Single Cell Analysis of Treatment-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Implications of Cell State Changes for Cell Surface Antigen Targeted Therapies

Targeting cell surface molecules using radioligand and antibody-based therapies has yielded considerable success across cancers. However, it remains unclear how the expression of putative lineage markers, particularly cell surface molecules, varies in the process of lineage plasticity, wherein tumor cells alter their identity and acquire new oncogenic properties. A notable example of lineage plasticity is the transformation of prostate adenocarcinoma (PRAD) to neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC)--a growing resistance mechanism that results in the loss of responsiveness to androgen blockade and portends dismal patient survival. To understand how lineage markers vary across the evolution of lineage plasticity in prostate cancer, we applied single cell analyses to 21 human prostate tumor biopsies and two genetically engineered mouse models, together with tissue microarray analysis (TMA) on 131 tumor samples. Not only did we observe a higher degree of phenotypic heterogeneity in castrate-resistant PRAD and NEPC than previously anticipated, but also found that the expression of molecules targeted therapeutically, namely PSMA, STEAP1, STEAP2, TROP2, CEACAM5, and DLL3, varied within a subset of gene-regulatory networks (GRNs). We also noted that NEPC and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) subtypes shared a set of GRNs, indicative of conserved biologic pathways that may be exploited therapeutically across tumor types. While this extreme level of transcriptional heterogeneity, particularly in cell surface marker expression, may mitigate the durability of clinical responses to novel antigen-directed therapies, its delineation may yield signatures for patient selection in clinical trials, potentially across distinct cancer types.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 1

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.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 2

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.

Convergent evolution of BRCA2 reversion mutations under therapeutic pressure by PARP inhibition and platinum chemotherapy

Reversion mutations that restore wild-type function of the BRCA gene have been described as a key mechanism of resistance to Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in BRCA-associated cancers. Here, we report a case of a patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with a germline BRCA2 mutation who developed acquired resistance to PARP inhibition. Extensive genomic interrogation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and tissue at baseline, post-progression, and postmortem revealed ten unique BRCA2 reversion mutations across ten sites. While several of the reversion mutations were private to a specific site, nine out of ten tumors contained at least one mutation, suggesting a powerful clonal selection for reversion mutations in the presence of therapeutic pressure by PARP inhibition. Variable cfDNA shed was seen across tumor sites, emphasizing a potential shortcoming of cfDNA monitoring for PARPi resistance. This report provides a genomic portrait of the temporal and spatial heterogeneity of prostate cancer under the selective pressure of a PARP inhibition and exposes limitations in the current strategies for detection of reversion mutations.

Evaluating Immune-Related Adverse Events Using PRO-CTCAE in a Phase II Study of Ipilimumab for Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

Introduction

 Use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) during chemotherapy is associated with decreased hospitalization rates, improved quality of life, and longer survival. Limited data exist on the benefit of this symptom assessment tool for monitoring immune-related adverse events (irAEs).

Methods

 We incorporated irAE-related items from the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) PRO-CTCAE in a trial evaluating ipilimumab in combination with androgen deprivation therapy in 16 patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For comparison, NCI's CTCAE version 4.0 was used by clinicians.

Results

 IrAE-related PRO-CTCAE surveys and matched CTCAEs (184 pairs) reporting abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, rash, and pruritus were collected at each treatment administration and during follow-up. Fatigue, diarrhea, rash, and pruritus were the symptoms most frequently reported by both patients and clinicians. Agreement was lowest for pruritus (κ = 0.10) and highest for rash (κ = 0.64). IrAEs were more commonly reported and of higher grade with PRO-CTCAE scores compared with CTCAE grades.

Conclusion

 PRO-CTCAEs focused on irAEs capture the patient's immunotherapy experience while complementing the clinician's toxicity assessment measures. Further study is needed to assess PRO-CTCAE's utility in identifying and managing irAEs.

