PD-L1 expression and deficient mismatch repair in ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate

Comparison of Survival Outcomes and Risk Factors Between Ductal Carcinoma of the Prostate and Acinar Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: A Population-based Propensity Score-matching Study

Background

Ductal carcinoma of the prostate (DCP) is a rare type of prostate cancer (PCa) with a higher degree of infiltration and worse prognosis than acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate (ACP). Previous reports comparing DCP and ACP have not been very reliable and involved small sample sizes.

Objective

To assess differences in mortality between ACP and DCP in a large-scale study.

Design setting and participants

Data were downloaded from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database in June 2022. Data for 823 939 patients diagnosed with PCa from 2004 to 2019 were examined, excluding cases with survival data missing or pathological types other than DCP and ACP.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Prognostic and risk factors for DCP were analyzed by generating a propensity score-matched cohort of DCP and ACP cases (1:5). Adjusted Cox models were constructed to determine hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM).

Results and limitations

A total of 822 607 cases (99.8%) has ACP and 1332 (0.2%) had DCP. In comparison to ACP, age at diagnosis was significantly lower for DCP (≤66 yr: 38.0% vs 50.7%; p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of DCP patients distant metastases (13.7% vs 5.1%; p < 0.001). In comparison to the ACP group, significantly higher proportions of the DCP group underwent surgery (66.1% vs 38.1%; p < 0.001), radiotherapy (13.7% vs 3.1%; p < 0.001), or systemic therapy (18.2% vs 3.3%; p < 0.001). However, the median overall survival time was significantly shorter for DCP patients (44.0 vs 73.0 mo; p < 0.001). DCP patients also had higher risk of CSM (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.68-2.56; p < 0.001) and OM (HR 2.73 95% CI 2.42-3.08; p < 0.001) after propensity score matching to adjust for the influence of baseline variables. Subgroup analysis showed that DCP patients who had surgical treatment had better CSM than those without surgery, while DCP patients with regional and lower stage had better OM than those with distant stage (both p < 0.05 for interaction).

Conclusions

The risk of CSM and OM is significantly higher for DCP than for ACP. Earlier detection (lower stage) and surgical treatment are beneficial factors for DCP prognosis.

Patient summary

We studied survival rates for two different types of prostate cancer. We found that survival is worse for the rarer ductal carcinoma of the prostate (DCP) than for the more common acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Both early diagnosis when the cancer is at a lower stage and surgical treatment are beneficial for survival in patients with DCP.

Ductal and acinar components of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma frequently have a common clonal origin

BACKGROUND

Ductal adenocarcinoma (DA) is an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer. It is most commonly seen in mixed tumors together with conventional acinar adenocarcinoma (AA). The genetic profile of DA and its clonal origin is not fully characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether DA represents a distinct genetic subtype and to investigate the somatic relationship between the ductal and acinar components of mixed cancers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In 17 radical prostatectomy specimens ductal and acinar tumor components from the same tumor foci were dissected. DNA was extracted and genomic sequencing performed. After exclusion of two cases with low cell yield, 15 paired samples remained for analysis.

RESULTS

In 12 of 15 cases a common somatic denominator was identified, while three cases had clonally separate components. In DA, TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions were detected in 47% (7/15), clonal FOXA1 alterations in 33% (5/15) and SPOP alterations in 27% (4/15) of cases. In one case KIAA1549-BRAF fusion was identified. Genome doubling events, resulting in an increased ploidy, were identified in the DA in 53% (8/15) of cases, but not seen in any AA. PTEN and CTNNB1 alterations were enriched in DA (6/15) but not seen in any AA. No cancers showed microsatellite instability or high tumor mutation burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Ductal and acinar prostate adenocarcinoma components of mixed tumors most often share the same origin and are clonally related. DA components in mixed tumor often exhibit genome doubling events resulting in aneuploidy, consistent with the aggressive nature of high grade prostate cancer.

