Purpose

The long-term prostate cancer-specific survival for patients initially managed with active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer ranges from 97% to 100%. We characterized factors that are associated with aggressive treatment with radical prostatectomy or radiation for indolent prostate cancer (defined as screening-detected, low-risk disease).

Methods

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program was used to extract a cohort of 39,803 men diagnosed with prostate-specific antigen-detected, low-risk prostate cancer (clinical category T1c, Gleason score ≤6, and prostate-specific antigen <10) from 2004 to 2010. After socioeconomic profiles were generated from county-linked education and income data, multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether there were any factors associated with high rates of aggressive treatment.

Results

The rate of aggressive treatment among all men with indolent prostate cancer was 64.3%. Greater rates of aggressive treatment were experienced by men with high socioeconomic status, Caucasian men, and married men (P < .001 for all cases). The increased adjusted odds for receipt of aggressive therapy were 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.32; P < .001), 1.26 (95% CI, 1.21-1.32; P < .001), and 1.88 (95% CI, 1.80-1.97; P < .001) for men with high socioeconomic status, Caucasian men, and married men, respectively, compared with men with low socioeconomic status, non-Caucasian men, and unmarried men, respectively.

Conclusions

Although men with high socioeconomic status, Caucasian men, and married men often receive the highest quality health care and have the best outcomes for many cancers, it seems that they are most at risk for the avoidable potential harms of aggressive treatment of indolent prostate cancer. Future policy should encourage more stringent guidelines for deferred treatment and culturally and sociodemographically competent counseling of active surveillance.

Purpose

Cabozantinib (XL184) is an orally bioavailable tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against MET and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2. We evaluated the activity of cabozantinib in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in a phase II randomized discontinuation trial with an expansion cohort.

Patients and methods

Patients received 100 mg of cabozantinib daily. Those with stable disease per RECIST at 12 weeks were randomly assigned to cabozantinib or placebo. Primary end points were objective response rate at 12 weeks and progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment.

Results

One hundred seventy-one men with CRPC were enrolled. Random assignment was halted early based on the observed activity of cabozantinib. Seventy-two percent of patients had regression in soft tissue lesions, whereas 68% of evaluable patients had improvement on bone scan, including complete resolution in 12%. The objective response rate at 12 weeks was 5%, with stable disease in 75% of patients. Thirty-one patients with stable disease at week 12 were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 23.9 weeks (95% CI, 10.7 to 62.4 weeks) with cabozantinib and 5.9 weeks (95% CI, 5.4 to 6.6 weeks) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.12; P < .001). Serum total alkaline phosphatase and plasma cross-linked C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen were reduced by ≥ 50% in 57% of evaluable patients. On retrospective review, bone pain improved in 67% of evaluable patients, with a decrease in narcotic use in 56%. The most common grade 3 adverse events were fatigue (16%), hypertension (12%), and hand-foot syndrome (8%).

Conclusion

Cabozantinib has clinical activity in men with CRPC, including reduction of soft tissue lesions, improvement in PFS, resolution of bone scans, and reductions in bone turnover markers, pain, and narcotic use.

Purpose: Current clinical parameters do not stratify indolent from aggressive prostate cancer. Aggressive prostate cancer, defined by the progression from localized disease to metastasis, is responsible for the majority of prostate cancer-associated mortality. Recent gene expression profiling has proven successful in predicting the outcome of prostate cancer patients; however, they have yet to provide targeted therapy approaches that could inhibit a patient's progression to metastatic disease.Experimental Design: We have interrogated a total of seven primary prostate cancer cohorts (n = 1,900), two metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer datasets (n = 293), and one prospective cohort (n = 1,385) to assess the impact of TOP2A and EZH2 expression on prostate cancer cellular program and patient outcomes. We also performed IHC staining for TOP2A and EZH2 in a cohort of primary prostate cancer patients (n = 89) with known outcome. Finally, we explored the therapeutic potential of a combination therapy targeting both TOP2A and EZH2 using novel prostate cancer-derived murine cell lines.Results: We demonstrate by genome-wide analysis of independent primary and metastatic prostate cancer datasets that concurrent TOP2A and EZH2 mRNA and protein upregulation selected for a subgroup of primary and metastatic patients with more aggressive disease and notable overlap of genes involved in mitotic regulation. Importantly, TOP2A and EZH2 in prostate cancer cells act as key driving oncogenes, a fact highlighted by sensitivity to combination-targeted therapy.Conclusions: Overall, our data support further assessment of TOP2A and EZH2 as biomarkers for early identification of patients with increased metastatic potential that may benefit from adjuvant or neoadjuvant targeted therapy approaches. Clin Cancer Res; 23(22); 7072-83. ©2017 AACR.

Background

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a clinically heterogeneous disease. The creation of an expression-based subtyping model based on prostate-specific biological processes was sought.

Methods

Unsupervised machine learning of gene expression profiles from prospectively collected primary prostate tumors (training, n = 32,000; evaluation, n = 68,547) was used to create a prostate subtyping classifier (PSC) based on basal versus luminal cell expression patterns and other gene signatures relevant to PCa biology. Subtype molecular pathways and clinical characteristics were explored in five other clinical cohorts.