Clinical Impact of a Rapid Genetic Testing Model for Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Genetic testing may alter clinical management for individuals with metastatic prostate cancer by identifying additional therapies. Traditional counseling models are unlikely to enable time-sensitive therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and clinical impact of an alternative hereditary genetic testing model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As part of a multicenter, single-arm prospective trial, individuals with advanced prostate cancer were referred by their oncologist for testing of 14 genes associated with hereditary prostate cancer. Pretest education (brochure and video) was provided in the oncology clinic. Questionnaires assessing participant satisfaction with both pretest education and decision to undergo genetic testing were collected. A genetic counselor contacted participants by phone to obtain family history and discuss results. Medical records were queried to determine whether a change in clinical management was discussed.

RESULTS

Of 501 participants consented to germline analysis, 51 (10.2%) had at least 1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant. Change in treatment was discussed with 22/48 (45.8%) of eligible participants who tested positive. Feasibility of this model was assessed by participant satisfaction and turnaround time. Average±SD satisfaction with the pretest education (15.5±2.2, 4-20 scale) and with the decision to undergo genetic testing (17.1±2.9, 4-20 scale) were both high. Results were returned 20 days (median) after sample collection.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologist-initiated germline genetic testing in collaboration with a genetic counselor is a feasible approach to testing advanced prostate cancer patients with impactful clinical actionability. The testing model and educational material serve as resources to clinicians treating prostate cancer patients.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

TWITTER SUMMARY

Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Abstract NG10: Chromatin profiles classify castration-resistant prostate cancers suggesting therapeutic targets

Untreated prostate cancers rely on androgen receptor (AR) signaling for growth and survival, forming the basis for the initial efficacy of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Yet the disease can relapse and progress to a lethal stage termed castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Reactivation of AR signaling represents the most common driver of CRPC growth, and next-generation AR signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) are now used in combination with ADT as first-line therapy. However, ARSIs can result in selective pressure, thereby generating AR-independent tumors. The transition from AR dependence frequently accompanies a change in a phenotype resembling developmental transdifferentiation or “lineage plasticity”. Neuroendocrine prostate cancer, which lacks a defined pathologic classification, is the most studied type of lineage plasticity. However, most AR-null tumors do not exhibit neuroendocrine features and are classified as “double-negative prostate cancer”, the drivers of which are poorly defined. Lineage plasticity studies in CRPC are limited by the lack of genetically defined patient-derived models that recapitulate the disease spectrum. To address this, we developed a biobank of organoids generated from patient biopsies to study the landscape of metastatic CRPC and allow for functional validation assays. Proteins called transcription factors (TFs) are drivers of tumor lineage plasticity. To identify the key TFs that drive the growth of AR-independent tumors, we integrated epigenetic and transcriptomic data generated from CRPC models. We generated ATAC-seq (assay for transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing) and RNA-seq data from 22 metastatic human prostate cancer organoids, six patient-derived xenografts (PDXs), and 12 derived or traditional cell lines. We classified the 40 models into four subtypes and predicted key TFs of each subtype. Besides the well-characterized AR-dependent (CRPC-AR) and neuroendocrine subtypes (CRPC-NE), we identified two novel AR-negative/low groups, including a Wnt-dependent subtype (CRPC-WNT), driven by TCF/LEF TFs, and a stem cell-like (SCL) subtype (CRPC-SCL), driven by the AP-1 family of TFs. To apply the subtype classification to patient samples, we derived RNA-seq signatures from the organoids and applied them to 366 patient samples from two independent CRPC cohorts. The generated signatures recapitulated the four-subtype classification and revealed that CRPC-SCL is the second most prevalent group. Patients from CRPC-SCL are also associated with shorter time under ARSI treatment compared to CRPC-AR, indicating that the ARSI treatments were less effective for CRPC-SCL patients. Additional chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) analysis indicated that AP-1 (FOSL1) collaboratively binds with TEAD and transcription coactivators, YAP and TAZ. Knocking down of AP-1 (FOSL1), YAP/TAZ decreased cell growth of CRPC-SCL and showed a decrease of chromatin accessibility at CRPC-SCL-specific open chromatin sites and down-regulation of YAP/TAZ target gene expression. In addition, the expression of AP-1 (FOSL1) decreased upon YAP/TAZ knockdown suggesting a positive feedback loop as well as YAP/TAZ as actional targets in CRPC-SCL. We used two small-molecule inhibitors, verteporfin and T-5224, that act on the YAP/TAZ/AP-1 pathway for their potential use as therapeutics for CRPC-SCL tumors, both inhibited the growth of samples from CRPC-SCL but not CRPC-AR. By overexpressing an AP-1 family gene (FOSL1) in AR-high cells, we observed an increase in chromatin accessibility at CRPC-SCL-specific open chromatin sites as well as significant up-regulation of CRPC-SCL signature genes, suggesting that AP-1 functions as a pioneering factor and master regulator for CRPC-SCL. All this work was recently published in Science (Tang, Xu et al. Science, 2022) where I am the co-first author. In summary, by using a diverse biobank of organoids, PDXs, and cell lines that recapitulate the heterogeneity of metastatic prostate cancer, we created a map of the chromatin accessibility and transcriptomic landscape of CRPC. We validated the CRPC-AR and CRPC-NE subtypes and report two novel subtypes of AR-negative/low samples, CRPC-SCL and CRPC-WNT, as well as their respective key TFs. Additional analysis revealed a model in which YAP, TAZ, TEAD, and AP-1 function together and drive oncogenic growth in CRPC-SCL samples. In addition, we proposed small inhibitors of YAP and TAZ that can potentially be used to treat CRPC-SCL patients. Overall, our results show how the stratification of CRPC patients into four subtypes using their transcriptomes can potentially inform appropriate clinical decisions.

