IGFBP3 promotes resistance to Olaparib via modulating EGFR signaling in advanced prostate cancer.

Olaparib is a pioneering PARP inhibitor (PARPi) approved for treating castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) tumors harboring DNA repair defects, but clinical resistance has been documented. To study acquired resistance, we developed Olaparib-resistant (OlapR) cell lines through chronic Olaparib treatment of LNCaP and C4-2B cell lines. Here, we found that IGFBP3 is highly expressed in acquired (OlapR) and intrinsic (Rv1) models of Olaparib resistance. We show that IGFBP3 expression promotes Olaparib resistance by enhancing DNA repair capacity through activation of EGFR and DNA-PKcs. IGFBP3 depletion enhances efficacy of Olaparib by promoting DNA damage accumulation and subsequently, cell death in resistant models. Mechanistically, we show that silencing IGFBP3 or EGFR expression reduces cell viability and resensitizes OlapR cells to Olaparib treatment. Inhibition of EGFR by Gefitinib suppressed growth of OlapR cells and improved Olaparib sensitivity, thereby phenocopying IGFBP3 inhibition. Collectively, our results highlight IGFBP3 and EGFR as critical mediators of Olaparib resistance.

The Impact of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging and Tumor Molecular Profiling on Risk Stratification, Treatment Choice, and Oncological Outcomes of Patients with Primary or Relapsed Prostate Cancer: An International Collaborative Review of the Existing Literature.

CONTEXT: The clinical introduction of next-generation imaging methods and molecular biomarkers ("radiogenomics") has revolutionized the field of prostate cancer (PCa). While the clinical validity of these tests has thoroughly been vetted, their clinical utility remains a matter of investigation. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence to date on the impact of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and tissue-based prognostic biomarkers, including Decipher, Prolaris, and Oncotype Dx, on the risk stratification, treatment choice, and oncological outcomes of men with newly diagnosed PCa or those with biochemical failure (BCF). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a quantitative systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (2010-2022) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement guidelines. The validated Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 scoring system was used to assess the risk of bias. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 148 studies (130 on PET and 18 on biomarkers) were included. In the primary PCa setting, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET imaging was not useful in improving T staging, moderately useful in improving N staging, but consistently useful in improving M staging in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) unfavorable intermediate- to very-high-risk PCa. Its use led to a management change in 20-30% of patients. However, the effect of these treatment changes on survival outcomes was not clear. Similarly, biomarkers in the pretherapy primary PCa setting increased and decreased the risk, respectively, in 7-30% and 32-36% of NCCN low-risk and 31-65% and 4-15% of NCCN favorable intermediate-risk patients being considered for active surveillance. A change in management was noted in up to 65% of patients, with the change being in line with the molecular risk-based reclassification, but again, the impact of these changes on survival outcomes remained unclear. Notably, in the postsurgical primary PCa setting, biomarker-guided adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) was associated with improved oncological control: Δ↓ 2-yr BCF by 22% (level 2b). In the BCF setting, the data were more mature. PSMA PET was consistently useful in improving disease localization-Δ↑ detection for T, N, and M staging was 13-32%, 19-58%, and 9-29%, respectively. Between 29% and 73% of patients had a change in management. Most importantly, these management changes were associated with improved survival outcomes in three trials: Δ↑ 4-yr disease-free survival by 24.3%, Δ↑ 6-mo metastasis-free survival (MFS) by 46.7%, and Δ↑ androgen deprivation therapy-free survival by 8 mo in patients who received PET-concordant RT (level 1b-2b). Biomarker testing in these patients also appeared to be helpful in risk stratifying and guiding the use of early salvage RT (sRT) and concomitant hormonal therapy. Patients with high-genomic-risk scores benefitted from treatment intensification: Δ↑ 8-yr MFS by 20% with the use of early sRT and Δ↑ 12-yr MFS by 11.2% with the use of hormonal therapy alongside early sRT, while low-genomic-risk score patients did equally well with initial conservative management (level 3). CONCLUSIONS: Both PSMA PET imaging and tumor molecular profiling provide actionable information in the management of men with primary PCa and those with BCF. Emerging data suggest that radiogenomics-guided treatments translate into direct survival benefits for patients, however, additional prospective data are awaited. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we evaluated the utility of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography and tumor molecular profiling in guiding the care of men with prostate cancer (PCa). We found that these tests augmented risk stratification, altered management, and improved cancer control in men with a new diagnosis of PCa or for those experiencing a relapse.

