Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Oligoprogression in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Early Toxicity Analysis of the TRAP Trial.

AIMS: To assess toxicity and patient quality of life after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to oligoprogressive disease (OPD) in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) on androgen receptor targeted agents (ARTA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This phase II trial enrolled patients with metastatic CRPC with ≤ 2 oligoprogressive lesions in bone, lymph node, lung, or prostate. All patients were receiving systemic treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide at the time of oligoprogression. All patients received SBRT to the OPD site(s) and continued the current ARTA. Patients received 30 Gy in 5 fractions (alternate days) to the OPD site. The primary endpoint of the trial is to assess if SBRT to OPD sites results in progression free survival of >6 months. The primary endpoint for this toxicity analysis is the rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events at any timepoint up to 6 months after SBRT. Secondary endpoints included comparing pre- and post-SBRT patient-related outcomes reported using visual analogue scale scores and EQ-5D health questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty enrolled patients had at least 6 months of follow-up at the time of analysis. Grade 3 or higher toxicity from any cause recorded using common terminology criteria for adverse events and radiation therapy oncology group was found in 8/40 (20%) of patients, but only 1/40 (2.5%) was deemed possibly related to SBRT. There was no significant difference in mean EQ5D visual analogue scale score from baseline to each timepoint after SBRT (p = 0.449). CONCLUSION: In this prospective phase II clinical trial for OPD whilst on ARTA in the CRPC setting, we report low grade ≥ 3 toxicity after SBRT. There is no discernible change in patient-reported quality of life due to SBRT treatment. The final results of progression-free survival and toxicity of SBRT treatment will be reported once further follow-up is complete.

Niraparib plus abiraterone acetate with prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations: second interim analysis of the randomized phase III MAGNITUDE trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and BRCA alterations have poor outcomes. MAGNITUDE found patients with homologous recombination repair gene alterations (HRR+), particularly BRCA1/2, benefit from first-line therapy with niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP). Here we report longer follow-up from the second prespecified interim analysis (IA2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRPC were prospectively identified as HRR+ with/without BRCA1/2 alterations and randomized 1 : 1 to niraparib (200 mg orally) plus AAP (1000 mg/10 mg orally) or placebo plus AAP. At IA2, secondary endpoints [time to symptomatic progression, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, overall survival (OS)] were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 212 HRR+ patients received niraparib plus AAP (BRCA1/2 subgroup, n = 113). At IA2 with 24.8 months of median follow-up in the BRCA1/2 subgroup, niraparib plus AAP significantly prolonged radiographic progression-free survival {rPFS; blinded independent central review; median rPFS 19.5 versus 10.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.78]; nominal P = 0.0007} consistent with the first prespecified interim analysis. rPFS was also prolonged in the total HRR+ population [HR = 0.76 (95% CI 0.60-0.97); nominal P = 0.0280; median follow-up 26.8 months]. Improvements in time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy were observed with niraparib plus AAP. In the BRCA1/2 subgroup, the analysis of OS with niraparib plus AAP demonstrated an HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58-1.34; nominal P = 0.5505); the prespecified inverse probability censoring weighting analysis of OS, accounting for imbalances in subsequent use of poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors and other life-prolonging therapies, demonstrated an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90; nominal P = 0.0181). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: MAGNITUDE, enrolling the largest BRCA1/2 cohort in first-line mCRPC to date, demonstrated improved rPFS and other clinically relevant outcomes with niraparib plus AAP in patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC, emphasizing the importance of identifying this molecular subset of patients.

The STAMPEDE2 Trial: a Site Survey of Current Patterns of Care, Access to Imaging and Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