Citation Format: Fanying Tang, Duo Xu, Shangqian Wang, Chen Khuan Wong, Alexander Martinez-Fundichely, Cindy J. Lee, Sandra Cohen, Jane Park, Corinne E. Hill, Kenneth Eng, Rohan Bareja, Teng Han, Eric Minwei Liu, Ann Palladino, Wei Di, Dong Gao, Wassim Abida, Shaham Beg, Loredana Puca, Maximiliano Meneses, Elisa de Stanchina, Michael F. Berger, Anuradha Gopalan, Lukas E. Dow, Juan Miguel Mosquera, Himisha Beltran, Cora N. Sternberg, Ping Chi, Howard I. Scher, Andrea Sboner, Yu Chen, Ekta Khurana. Chromatin profiles classify castration-resistant prostate cancers suggesting therapeutic targets. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr NG10.

Abstract 941: Assessment of the completeness, accuracy, and scalability of commercial abstraction for a large prostate cancer biospecimen repository

Background: Large repositories of biospecimens collected from patients at cancer centers can provide a valuable resource in the development and validation of new biomarker assays to guide therapeutic decision-making. In order to utilize such repositories for biomarker studies, biospecimens must be annotated with the clinical context of each sample. The main source of clinical data is typically an unstructured electronic medical record, which can require a significant amount of time and resources to manually curate.

Methods: We developed a database comprised of disease-specific clinical data elements for a large repository of prostate cancer blood samples collected between 2006 – 2022 at a comprehensive cancer center. To provide clinical context for these samples, we contracted and trained a data abstraction company on entry practices with strict adherence to our standardized data dictionary and source hierarchy.

After data abstraction and review of an initial training set, we performed a formal evaluation of data quality (completeness and accuracy) through a 100-patient blinded comparison to gold-standard abstraction by a medical oncologist using all available data sources. Subsequently, data entry was completed for an additional 2500 patients and included in longitudinal analysis.

Results: Comparison to medical oncologist reference determined that the commercial annotations demonstrated similar completeness for most data elements. For some elements such as stage at diagnosis (M1 vs. M0), commercial abstraction achieved lower completeness (80%) than a medical oncologist (100%). Overall, the accuracy of the commercial annotations varied by element but was suitable for the purpose of identifying samples for use in context-specific biomarker studies. Data regarding disease-related events showed low median variance in the timing of first metastasis (0 months) and castration-resistance (-2.1 months), with substantial observed variance trending towards earlier event calling.