Cardiovascular Effects of GnRH Antagonists Compared With Agonists in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Meta-analysis of small, oncology-focused trials suggest gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists may be associated with fewer adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. Objectives: This study sought to determine whether GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with GnRH agonists. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for all prospective, randomized trials comparing GnRH antagonists with agonists. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event as defined by the following standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms: "myocardial infarction," "central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions," and all-cause mortality. Bayesian meta-analysis models with random effects were fitted. Results: A total of 11 eligible studies of a maximum duration of 3 to 36 months (median = 12 months) enrolling 4,248 participants were included. Only 1 trial used a blinded, adjudicated event process, whereas potential bias persisted in all trials given their open-label design. A total of 152 patients with primary outcome events were observed, 76 of 2,655 (2.9%) in GnRH antagonist-treated participants and 76 of 1,593 (4.8%) in agonist-treated individuals. Compared with GnRH agonists, the pooled OR of GnRH antagonists for the primary endpoint was 0.57 (95% credible interval: 0.37-0.86) and 0.58 (95% credible interval: 0.32-1.08) for all-cause death. Conclusions: Despite the addition of the largest, dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, the volume and quality of available data to definitively answer this question remain suboptimal. Notwithstanding these limitations, the available data suggest that GnRH antagonists are associated with fewer cardiovascular events, and possibly mortality, compared with GnRH agonists.

Secondary Bladder Cancer After Prostate Cancer Treatment: An Age-matched Comparison Between Radiation and Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Secondary malignancy is a long-term risk of radiation. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer treatment has been associated with later development of bladder cancer and worse bladder cancer features. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide an updated comparison of the long-term risk of bladder cancer after different localized prostate cancer treatments. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry, we compared an age-matched subset of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) with those who underwent EBRT, brachytherapy (BT), EBRT + BT, and RP followed by EBRT (RPtoEBRT) between 2000 and 2018. Our final cohort included 261 609 patients with a median follow-up of 11.6 yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Our primary outcomes were time to bladder cancer diagnosis, muscle-invasive bladder cancer diagnosis, and bladder cancer death. We used cause-specific hazard models considering death as a competing event. A similar analysis was performed on lung cancer, as a surrogate marker for smoking. We also compared proportions of variant histology, high-grade, and invasive disease among bladder cancers that occurred after radiation versus RP using chi-square testing. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All radiation groups were associated with bladder cancer diagnosis; hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.72, 1.85, 1.80, and 1.53 for EBRT, BT, EBRT + BT, and RPtoEBRT, respectively, using RP as a referent (all p < 0.001). HRs for bladder cancer death were even higher: 2.39, 2.57, and 3.02 for EBRT, BT, and EBRT + BT, respectively (all p < 0.001), except for RPtoEBRT (HR 1.43, p = 0.28). Lung cancer diagnosis was also associated with radiation but at lower HRs-1.63, 1.32, 1.42, and 1.30 for EBRT, BT, EBRT + BT, and RPtoEBRT, respectively (all p < 0.001). There were a higher proportion of ≥T2, ≥T3, and sarcomatoid variant bladder cancers after radiation (all p < 0.01) CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing and dying from bladder cancer is increased in patients treated with radiation compared with those treated with RP. The risk was similar for BT and EBRT. Bladder cancers after radiation are more likely to be sarcomatoid variant and present as muscle invasive. PATIENT SUMMARY: We observed the rates of bladder cancer after patients had undergone surgery or radiation for prostate cancer, and found higher rates of bladder cancer after radiation. We also observed that bladder cancers that occur after radiation tend to be more aggressive.