AIMS: The forthcoming STAMPEDE2 trial has three comparisons in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. We aim to determine clinical practices among STAMPEDE trial investigators for access to imaging and therapeutic choices and explore their interest in participation in STAMPEDE2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey was developed and distributed online to 120 UK STAMPEDE trial sites. Recipients were invited to complete the survey between 16 and 30 May 2022. The survey consisted of 30 questions in five sections on access to stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR), 177lutetium-prostate-specific membrane antigen-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617), choice of systemic therapies and use of positron emission tomography/computerised tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: From 58/120 (48%) sites, 64 respondents completed the survey: 55/64 (86%) respondents were interested to participate in SABR, 44/64 (69%) in 177Lu-PSMA-617 and 56/64 (87.5%) in niraparib with abiraterone comparisons; 45/64 (70%) respondents had access to bone, spine and lymph node metastases SABR delivery and 7/64 (11%) to 177Lu-PSMA-617. In addition to androgen deprivation therapy, 60/64 (94%) respondents used androgen receptor signalling inhibitors and 46/64 (72%) used docetaxel; 29/64 (45%) respondents would consider triplet therapy with androgen deprivation therapy, androgen receptor signalling inhibitors and docetaxel. Positron emission tomography/computerised tomography was available to 62/64 (97%) respondents and requested by 45/64 (70%) respondents for disease uncertainty on conventional imaging and 39/64 (61%) at disease relapse. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was available to 24/64 (38%) respondents and requested by 13/64 (20%) respondents in highly selected patients. In low-volume disease, 38/64 (59%) respondents requested scans at baseline and disease relapse. In high-volume disease, 29/64 (45%) respondents requested scans at baseline, best response (at prostate-specific antigen nadir) and disease relapse; 54/64 (84%) respondents requested computerised tomography and bone scan for best response assessment. CONCLUSION: There is noteworthy disparity in clinical practice across current study sites, however most have expressed an interest in participation in the forthcoming STAMPEDE2 trial.

Transcriptomic and clinical heterogeneity of metastatic disease timing within metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is commonly classified into high- and low-volume subgroups which have demonstrated differential biology, prognosis, and response to therapy. Timing of metastasis has similarly demonstrated differences in clinical outcomes; however, less is known about any underlying biologic differences between these disease states. Herein, we aim to compare transcriptomic differences between synchronous and metachronous mCSPC and identify any differential responses to therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed an international multi-institutional retrospective review of men with mCSPC who completed RNA expression profiling evaluation of their primary tumor. Patients were stratified according to disease timing (synchronous versus metachronous). The primary endpoint was to identify differences in transcriptomic profiles between disease timing. The median transcriptomic scores between groups were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary analyses included determining clinical and transcriptomic variables associated with overall survival (OS) from the time of metastasis. Survival analysis was carried out with the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients were included with a median follow-up of 39.6 months. Patients with synchronous disease experienced worse 5-year OS (39% versus 79%; P < 0.01) and demonstrated lower median androgen receptor (AR) activity (11.78 versus 12.64; P < 0.01) and hallmark androgen response (HAR; 3.15 versus 3.32; P < 0.01). Multivariable Cox regression identified only high-volume disease [hazard ratio (HR) = 4.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.71-9.10; P < 0.01] and HAR score (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.88; P = 0.02) significantly associated with OS. Finally, patients with synchronous (HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.72; P < 0.01) but not metachronous (HR = 1.37, 95% CI 0.50-3.92; P = 0.56) disease were found to have better OS with AR and non-AR combination therapy as compared with monotherapy (P value for interaction = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated a potential biologic difference between metastatic timing of mCSPC. Specifically, for patients with low-volume disease, those with metachronous low-volume disease have a more hormone-dependent transcriptional profile and exhibit a better prognosis than synchronous low-volume disease.

ESMO recommendations on the use of circulating tumour DNA assays for patients with cancer: a report from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group.

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) assays conducted on plasma are rapidly developing a strong evidence base for use in patients with cancer. The European Society for Medical Oncology convened an expert working group to review the analytical and clinical validity and utility of ctDNA assays. For patients with advanced cancer, validated and adequately sensitive ctDNA assays have utility in identifying actionable mutations to direct targeted therapy, and may be used in routine clinical practice, provided the limitations of the assays are taken into account. Tissue-based testing remains the preferred test for many cancer patients, due to limitations of ctDNA assays detecting fusion events and copy number changes, although ctDNA assays may be routinely used when faster results will be clinically important, or when tissue biopsies are not possible or inappropriate. Reflex tumour testing should be considered following a non-informative ctDNA result, due to false-negative results with ctDNA testing. In patients treated for early-stage cancers, detection of molecular residual disease or molecular relapse, has high evidence of clinical validity in anticipating future relapse in many cancers. Molecular residual disease/molecular relapse detection cannot be recommended in routine clinical practice, as currently there is no evidence for clinical utility in directing treatment. Additional potential applications of ctDNA assays, under research development and not recommended for routine practice, include identifying patients not responding to therapy with early dynamic changes in ctDNA levels, monitoring therapy for the development of resistance mutations before clinical progression, and in screening asymptomatic people for cancer. Recommendations for reporting of results, future development of ctDNA assays and future clinical research are made.