Longitudinal analysis of 2500 abstractions showed relatively stable completeness in staging data over time, suggesting that missing data is at least partially attributable to imposed restrictions in data source hierarchy rather than inexperience. Targeted retraining mid-way after 1300 annotations considerably increased the speed of data entry without noticeable changes in data completeness.

Conclusions: Commercial data abstraction can be effectively utilized to perform clinical data annotation for large biospecimen repositories with acceptable levels of completeness and accuracy. With appropriate training and direct oversight by an experienced on-site research team, this represents a scalable method for extracting valuable clinical data from largely unstructured patient medical records.

Citation Format: Emily A. Carbone, Ethan S. Barnett, Niamh M. Keegan, Samantha E. Vasselman, Barbara Nweji, Ria N. Gajar, Karen A. Autio, Wassim Abida, Howard I. Scher, Konrad H. Stopsack. Assessment of the completeness, accuracy, and scalability of commercial abstraction for a large prostate cancer biospecimen repository [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 941.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Automated analysis of FDG-PET/CT imaging to monitor heterogeneous disease response in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

251

Background: The heterogeneity of individual sites of disease in prostate cancer is well recognized and increases over time as the therapies administered promote divergent evolution. In clinical practice, this is often depicted in radiology reports as a mixed response, wherein some lesions improve and others progress or emerge, for which individualizing management is challenging. The problem is exacerbated in patients with high volume disease by the inability to concisely and effectively assess overall disease status which may mask the presence of emerging resistance that could benefit from early intervention and/or a change in therapy. Methods: Thirty-one sets of serial baseline and on-treatment FDG-PET/CT images done for the clinical management of patients with progressing mCRPC were analyzed using TRAQinform IQ software (AIQ Solutions). Individual regions of interest (ROI) identified and tracked across imaging time-points were analyzed for a range of features. The univariate prognostic weight of each feature was assessed with Cox regression models. Imaging features from single timepoints, heterogeneity of response features, and PSA values/dynamics were input into the separate TRAQinform Profile software, which was calculated to predict either time on treatment or overall survival using 3-fold cross-validation of a random survival forest. Individual case reviews were performed on select patients including TRAQinform IQ analytics, PSA trends, radiology reports, and physician notes to evaluate the potential additive benefit of the TRAQinform IQ output. Results: In general, imaging features were more strongly correlated with overall survival than PSA dynamics. After iterative feature selection, only imaging features were selected for TRAQinform Profile scores. In the case of predicting OS, the most important features were baseline total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and the number of new/progressing lesions. Patients with high TRAQinform Profile scores had shorter median survival times than those with low scores (630 vs 1326 days, p<0.01, c-index = 0.744). Of particular value was the finding that the software could identify indicators of oligo-progression for which directed radiotherapy could be considered. Also detected were early indications of widespread disease progression represented as changes in total SUV uptake and TRAQinform Profile scores, which could indicate that the patient was no longer benefitting from treatment and a change in therapy was needed. Conclusions: In pilot analysis, the TRAQinform Profile scores generated from baseline and early on-treatment FDG-PET images had treatment-agnostic prognostic value in mCRPC. Further validation is on-going. The TRAQinform IQ software can aid in identifying the presence of resistant lesions in the setting of otherwise grossly stable disease as determined by the treating physician.