What Do We Have to Know about PD-L1 Expression in Prostate Cancer? A Systematic Literature Review (Part 6): Correlation of PD-L1 Expression with the Status of Mismatch Repair System, BRCA, PTEN, and Other Genes

Pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) is allowed in selected metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PC) patients showing microsatellite instability/mismatch repair system deficiency (MSI-H/dMMR). BRCA1/2 loss-of-function is linked to hereditary PCs and homologous recombination DNA-repair system deficiency: poly-ADP-ribose-polymerase inhibitors can be administered to BRCA-mutated PC patients. Recently, docetaxel-refractory metastatic castration-resistant PC patients with BRCA1/2 or ATM somatic mutations had higher response rates to pembrolizumab. PTEN regulates cell cycle/proliferation/apoptosis through pathways including the AKT/mTOR, which upregulates PD-L1 expression in PC. Our systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines) investigated the potential correlations between PD-L1 and MMR/MSI/BRCA/PTEN statuses in PC, discussing few other relevant genes. Excluding selection biases, 74/677 (11%) PCs showed dMMR/MSI; 8/67 (12%) of dMMR/MSI cases were PD-L1+. dMMR-PCs included ductal (3%) and acinar (14%) PCs (all cases tested for MSI were acinar-PCs). In total, 15/39 (39%) PCs harbored BRCA1/2 aberrations: limited data are available for PD-L1 expression in these patients. 13/137 (10%) PTEN- PCs were PD-L1+; 10/29 (35%) PD-L1+ PCs showed PTEN negativity. SPOP mutations may increase PD-L1 levels, while the potential correlation between PD-L1 and ERG expression in PC should be clarified. Further research should verify how the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors in metastatic castration-resistant PCs is related to dMMR/MSI, DNA-damage repair genes defects, or PD-L1 expression.

What Do We Have to Know about PD-L1 Expression in Prostate Cancer? A Systematic Literature Review. Part 7: PD-L1 Expression in Liquid Biopsy

Liquid biopsy is an accessible, non-invasive diagnostic tool for advanced prostate cancer (PC) patients, potentially representing a real-time monitoring test for tumor evolution and response to treatment through the analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and exosomes. We performed a systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines) to describe the current knowledge about PD-L1 expression in liquid biopsies of PC patients: 101/159 (64%) cases revealed a variable number of PD-L1+ CTCs. Outcome correlations should be investigated in larger series. Nuclear PD-L1 expression by CTCs was occasionally associated with worse prognosis. Treatment (abiraterone, enzalutamide, radiotherapy, checkpoint-inhibitors) influenced PD-L1+ CTC levels. Discordance in PD-L1 status was detected between primary vs. metastatic PC tissue biopsies and CTCs vs. corresponding tumor tissues. PD-L1 is also released by PC cells through soluble exosomes, which could inhibit the T cell function, causing immune evasion. PD-L1+ PC-CTC monitoring and genomic profiling may better characterize the ongoing aggressive PC forms compared to PD-L1 evaluation on primary tumor biopsies/prostatectomy specimens (sometimes sampled a long time before recurrence/progression). Myeloid-derived suppressor cells and dendritic cells (DCs), which may have immune-suppressive effects in tumor microenvironment, have been found in PC patients circulation, sometimes expressing PD-L1. Occasionally, their levels correlated to clinical outcome. Enzalutamide-progressing castration-resistant PC patients revealed increased PD-1+ T cells and circulating PD-L1/2+ DCs.

What Do We Have to Know about PD-L1 Expression in Prostate Cancer? A Systematic Literature Review. Part 5: Epigenetic Regulation of PD-L1