ReIMAGINE: a prostate cancer research consortium with added value through its patient and public involvement and engagement.

BACKGROUND: ReIMAGINE aims to improve the current prostate specific antigen (PSA)/biopsy risk stratification for prostate cancer (PCa) and develop a new image-based method (with biomarkers) for diagnosing high/low risk PCa in men. ReIMAGINE's varied patient and public involvement (PPI) and engagement (PE) strategy maximises the impact of its scientific output by informing and shaping the different stages of research. AIMS: Through including the voice of patients and the public, the ReIMAGINE Consortium aims to translate these different perspectives into the design and implementation process. This will improve the overall quality of the research by: reflecting the needs and priorities of patients and the public, ensuring methods and procedures are feasible and appropriate ensuring information is relevant and accessible to those being recruited to the study identifying dissemination channels relevant to patients/the public and developing outputs that are accessible to a lay audience With support from our patient/user groups, the ReIMAGINE Consortium aims to improve our ability to derive prognostic information and allocate men to the most appropriate and effective therapies, using a novel image-based risk stratification with investigation of non-imaging biomarkers. FINDINGS: We have been working with patients and the public from initiation of the project to ensure that the research is relevant to men and their families. Our PPI Sub-Committee, led by a PCa patient, has been involved in our dissemination strategy, outreach activities, and study design recommendations. For example, the sub-committee have developed a variety of informative videos relevant and accessible to those being recruited, and organised multiple online research engagement events that are accessible to a lay audience. As quoted by one of the study participants, "the more we present the benefits and opportunities to patients and the public, the more research commitment we obtain, and the sooner critical clinical questions such as PCa diagnostics will be addressed".

One in eight men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa). Most will not die of it, but our ability to identify those men whose cancer poses the greatest threat to life has, thus far, been poor. Some men are diagnosed with small cancers which will never cause them a problem, some will have treatment which is unnecessary, others will have their cancers missed, and others will be misclassified as either having low risk cancer and will therefore miss out on the appropriate treatment, or told their cancer is high risk and have unnecessary treatment. Nowhere else in modern medicine are these errors of over-diagnosis, over-treatment, missed-diagnoses, and poor risk-stratification more common. The ReIMAGINE Consortium has been developed to undertake discoveries that will correct these four key errors in the PCa diagnostic pathway. We will investigate how to best identify which men have, or will develop, aggressive prostate cancer using imaging combined with advanced biomarker analyses of blood and urine (i.e., OMICs technologies such as whole genome sequencing, targeted sequencing (e.g.: = , methylation). We will achieve this by building on established partnerships between patients, advocacy organisations, clinicians, imaging experts, molecular biologists, methodologists, and a broad range of industrial partners.The Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) sub-committee is an integral part of the study workflow, contributing to study design and recruitment, results analysis, and dissemination. The committee, led by a funded PPI co-ordinator and a patient chair, have given invaluable insight into the study modifications due to COVID-19 restrictions.

Single-cell ATAC and RNA sequencing reveal pre-existing and persistent cells associated with prostate cancer relapse.

Prostate cancer is heterogeneous and patients would benefit from methods that stratify those who are likely to respond to systemic therapy. Here, we employ single-cell assays for transposase-accessible chromatin (ATAC) and RNA sequencing in models of early treatment response and resistance to enzalutamide. In doing so, we identify pre-existing and treatment-persistent cell subpopulations that possess regenerative potential when subjected to treatment. We find distinct chromatin landscapes associated with enzalutamide treatment and resistance that are linked to alternative transcriptional programs. Transcriptional profiles characteristic of persistent cells are able to stratify the treatment response of patients. Ultimately, we show that defining changes in chromatin and gene expression in single-cell populations from pre-clinical models can reveal as yet unrecognized molecular predictors of treatment response. This suggests that the application of single-cell methods with high analytical resolution in pre-clinical models may powerfully inform clinical decision-making.