A phase 2 study of immunogenic cell death inducer PT-112 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

TPS292

Background: PT-112 is a novel small I-O molecule currently in development for several cancers. Preclinical studies have shown the robust induction of immunogenic cell death by PT-112, leading to an anti-cancer adaptive immune response. Biodistribution experiments in mice showed PT-112’s partial bone affinity. In two prior phase I studies, late-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (mCRPC pts) were treated with evidence of anti-cancer activity, including tumor volume reductions, improvements in PET and bone scans, PSA and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) reductions, and anecdotal cases of improvement in disease-related pain. This, taken together with the immunogenic and osteotropic properties observed in preclinical work, provided a strong rationale to further explore PT-112 in mCRPC, an immunologically “cold” disease with a high prevalence of bone metastases. Moreover, in an analysis of >6,000 mCRPC pts, circulating tumor cell (CTC) declines (CTC0 and CTC conversions) were correlated with improvements in survival to a greater extent than PSA declines (PSA50) (Heller et al., JCO, 36:6 2017), prompting incorporation of CTC changes as a secondary endpoint. Methods: The primary objective of the study is to define the dose regimen of PT-112 for pivotal study. Pts are randomized to one of three arms, receiving IV PT-112 on 28-day cycles via one hour infusions on (1) Days 1 and 15 at 250 mg/m2, (2) Days 1 and 15 at 360 mg/m2, or (3) Days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 at 360 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 on Day 15 of subsequent cycles. Key eligibility criteria include radiographically progressive disease at study entry; ≥3 life-prolonging therapies for metastatic disease including 1-2 taxanes, ≥1 new generation anti-androgen therapies, and other drugs FDA approved on the basis of survival; and allowing bone-only metastatic disease. Efficacy assessments comprise disease control rate at 4 months (DCR4) using RECIST and PCWG3 criteria, objective response rate, CTC0 and CTC conversion, PSA50 and ALP reductions. Additionally, T cell receptor sequencing is conducted to characterize treatment-induced changes in T cell fraction and clonal expansions, as a means of generating meaningful supportive data on the immune mechanism of PT-112 monotherapy. A Fleming two-stage design will be used to assess each arm, with a 20% DCR4 as the null hypotheses, requiring ≥6 of 25 pts responding in stage one and ≥14 of 45 in total to reject the null. In addition, other efficacy measures, such as CTC responses, as well as exposure/response and exposure/safety analyses will be applied to characterize the risk/benefit ratio and select the optimal dose regimen for PT-112. As of October 11th, 2022, 38 pts have been enrolled out of a planned maximum of 135. Clinical trial information: NCT02266745 .

Analysis of BRCA2 Copy Number Loss and Genomic Instability in Circulating Tumor Cells from Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

BRCA2 alterations predict for a response to poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibition in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, detection is hindered by insufficient tumor tissue and low sensitivity of cell-free DNA for detecting copy number loss.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the BRCA2 loss detection using single-cell, shallow whole-genome sequencing (sWGS) of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in patients with mCRPC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We analyzed CTC samples collected concurrently with tumor biopsies intended for clinical sequencing in patients with progressing mCRPC.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Differences in proportions were evaluated using the chi-square test. Correlations between assays were analyzed in linear regression models. Associations between alterations and genomic instability were assessed on the single-cell level using mixed-effect negative binomial models.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

We identified 138 patients with concurrent CTC and biopsy samples. CTC sWGS generated copy number profiles in a similar proportion of patients to biopsy samples (83% vs 78%, p = 0.23), but was more effective than bone biopsies (79% vs 50%; p = 0.009). CTC sWGS detected BRCA2 loss in more patients than tissue at the ≥1 (42% vs 16%; p < 0.001) and ≥2 (27% vs 16%; p = 0.028) CTC thresholds. The overall prevalence of BRCA2 loss was not increased in CTCs using sample-level composite z scores (p = 0.4), but was significantly increased compared with a lower-than-expected prevalence in bone samples (21% vs 3%, p = 0.014). Positive/negative predictive values for CTC BRCA2 loss were 89%/96% using the ≥1 CTC threshold and 67%/92% using the composite z score. CTC BRCA2 loss was associated with higher genomic instability in univariate (1.4-fold large-scale transition difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-1.6; p < 0.001) and multivariable analysis (1.4-fold difference, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Copy number profiles can reliably be generated using CTC sWGS, which detected a majority of tissue-confirmed BRCA2 loss and "CTC-only" losses. BRCA2 losses were supported by increases in genomic instability.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Current testing strategies have limitations in their ability to detect BRCA2 loss, a relatively common alteration in prostate cancer that is used to identify patients who may benefit from targeted therapy. In this paper, we evaluated whether we could detect BRCA2 loss in individual tumor cells isolated from patient blood samples and found this method to be suitable for further analysis.