The Metastatic Risk of Renal Cell Carcinoma by Primary Tumor Size and Subtype.

Background: Current data on the association between tumor size, subtype, and metastases, and thresholds for intervention, for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), are largely based on single-center nephrectomy registries that may under-represent those presenting with metastatic disease. Objective: We sought to assess tumor size and histologic subtype in relation to metastatic status at presentation for patients with RCC. Design setting and participants: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry data, we identified patients with a diagnosis of RCC made between 2004 and 2019, and a known size of primary tumor. We used nodal and metastatic TNM staging to assess metastatic disease at presentation. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We report the proportion of metastatic disease across varying tumor sizes for clear cell (ccRCC), papillary (pRCC), and chromophobe (chRCC) RCC. We also examine sarcomatoid RCC and RCC with sarcomatoid features (sarcRCC). Logistic regression models were used to model the likelihood of metastatic disease for each histologic subtype. Results and limitations: Of 181 096 RCC patients included, 23 829 had metastatic disease. For any RCC, metastatic rates of 3.6%, 13.1%, 30.3%, and 45.1% were observed for tumors ≤4, 4-≤7, 7-≤10, and >10 cm, respectively. Metastatic rates of chRCC were low at even large sizes, 11.0% at >10 cm. In contrast, sarcRCC had high metastatic rates at all sizes, 27.1% at ≤4 cm. Metastatic rates for ccRCC and pRCC increased steadily above 3 cm. For any RCC and each evaluated subtype, tumor size was found to be associated with metastatic disease on logistic regression (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The likelihood of a renal mass being metastatic varies greatly with both its subtype and size. We report higher likelihoods of metastatic disease across tumor sizes compared with what has been reported previously. These results may help clinicians pick appropriate thresholds for intervention and candidates for active surveillance. Patient summary: We find that the metastatic probability of renal cell carcinoma varies greatly with subtype and increases with tumor size.

The Genomic and Epigenomic Landscape of Double-Negative Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Systemic targeted therapy in prostate cancer is primarily focused on ablating androgen signaling. Androgen deprivation therapy and second-generation androgen receptor (AR)-targeted therapy selectively favor the development of treatment-resistant subtypes of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), defined by AR and neuroendocrine (NE) markers. Molecular drivers of double-negative (AR-/NE-) mCRPC are poorly defined. In this study, we comprehensively characterized treatment-emergent mCRPC by integrating matched RNA sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, and whole-genome bisulfite sequencing from 210 tumors. AR-/NE- tumors were clinically and molecularly distinct from other mCRPC subtypes, with the shortest survival, amplification of the chromatin remodeler CHD7, and PTEN loss. Methylation changes in CHD7 candidate enhancers were linked to elevated CHD7 expression in AR-/NE+ tumors. Genome-wide methylation analysis nominated Krüppel-like factor 5 (KLF5) as a driver of the AR-/NE- phenotype, and KLF5 activity was linked to RB1 loss. These observations reveal the aggressiveness of AR-/NE- mCRPC and could facilitate the identification of therapeutic targets in this highly aggressive disease. SIGNIFICANCE: Comprehensive characterization of the five subtypes of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer identified transcription factors that drive each subtype and showed that the double-negative subtype has the worst prognosis.