Transcriptional profiling of primary prostate tumor in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and association with clinical outcomes: correlative analysis of the E3805 CHAARTED trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase III CHAARTED trial established upfront androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel (D) as a standard for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) based on meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS). Biological prognostic markers of outcomes and predictors of chemotherapy benefit are undefined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Whole transcriptomic profiling was performed on primary PC tissue obtained from patients enrolled in CHAARTED prior to systemic therapy. We adopted an a priori analytical plan to test defined RNA signatures and their associations with HSPC clinical phenotypes and outcomes. Multivariable analyses (MVAs) were adjusted for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, de novo metastasis presentation, volume of disease, and treatment arm. The primary endpoint was OS; the secondary endpoint was time to castration-resistant PC. RESULTS: The analytic cohort of 160 patients demonstrated marked differences in transcriptional profile compared with localized PC, with a predominance of luminal B (50%) and basal (48%) subtypes, lower androgen receptor activity (AR-A), and high Decipher risk disease. Luminal B subtype was associated with poorer prognosis on ADT alone but benefited significantly from ADT + D [OS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.45; P = 0.007], in contrast to basal subtype which showed no OS benefit (HR 0.85; P = 0.58), even in those with high-volume disease. Higher Decipher risk and lower AR-A were significantly associated with poorer OS in MVA. In addition, higher Decipher risk showed greater improvements in OS with ADT + D (HR 0.41; P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the utility of transcriptomic subtyping to guide prognostication in mHSPC and potential selection of patients for chemohormonal therapy, and provides proof of concept for the possibility of biomarker-guided selection of established combination therapies in mHSPC.

Plasma tumor gene conversions after one cycle abiraterone acetate for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a biomarker analysis of a multicenter international trial.

BACKGROUND: Plasma tumor DNA fraction is prognostic in metastatic cancers. This could improve risk stratification before commencing a new treatment. We hypothesized that a second sample collected after one cycle of treatment could refine outcome prediction of patients identified as poor prognosis based on plasma DNA collected pre-treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Plasma DNA [128 pre-treatment, 134 cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1), and 49 progression] from 151 chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients in a phase II study of abiraterone acetate (NCT01867710) were subjected to custom targeted next-generation sequencing covering exons of these genes: TP53, AR, RB1, PTEN, PIK3CA, BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CDK12, CHEK2, FANCA HDAC2 and PALB2. We also captured 1500 pan-genome regions enriched for single nucleotide polymorphisms to allow detection of tumor DNA using the rolling B-allele method. We tested associations with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Plasma tumor DNA detection was associated with shorter OS [hazard ratio (HR): 2.89, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.77-4.73, P ≤ 0.0001] and PFS (HR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.36-3.11, P < 0.001). Using a multivariable model including plasma tumor DNA, patients who had a TP53, RB1 or PTEN gene alteration pre-treatment and at C2D1 had a significantly shorter OS than patients with no alteration at either time point (TP53: HR 7.13, 95% CI 2.37-21.47, P < 0.001; RB1: HR 6.24, 95% CI 1.97-19.73, P = 0.002; PTEN: HR 11.9, 95% CI 3.6-39.34, P < 0.001). Patients who were positive pre-treatment and converted to undetectable had no evidence of a difference in survival compared with those who were undetectable pre-treatment (P = 0.48, P = 0.43, P = 0.5, respectively). Progression samples harbored AR gain in all patients who had gain pre-treatment (9/49) and de novo AR somatic point mutations were detected in 8/49 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma gene testing after one cycle treatment refines prognostication and could provide an early indication of treatment benefit.

Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial.

BACKGROUND: STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients. METHODS: We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional. RESULTS: Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81, P < 0.001) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P > 0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression). CONCLUSIONS: The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden.

Adding abiraterone or docetaxel to long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer: directly randomised data from the STAMPEDE multi-arm, multi-stage platform protocol.