Gene-based Confirmatory Germline Testing Following Tumor-only Sequencing of Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Tumor-only genomic profiling is an important tool in therapeutic management of men with prostate cancer. Since clinically actionable germline variants may be reflected in tumor profiling, it is critical to identify which variants have a higher risk of being germline in origin to better counsel patients and prioritize genetic testing.

OBJECTIVE

To determine when variants found on tumor-only sequencing of prostate cancers should prompt confirmatory germline testing.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Men with prostate cancer who underwent both tumor and germline sequencing at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2020 were evaluated.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Tumor and germline profiles were analyzed for pathogenic and likely pathogenic ("pathogenic") variants in 60 moderate- or high-penetrance genes associated with cancer predisposition. The germline probability (germline/germline + somatic) of a variant was calculated for each gene. Clinical and pathologic factors were analyzed as potential modifiers of germline probability.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of the 1883 patients identified, 1084 (58%) had a somatic or germline pathogenic variant in one of 60 cancer susceptibility genes, and of them, 240 (22%) had at least one germline variant. Overall, the most frequent variants were in TP53, PTEN, APC, BRCA2, RB1, ATM, and CHEK2. Variants in TP53, PTEN, or RB1 were identified in 746 (40%) patients and were exclusively somatic. Variants with the highest germline probabilities were in PALB2 (69%), MITF (62%), HOXB13 (60%), CHEK2 (55%), BRCA1 (55%), and BRCA2 (47%), and the overall germline probability of a variant in any DNA damage repair gene was 40%. Limitations were that most of the men included in the cohort had metastatic disease, and different thresholds for pathogenicity exist for somatic and germline variants.

CONCLUSIONS

Of patients with pathogenic variants found on prostate tumor sequencing, 22% had clinically actionable germline variants, for which the germline probabilities varied widely by gene. Our results provide an evidenced-based clinical framework to prioritize referral to genetic counseling following tumor-only sequencing.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Patients with advanced prostate cancer are recommended to have germline genetic testing. Genetic sequencing of a patient's prostate tumor may also identify certain gene variants that are inherited. We found that patients who had variants in certain genes, such as ones that function in DNA damage repair, identified in their prostate tumor sequencing, had a high risk for having an inherited cancer syndrome.

Evaluation of an Integrated Spectroscopy and Classification Platform for Point-of-Care Core Needle Biopsy Assessment: Performance Characteristics from Ex Vivo Renal Mass Biopsies

PURPOSE

To evaluate a transmission optical spectroscopy instrument for rapid ex vivo assessment of core needle cancer biopsies (CNBs) at the point of care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CNBs from surgically resected renal tumors and nontumor regions were scanned on their sampling trays with a custom spectroscopy instrument. After extracting principal spectral components, machine learning was used to train logistic regression, support vector machines, and random decision forest (RF) classifiers on 80% of randomized and stratified data. The algorithms were evaluated on the remaining 20% of the data set held out during training. Binary classification (tumor/nontumor) was performed based on a decision threshold. Multinomial classification was also performed to differentiate between the subtypes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and account for potential confounding effects from fat, blood, and necrotic tissue. Classifiers were compared based on sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) relative to a histopathologic standard.

RESULTS

A total of 545 CNBs from 102 patients were analyzed, yielding 5,583 spectra after outlier exclusion. At the individual spectra level, the best performing algorithm was RF with sensitivities of 96% and 92% and specificities of 90% and 89%, for the binary and multiclass analyses, respectively. At the full CNB level, RF algorithm also showed the highest sensitivity and specificity (93% and 91%, respectively). For RCC subtypes, the highest sensitivity and PPV were attained for clear cell (93.5%) and chromophobe (98.2%) subtypes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ex vivo spectroscopy imaging paired with machine learning can accurately characterize renal mass CNB at the time of tissue acquisition.