Results

Clustering derived four subtypes: luminal differentiated (LD), luminal proliferating (LP), basal immune (BI), and basal neuroendocrine (BN). LP and LD tumors both had higher androgen receptor activity. LP tumors also had a higher expression of cell proliferation genes, MYC activity, and characteristics of homologous recombination deficiency. BI tumors possessed significant interferon γactivity and immune infiltration on immunohistochemistry. BN tumors were characterized by lower androgen receptor activity expression, lower immune infiltration, and enrichment with neuroendocrine expression patterns. Patients with LD tumors had less aggressive tumor characteristics and the longest time to metastasis after surgery. Only patients with BI tumors derived benefit from radiotherapy after surgery in terms of time to metastasis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.71; n = 855). In a phase 3 trial that randomized patients with metastatic PCa to androgen deprivation with or without docetaxel (n = 108), only patients with LP tumors derived survival benefit from docetaxel (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51).

Conclusions

With the use of expression profiles from over 100,000 tumors, a PSC was developed that identified four subtypes with distinct biological and clinical features.

Plain language summary

Prostate cancer can behave in an indolent or aggressive manner and vary in how it responds to certain treatments. To differentiate prostate cancer on the basis of biological features, we developed a novel RNA signature by using data from over 100,000 prostate tumors-the largest data set of its kind. This signature can inform patients and physicians on tumor aggressiveness and susceptibilities to treatments to help personalize cancer management.

Many genetic variants affect disease risk by altering context-dependent gene regulation. Such variants are difficult to study mechanistically using current methods that link genetic variation to steady-state gene expression levels, such as expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs). To address this challenge, we developed the cistrome-wide association study (CWAS), a framework for identifying genotypic and allele-specific effects on chromatin that are also associated with disease. In prostate cancer, CWAS identified regulatory elements and androgen receptor-binding sites that explained the association at 52 of 98 known prostate cancer risk loci and discovered 17 additional risk loci. CWAS implicated key developmental transcription factors in prostate cancer risk that are overlooked by eQTL-based approaches due to context-dependent gene regulation. We experimentally validated associations and demonstrated the extensibility of CWAS to additional epigenomic datasets and phenotypes, including response to prostate cancer treatment. CWAS is a powerful and biologically interpretable paradigm for studying variants that influence traits by affecting transcriptional regulation.

Purpose Adjuvant therapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localized prostate cancer decreases the number of deaths from this disease. Surrogates for overall survival (OS) could expedite the evaluation of new adjuvant therapies. Methods By June 2013, 102 completed or ongoing randomized trials were identified and individual patient data were collected from 28 trials with 28,905 patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were determined for 21,140 patients from 24 trials and 12,712 patients from 19 trials, respectively. We evaluated the surrogacy of DFS and MFS for OS by using a two-stage meta-analytic validation model by determining the correlation of an intermediate clinical end point with OS and the correlation of treatment effects on both the intermediate clinical end point and OS. Results Trials enrolled patients from 1987 to 2011. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 45% of 21,140 men and 45% of 12,712 men experienced a DFS and MFS event, respectively. For DFS and MFS, 61% and 90% of the patients, respectively, were from radiation trials, and 63% and 66%, respectively, had high-risk disease. At the patient level, Kendall's τ correlation with OS was 0.85 and 0.91 for DFS and MFS, respectively. At the trial level, R² was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.88) from weighted linear regression of 8-year OS rates versus 5-year DFS and MFS rates, respectively. Treatment effects-measured by log hazard ratios-for the surrogates and OS were well correlated ( R², 0.73 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82] for DFS and 0.92 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95] for MFS). Conclusion MFS is a strong surrogate for OS for localized prostate cancer that is associated with a significant risk of death from prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Whether the genomic rearrangement transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2):v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (ERG) has prognostic value in prostate cancer is unclear. METHODS: Among men with prostate cancer in the prospective Physicians Health and Health Professionals Follow-Up Studies, we identified rearrangement status by immunohistochemical assessment of ERG protein expression. We used Cox models to examine associations of ERG overexpression with biochemical recurrence and lethal disease (distant metastases or cancer-specific mortality). In a meta-analysis including 47 additional studies, we used random-effects models to estimate associations between rearrangement status and outcomes. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 1,180 men treated with radical prostatectomy between 1983 and 2005. During a median follow-up of 12.6 years, 266 men experienced recurrence and 85 men developed lethal disease. We found no significant association between ERG overexpression and biochemical recurrence [hazard ratio (HR), 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-1.26] or lethal disease (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.43). The meta-analysis of prostatectomy series included 5,074 men followed for biochemical recurrence (1,623 events), and 2,049 men followed for lethal disease (131 events). TMPRSS2:ERG was associated with stage at diagnosis [risk ratio (RR)(≥T3 vs. T2), 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.30) but not with biochemical recurrence (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.86-1.17) or lethal disease (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.47-2.09). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that TMPRSS2:ERG, or ERG overexpression, is associated with tumor stage but does not strongly predict recurrence or mortality among men treated with radical prostatectomy. IMPACT: This is the largest prospective cohort study to examine associations of ERG overexpression and lethal prostate cancer among men treated with radical prostatectomy.

Background

In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics.

Objective

To present the report of APCCC 2017.

Design, setting, and participants

Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process.

Results and limitations

Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data.

Conclusions

The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them.

Patient summary

The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process.

Background

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

Objective

To present the results from the APCCC 2019.

Design, setting, and participants

Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

Results and limitations

Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

Conclusions

These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.

Patient summary

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.