Epigenetic alterations (including DNA methylation or miRNAs) influence oncogene/oncosuppressor gene expression without changing the DNA sequence. Prostate cancer (PC) displays a complex genetic and epigenetic regulation of cell-growth pathways and tumor progression. We performed a systematic literature review (following PRISMA guidelines) focused on the epigenetic regulation of PD-L1 expression in PC. In PC cell lines, CpG island methylation of the CD274 promoter negatively regulated PD-L1 expression. Histone modifiers also influence the PD-L1 transcription rate: the deletion or silencing of the histone modifiers MLL3/MML1 can positively regulate PD-L1 expression. Epigenetic drugs (EDs) may be promising in reprogramming tumor cells, reversing epigenetic modifications, and cancer immune evasion. EDs promoting a chromatin-inactive transcriptional state (such as bromodomain or p300/CBP inhibitors) downregulated PD-L1, while EDs favoring a chromatin-active state (i.e., histone deacetylase inhibitors) increased PD-L1 expression. miRNAs can regulate PD-L1 at a post-transcriptional level. miR-195/miR-16 were negatively associated with PD-L1 expression and positively correlated to longer biochemical recurrence-free survival; they also enhanced the radiotherapy efficacy in PC cell lines. miR-197 and miR-200a-c positively correlated to PD-L1 mRNA levels and inversely correlated to the methylation of PD-L1 promoter in a large series. miR-570, miR-34a and miR-513 may also be involved in epigenetic regulation.

What Do We Have to Know about PD-L1 Expression in Prostate Cancer? A Systematic Literature Review. Part 3: PD-L1, Intracellular Signaling Pathways and Tumor Microenvironment

The tumor microenvironment (TME) includes immune (T, B, NK, dendritic), stromal, mesenchymal, endothelial, adipocytic cells, extracellular matrix, and cytokines/chemokines/soluble factors regulating various intracellular signaling pathways (ISP) in tumor cells. TME influences the survival/progression of prostate cancer (PC), enabling tumor cell immune-evasion also through the activation of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis. We have performed a systematic literature review according to the PRISMA guidelines, to investigate how the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is influenced by TME and ISPs. Tumor immune-escape mechanisms include suppression/exhaustion of tumor infiltrating cytotoxic T lymphocytes, inhibition of tumor suppressive NK cells, increase in immune-suppressive immune cells (regulatory T, M2 macrophagic, myeloid-derived suppressor, dendritic, stromal, and adipocytic cells). IFN-γ (the most investigated factor), TGF-β, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-17, IL-15, IL-27, complement factor C5a, and other soluble molecules secreted by TME components (and sometimes increased in patients' serum), as well as and hypoxia, influenced the regulation of PD-L1. Experimental studies using human and mouse PC cell lines (derived from either androgen-sensitive or androgen-resistant tumors) revealed that the intracellular ERK/MEK, Akt-mTOR, NF-kB, WNT and JAK/STAT pathways were involved in PD-L1 upregulation in PC. Blocking the PD-1/PD-L1 signaling by using immunotherapy drugs can prevent tumor immune-escape, increasing the anti-tumor activity of immune cells.

What Do We Have to Know about PD-L1 Expression in Prostate Cancer? A Systematic Literature Review. Part 1: Focus on Immunohistochemical Results with Discussion of Pre-Analytical and Interpretation Variables

Immunotherapy targeting the PD-1-PD-L1 axis yielded good results in treating different immunologically ''hot'' tumors. A phase II study revealed good therapeutic activity of pembrolizumab in selected prostatic carcinoma (PC)-patients. We performed a systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines), which analyzes the immunohistochemical expression of PD-L1 in human PC samples and highlights the pre-analytical and interpretation variables. Interestingly, 29% acinar PCs, 7% ductal PCs, and 46% neuroendocrine carcinomas/tumors were PD-L1+ on immunohistochemistry. Different scoring methods or cut-off criteria were applied on variable specimen-types, evaluating tumors showing different clinic-pathologic features. The positivity rate of different PD-L1 antibody clones in tumor cells ranged from 3% (SP142) to 50% (ABM4E54), excluding the single case tested for RM-320. The most tested clone was E1L3N, followed by 22C3 (most used for pembrolizumab eligibility), SP263, SP142, and 28-8, which gave the positivity rates of 35%, 11-41% (depending on different scoring systems), 6%, 3%, and 15%, respectively. Other clones were tested in <200 cases. The PD-L1 positivity rate was usually higher in tumors than benign tissues. It was higher in non-tissue microarray specimens (41-50% vs. 15%), as PC cells frequently showed heterogenous or focal PD-L1-staining. PD-L1 was expressed by immune or stromal cells in 12% and 69% cases, respectively. Tumor heterogeneity, inter-institutional preanalytics, and inter-observer interpretation variability may account for result biases.