Background: Adding abiraterone acetate with prednisolone (AAP) or docetaxel with prednisolone (DocP) to standard-of-care (SOC) each improved survival in systemic therapy for advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: evaluation of drug efficacy: a multi-arm multi-stage platform randomised controlled protocol recruiting patients with high-risk locally advanced or metastatic PCa starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The protocol provides the only direct, randomised comparative data of SOC + AAP versus SOC + DocP. Method: Recruitment to SOC + DocP and SOC + AAP overlapped November 2011 to March 2013. SOC was long-term ADT or, for most non-metastatic cases, ADT for ≥2 years and RT to the primary tumour. Stratified randomisation allocated pts 2 : 1 : 2 to SOC; SOC + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 3-weekly×6 + prednisolone 10 mg daily; or SOC + abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg daily. AAP duration depended on stage and intent to give radical RT. The primary outcome measure was death from any cause. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. This was not a formally powered comparison. A hazard ratio (HR) <1 favours SOC + AAP, and HR > 1 favours SOC + DocP. Results: A total of 566 consenting patients were contemporaneously randomised: 189 SOC + DocP and 377 SOC + AAP. The patients, balanced by allocated treatment were: 342 (60%) M1; 429 (76%) Gleason 8-10; 449 (79%) WHO performance status 0; median age 66 years and median PSA 56 ng/ml. With median follow-up 4 years, 149 deaths were reported. For overall survival, HR = 1.16 (95% CI 0.82-1.65); failure-free survival HR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.67); progression-free survival HR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.48-0.88); metastasis-free survival HR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.57-1.03); prostate cancer-specific survival HR = 1.02 (0.70-1.49); and symptomatic skeletal events HR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.55-1.25). In the safety population, the proportion reporting ≥1 grade 3, 4 or 5 adverse events ever was 36%, 13% and 1% SOC + DocP, and 40%, 7% and 1% SOC + AAP; prevalence 11% at 1 and 2 years on both arms. Relapse treatment patterns varied by arm. Conclusions: This direct, randomised comparative analysis of two new treatment standards for hormone-naïve prostate cancer showed no evidence of a difference in overall or prostate cancer-specific survival, nor in other important outcomes such as symptomatic skeletal events. Worst toxicity grade over entire time on trial was similar but comprised different toxicities in line with the known properties of the drugs. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00268476.

Treatment-induced changes in the androgen receptor axis: Liquid biopsies as diagnostic/prognostic tools for prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer progression and treatment relapse is associated with changes in the androgen receptor axis, and analysis of alternations of androgen receptor signaling is valuable for prognostics and treatment optimization. The profile of androgen receptor axis is currently obtained from biopsy specimens, which are not always easy to obtain. Moreover, the information acquired only provides a snapshot of the tumor biology, with strict spatial and temporal limitations. On the other hand, circulation is easily accessible source of both circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA, which can be sampled at numerous time points. This Review will explore the potential use of androgen receptor axis alternations detectable in the blood in therapeutic decision-making and precision medicine for advancing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Intratumoural evolutionary landscape of high-risk prostate cancer: the PROGENY study of genomic and immune parameters.

BACKGROUND: Intratumoural heterogeneity (ITH) is well recognised in prostate cancer (PC), but its role in high-risk disease is uncertain. A prospective, single-arm, translational study using targeted multiregion prostate biopsies was carried out to study genomic and T-cell ITH in clinically high-risk PC aiming to identify drivers and potential therapeutic strategies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-nine men with elevated prostate-specific antigen and multiparametric-magnetic resonance imaging detected PC underwent image-guided multiregion transperineal biopsy. Seventy-nine tumour regions from 25 patients with PC underwent sequencing, analysis of mutations, copy number and neoepitopes combined with tumour infiltrating T-cell subset quantification. RESULTS: We demonstrated extensive somatic nucleotide variation and somatic copy number alteration heterogeneity in high-risk PC. Overall, the mutational burden was low (0.93/Megabase), but two patients had hypermutation, with loss of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, MSH2 and MSH6. Somatic copy number alteration burden was higher in patients with metastatic hormone-naive PC (mHNPC) than in those with high-risk localised PC (hrlPC), independent of Gleason grade. Mutations were rarely ubiquitous and mutational frequencies were similar for mHNPC and hrlPC patients. Enrichment of focal 3q26.2 and 3q21.3, regions containing putative metastasis drivers, was seen in mHNPC patients. We found evidence of parallel evolution with three separate clones containing activating mutations of ß-catenin in a single patient. We demonstrated extensive intratumoural and intertumoural T-cell heterogeneity and high inflammatory infiltrate in the MMR-deficient (MMRD) patients and the patient with parallel evolution of ß-catenin. Analysis of all patients with activating Wnt/ß-catenin mutations demonstrated a low CD8+/FOXP3+ ratio, a potential surrogate marker of immune evasion. CONCLUSIONS: The PROGENY (PROstate cancer GENomic heterogeneitY) study provides a diagnostic platform suitable for studying tumour ITH. Genetic aberrations in clinically high-risk PC are associated with altered patterns of immune infiltrate in tumours. Activating mutations of Wnt/ß-catenin signalling pathway or MMRD could be considered as potential biomarkers for immunomodulation therapies. CLINICAL TRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02022371.

