples with seminoma components. Integrated analyses identified distinct molecular patterns that characterized the major recognized histologic subtypes of TGCT: seminoma, embryonal carcinoma, yolk sac tumor, and teratoma. Striking differences in global DNA methylation and microRNA expression between histology subtypes highlight a likely role of epigenomic processes in determining histologic fates in TGCTs. We also identified a subset of pure seminomas defined by KIT mutations, increased immune infiltration, globally demethylated DNA, and decreased KRAS copy number. We report potential biomarkers for risk stratification, such as miRNA specifically expressed in teratoma, and others with molecular diagnostic potential, such as CpH (CpA/CpC/CpT) methylation identifying embryonal carcinomas.

There is substantial heterogeneity among primary prostate cancers, evident in the spectrum of molecular abnormalities and its variable clinical course. As part of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we present a comprehensive molecular analysis of 333 primary prostate carcinomas. Our results revealed a molecular taxonomy in which 74% of these tumors fell into one of seven subtypes defined by specific gene fusions (ERG, ETV1/4, and FLI1) or mutations (SPOP, FOXA1, and IDH1). Epigenetic profiles showed substantial heterogeneity, including an IDH1 mutant subset with a methylator phenotype. Androgen receptor (AR) activity varied widely and in a subtype-specific manner, with SPOP and FOXA1 mutant tumors having the highest levels of AR-induced transcripts. 25% of the prostate cancers had a presumed actionable lesion in the PI3K or MAPK signaling pathways, and DNA repair genes were inactivated in 19%. Our analysis reveals molecular heterogeneity among primary prostate cancers, as well as potentially actionable molecular defects.

(Cell Reports 23, 313–326; April 3, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the author list contained two errors. Specifically, David J. Kwiatkowski was misspelled as David J. Kwaitkowski, and William Y. Kim was inadvertently written as William T. Kim. Both names have been corrected online. The authors regret this error.

(Immunity 48, 812–830.e1–e14; April 17, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the authors neglected to include Younes Mokrab and Aaron M. Newman as co-authors and misspelled the names of authors Charles S. Rabkin and Ilya Shmulevich. The author names have been corrected here and online. In addition, the concluding sentence of the subsection “Immune Signature Compilation” in the Method Details in the original published article was deemed unclear because it did not specify differences among the gene set scoring methods. The concluding sentences now reads “Gene sets from Bindea et al., Senbabaoglu et al., and the MSigDB C7 collection were scored using single-sample gene set enrichment (ssGSEA) analysis (Barbie et al., 2009), as implemented in the GSVA R package (Hänzelmann et al., 2013). All other signatures were scored using methods found in the associated citations.”