What Do We Have to Know about PD-L1 Expression in Prostate Cancer? A Systematic Literature Review. Part 4: Experimental Treatments in Pre-Clinical Studies (Cell Lines and Mouse Models)

In prostate cancer (PC), the PD-1/PD-L1 axis regulates various signaling pathways and it is influenced by extracellular factors. Pre-clinical experimental studies investigating the effects of various treatments (alone or combined) may discover how to overcome the immunotherapy-resistance in PC-patients. We performed a systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines) to delineate the landscape of pre-clinical studies (including cell lines and mouse models) that tested treatments with effects on PD-L1 signaling in PC. NF-kB, MEK, JAK, or STAT inhibitors on human/mouse, primary/metastatic PC-cell lines variably down-modulated PD-L1-expression, reducing chemoresistance and tumor cell migration. If PC-cells were co-cultured with NK, CD8+ T-cells or CAR-T cells, the immune cell cytotoxicity increased when PD-L1 was downregulated (opposite effects for PD-L1 upregulation). In mouse models, radiotherapy, CDK4/6-inhibitors, and RB deletion induced PD-L1-upregulation, causing PC-immune-evasion. Epigenetic drugs may reduce PD-L1 expression. In some PC experimental models, blocking only the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway had limited efficacy in reducing the tumor growth. Anti-tumor effects could be increased by combining the PD-1/PD-L1 blockade with other approaches (inhibitors of tyrosine kinase, PI3K/mTOR or JAK/STAT3 pathways, p300/CBP; anti-RANKL and/or anti-CTLA-4 antibodies; cytokines; nitroxoline; DNA/cell vaccines; radiotherapy/Radium-223).

What Do We Have to Know about PD-L1 Expression in Prostate Cancer? A Systematic Literature Review. Part 2: Clinic-Pathologic Correlations

Many studies have investigated the potential prognostic and predictive role of PD-L1 in prostatic carcinoma (PC). We performed a systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines) to critically evaluate human tissue-based studies (immunohistochemistry, molecular analysis, etc.), experimental research (cell lines, mouse models), and clinical trials. Despite some controversial results and study limitations, PD-L1 expression by tumor cells may be related to clinic-pathologic features of adverse outcome, including advanced tumor stage (high pT, presence of lymph node, and distant metastases), positivity of surgical margins, high Grade Group, and castration resistance. Different PD-L1 positivity rates may be observed in matched primary PCs and various metastatic sites of the same patients. Over-fixation, type/duration of decalcification, and PD-L1 antibody clone may influence the immunohistochemical analysis of PD-L1 on bone metastases. PD-L1 seemed expressed more frequently by castration-resistant PCs (49%) as compared to hormone-sensitive PCs (17%). Some series found that PD-L1 positivity was associated with decreased time to castration resistance. Treatment with ipilimumab, cyclophosphamide/GVAX/degarelix, or degarelix alone may increase PD-L1 expression. Correlation of PD-L1 positivity with overall survival and outcomes related to tumor recurrence were rarely investigated; the few analyzed series produced conflicting results and sometimes showed limitations. Further studies are required. The testing and scoring of PD-L1 should be standardized.

Optimizing the diagnosis and management of ductal prostate cancer

Ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is the most common variant histological subtype of prostate carcinoma and has an aggressive clinical course. DAC is usually characterized and treated as high-risk prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma (PAC). However, DAC has a different biology to that of acinar disease, which often poses a challenge for both diagnosis and management. DAC can be difficult to identify using conventional diagnostic modalities such as serum PSA levels and multiparametric MRI, and the optimal management for localized DAC is unknown owing to the rarity of the disease. Following definitive therapy for localized disease with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, the majority of DACs recur with visceral metastases at low PSA levels. Various systemic therapies that have been shown to be effective in high-risk PAC have limited use in treating DAC. Although current understanding of the biology of DAC is limited, genomic analyses have provided insights into the pathology behind its aggressive behaviour and potential future therapeutic targets.