Overall survival with circulating tumor DNA-guided therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing guides therapy decisions but has been studied mostly in small cohorts without sufficient follow-up to determine its influence on overall survival. We prospectively followed an international cohort of 1,127 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and ctDNA-guided therapy. ctDNA detection was associated with shorter survival (hazard ratio (HR), 2.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.74-2.42; P < 0.001) independently of clinicopathologic features and metabolic tumor volume. Among the 722 (64%) patients with detectable ctDNA, 255 (23%) matched to targeted therapy by ctDNA sequencing had longer survival than those not treated with targeted therapy (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76; P < 0.001). Genomic alterations in ctDNA not detected by time-matched tissue sequencing were found in 25% of the patients. These ctDNA-only alterations disproportionately featured subclonal drivers of resistance, including RICTOR and PIK3CA alterations, and were associated with short survival. Minimally invasive ctDNA profiling can identify heterogeneous drivers not captured in tissue sequencing and expand community access to life-prolonging therapy.

A clinical-grade liquid biomarker detects neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer

BackgroundNeuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is an aggressive subtype, the presence of which changes the prognosis and management of metastatic prostate cancer.MethodsWe performed analytical validation of a Circulating Tumor Cell (CTC) multiplex RNA qPCR assay to identify the limit of quantification (LOQ) in cell lines, synthetic cDNA, and patient samples. We next profiled 116 longitudinal samples from a prospectively collected institutional cohort of 17 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (7 NEPC, 10 adenocarcinoma) as well as 265 samples from 139 patients enrolled in 3 adenocarcinoma phase II trials of androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs). We assessed a NEPC liquid biomarker via the presence of neuroendocrine markers and the absence of androgen receptor (AR) target genes.ResultsUsing the analytical validation LOQ, liquid biomarker NEPC detection in the longitudinal cohort had a per-sample sensitivity of 51.35% and a specificity of 91.14%. However, when we incorporated the serial information from multiple liquid biopsies per patient, a unique aspect of this study, the per-patient predictions were 100% accurate, with a receiver-operating-curve (ROC) AUC of 1. In the adenocarcinoma ARSI trials, the presence of neuroendocrine markers, even while AR target gene expression was retained, was a strong negative prognostic factor.ConclusionOur analytically validated CTC biomarker can detect NEPC with high diagnostic accuracy when leveraging serial samples that are only feasible using liquid biopsies. Patients with expression of NE genes while retaining AR-target gene expression may indicate the transition to neuroendocrine differentiation, with clinical characteristics consistent with this phenotype.FundingNIH (DP2 OD030734, 1UH2CA260389, R01CA247479, and P30 CA014520), Department of Defense (PC190039 and PC200334), and Prostate Cancer Foundation (Movember Foundation - PCF Challenge Award).

The Impact of PIK3R1 Mutations and Insulin-PI3K-Glycolytic Pathway Regulation in Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Oncogenic alterations of the PI3K/AKT pathway occur in >40% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, predominantly via PTEN loss. The significance of other PI3K pathway components in prostate cancer is largely unknown.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Patients in this study underwent tumor sequencing using the MSK-IMPACT clinical assay to capture single-nucleotide variants, insertions, and deletions; copy-number alterations; and structural rearrangements, or were profiled through The Cancer Genome Atlas. The association between PIK3R1 alteration/expression and survival was evaluated using univariable and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models. We used the siRNA-based knockdown of PIK3R1 for functional studies. FDG-PET/CT examinations were performed with a hybrid positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scanner for some prostate cancer patients in the MSK-IMPACT cohort.