Androgen receptor gene status in plasma DNA associates with worse outcome on enzalutamide or abiraterone for castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multi-institution correlative biomarker study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to identify biomarkers to guide personalized therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We aimed to clinically qualify androgen receptor (AR) gene status measurement in plasma DNA using multiplex droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in pre- and post-chemotherapy CRPC. METHODS: We optimized ddPCR assays for AR copy number and mutations and retrospectively analyzed plasma DNA from patients recruited to one of the three biomarker protocols with prospectively collected clinical data. We evaluated associations between plasma AR and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 73 chemotherapy-naïve and 98 post-docetaxel CRPC patients treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone (Primary cohort) and 94 chemotherapy-naïve patients treated with enzalutamide (Secondary cohort; PREMIERE trial). RESULTS: In the primary cohort, AR gain was observed in 10 (14%) chemotherapy-naïve and 33 (34%) post-docetaxel patients and associated with worse OS [hazard ratio (HR), 3.98; 95% CI 1.74-9.10; P < 0.001 and HR 3.81; 95% CI 2.28-6.37; P < 0.001, respectively], PFS (HR 2.18; 95% CI 1.08-4.39; P = 0.03, and HR 1.95; 95% CI 1.23-3.11; P = 0.01, respectively) and rate of PSA decline ≥50% [odds ratio (OR), 4.7; 95% CI 1.17-19.17; P = 0.035 and OR, 5.0; 95% CI 1.70-14.91; P = 0.003, respectively]. AR mutations [2105T>A (p.L702H) and 2632A>G (p.T878A)] were observed in eight (11%) post-docetaxel but no chemotherapy-naïve abiraterone-treated patients and were also associated with worse OS (HR 3.26; 95% CI 1.47-not reached; P = 0.004). There was no interaction between AR and docetaxel status (P = 0.83 for OS, P = 0.99 for PFS). In the PREMIERE trial, 11 patients (12%) with AR gain had worse PSA-PFS (sPFS) (HR 4.33; 95% CI 1.94-9.68; P < 0.001), radiographic-PFS (rPFS) (HR 8.06; 95% CI 3.26-19.93; P < 0.001) and OS (HR 11.08; 95% CI 2.16-56.95; P = 0.004). Plasma AR was an independent predictor of outcome on multivariable analyses in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: Plasma AR status assessment using ddPCR identifies CRPC with worse outcome to enzalutamide or abiraterone. Prospective evaluation of treatment decisions based on plasma AR is now required. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02288936 (PREMIERE trial).

Phase I/II trial of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing after docetaxel and abiraterone.

Background: Abiraterone and cabazitaxel improve survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We conducted an open-label phase I/II trial of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone to assess the antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with progressive mCRPC after docetaxel (phase I), and after docetaxel and abiraterone (phase II) (NCT01511536). Patients and methods: The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone (phase I), and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response defined as a ≥ 50% decrease confirmed ≥3 weeks later with this combination (phase II). Results: Ten patients were enrolled in the phase I component; nine were evaluable. No DLTs were identified. The MTD was established as the approved doses for both drugs (cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and abiraterone 1000 mg once daily). Daily abiraterone treatment did not impact on cabazitaxel clearance. Twenty-seven patients received cabazitaxel plus abiraterone plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) in phase II. The median number of cycles administered (cabazitaxel) was seven (range: 1-28). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events included asthenia (in 5 patients; 14%), neutropenia (in 5 patients; 14%) and diarrhea (in 3 patients; 8%). Nine patients (24%) required dose reductions of cabazitaxel. Of 26 evaluable patients, 12 achieved a PSA response [46%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 26.6-66.6%]. Median PSA-progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI: 4.1-10.3 months). Of 14 patients with measurable disease at baseline, 3 (21%) achieved a partial response per response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. Conclusions: The combination of cabazitaxel and abiraterone has a manageable safety profile and shows antitumor activity in patients previously treated with docetaxel and abiraterone.