RESULTS

Analyzing 1,417 human prostate cancers, we found a significant enrichment of PIK3R1 alterations in metastatic cancers compared with primary cancers. PIK3R1 alterations or reduced mRNA expression tended to be associated with worse clinical outcomes in prostate cancer, particularly in primary disease, as well as in breast, gastric, and several other cancers. In prostate cancer cell lines, PIK3R1 knockdown resulted in increased cell proliferation and AKT activity, including insulin-stimulated AKT activity. In cell lines and organoids, PIK3R1 loss/mutation was associated with increased sensitivity to AKT inhibitors. PIK3R1-altered patient prostate tumors had increased uptake of the glucose analogue 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in PET imaging, suggesting increased glycolysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings describe a novel genomic feature in metastatic prostate cancer and suggest that PIK3R1 alteration may be a key event for insulin-PI3K-glycolytic pathway regulation in prostate cancer.

Clinical annotations for prostate cancer research: Defining data elements, creating a reproducible analytical pipeline, and assessing data quality

BACKGROUND

Routine clinical data from clinical charts are indispensable for retrospective and prospective observational studies and clinical trials. Their reproducibility is often not assessed. We developed a prostate cancer-specific database for clinical annotations and evaluated data reproducibility.

METHODS

For men with prostate cancer who had clinical-grade paired tumor-normal sequencing at a comprehensive cancer center, we performed team-based retrospective data collection from the electronic medical record using a defined source hierarchy. We developed an open-source R package for data processing. With blinded repeat annotation by a reference medical oncologist, we assessed data completeness, reproducibility of team-based annotations, and impact of measurement error on bias in survival analyses.

RESULTS

Data elements on demographics, diagnosis and staging, disease state at the time of procuring a genomically characterized sample, and clinical outcomes were piloted and then abstracted for 2261 patients (with 2631 samples). Completeness of data elements was generally high. Comparing to the repeat annotation by a medical oncologist blinded to the database (100 patients/samples), reproducibility of annotations was high; T stage, metastasis date, and presence and date of castration resistance had lower reproducibility. Impact of measurement error on estimates for strong prognostic factors was modest.

CONCLUSIONS

With a prostate cancer-specific data dictionary and quality control measures, manual clinical annotations by a multidisciplinary team can be scalable and reproducible. The data dictionary and the R package for reproducible data processing are freely available to increase data quality and efficiency in clinical prostate cancer research.

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Statin and metformin use and outcomes in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide: A meta-analysis of AFFIRM, PREVAIL and PROSPER

BACKGROUND

Statins and metformin are commonly prescribed for patients, including those with prostate cancer. Preclinical and epidemiologic studies of each agent have suggested anti-cancer properties.

METHODS

Patient data from three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies evaluating enzalutamide (AFFIRM, PREVAIL and PROSPER) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer were included in this analysis. This post hoc, retrospective study examined the association of statin and metformin on radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), toxicity and overall survival (OS). After adjusting for available clinical prognostic variables, multivariate analyses were performed on pooled data from AFFIRM and PREVAIL, all three trials pooled, and each trial individually, to assess differential efficacy in these end-points associated with the baseline use of these medications.

RESULTS

In the multivariate analysis of the individual trials, OS and rPFS/MFS were not significantly influenced by statin or metformin use in AFFIRM or PROSPER. However, in PREVAIL, OS was significantly influenced by statin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.89) and rPFS was significantly influenced by metformin (HR, 0.48; 95% CI 0.34-0.70). In pooled analyses, improved OS was significantly associated with statin use but not metformin use for AFFIRM+PREVAIL trials (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.96) and AFFIRM+PREVAIL+PROSPER (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66-0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

The association between statin or metformin use and rPFS, MFS and OS was inconsistent across three trials. Analyses of all three trials pooled and AFFIRM+PREVAIL pooled revealed that statin but not metformin use was significantly associated with a reduced risk of death in enzalutamide-treated patients. Additional prospective, controlled studies are warranted.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

AFFIRM (NCT00974311), PREVAIL (NCT01212991) and PROSPER (NCT02003924).

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results from APCCC 2021.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.