Androgen receptor blockade resistance with enzalutamide in prostate cancer results in immunosuppressive alterations in the tumor immune microenvironment.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggest that patients with enzalutamide-treated prostate cancer with increased programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression may benefit from anti-PD-L1 treatment. Unfortunately, the Phase III IMbassador250 clinical trial revealed that the combination of atezolizumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor) and enzalutamide failed to extend overall survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, the mechanisms underlying treatment failure remain unknown. METHODS: Human CRPC C4-2B cells and murine Myc-CaP cells were chronically exposed to increasing concentrations of enzalutamide and the cells resistant to enzalutamide were referred to as C4-2B MDVR and Myc-CaP MDVR, respectively. The mechanisms of action in drug-resistant prostate cancer cells were determined using RNA sequencing analyses, RNA interference, real-time PCR, western blotting, and co-culturing technologies. Myc-CaP and Myc-CaP MDVR tumors were established in syngeneic FVB mice, and tumor-infiltrating leukocytes were isolated after enzalutamide treatment. The stained immune cells were determined by flow cytometry, and the data were analyzed using FlowJo. RESULTS: Immune-related signaling pathways (interferon alpha/gamma response, inflammatory response, and cell chemotaxis) were suppressed in human enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer cells. PD-L1 was overexpressed and negatively regulated by androgen receptor signaling in resistant cells and patient with CRPC cohorts. Enzalutamide treatment decreased CD8+ T-cell numbers but increased monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell (M-MDSC) populations and PD-L1 expression within murine Myc-CaP tumors. Similarly, chemotaxis and immune response-regulating signaling pathways were suppressed, and PD-L1 expression was also increased using enzalutamide-resistant Myc-CaP MDVR cells. Notably, MDSC populations were significantly increased in Myc-CaP MDVR orthotopic tumors compared with those in Myc-CaP parental tumors. Co-culturing bone marrow cells with Myc-CaP MDVR cells significantly promoted MDSC differentiation and shifted towards M2 macrophage skewing. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that immunosuppressive signaling can be promoted directly by enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer cells and may be a potential means by which the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer is diminished.

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.

Allosteric inhibition of HSP70 in collaboration with STUB1 augments enzalutamide efficacy in antiandrogen resistant prostate tumor and patient-derived models.

Ubiquitin proteasome activity is suppressed in enzalutamide resistant prostate cancer cells, and the heat shock protein 70/STIP1 homology and U-box-containing protein 1 (HSP70/STUB1) machinery are involved in androgen receptor (AR) and AR variant protein stabilization. Targeting HSP70 could be a viable strategy to overcome resistance to androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) in advanced prostate cancer. Here, we showed that a novel HSP70 allosteric inhibitor, JG98, significantly suppressed drug-resistant C4-2B MDVR and CWR22Rv1 cell growth, and enhanced enzalutamide treatment. JG98 also suppressed cell growth in conditional reprogramed cell cultures (CRCs) and organoids derived from advanced prostate cancer patient samples. Mechanistically, JG98 degraded AR/AR-V7 expression in resistant cells and promoted STUB1 nuclear translocation to bind AR-V7. Knockdown of the E3 ligase STUB1 significantly diminished the anticancer effects and partially restored AR-V7 inhibitory effects of JG98. JG231, a more potent analog developed from JG98, effectively suppressed the growth of the drug-resistant prostate cancer cells, CRCs, and organoids. Notably, the combination of JG231 and enzalutamide synergistically inhibited AR/AR-V7 expression and suppressed CWR22Rv1 xenograft tumor growth. Inhibition of HSP70 using novel small-molecule inhibitors coordinates with STUB1 to regulate AR/AR-V7 protein stabilization and ARSI resistance.

Novel inhibition of AKR1C3 and androgen receptor axis by PTUPB synergizes enzalutamide treatment in advanced prostate cancer.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is the main driving force of mortality in prostate cancer patients. Among the parameters contributing to the progression of CRPC and treatment failure, elevation of the steroidogenic enzyme AKR1C3 and androgen receptor variant 7 (AR-V7) are frequently reported. The AKR1C3/AR-V7 complex has been recognized as a major driver for drug resistance in advanced prostate cancer. Herein we report that the level of AKR1C3 is reciprocally regulated by the full-length androgen receptor (AR-FL) through binding to the distal enhancer region of the AKR1C3 gene. A novel function of PTUPB in AKR1C3 inhibition was discovered and PTUPB showed more effectiveness than indomethacin and celecoxib in suppressing AKR1C3 activity and CRPC cell growth. PTUPB synergizes with enzalutamide treatment in tumor suppression and gene signature regulation. Combination treatments with PTUPB and enzalutamide provide benefits by blocking AR/AR-V7 signaling, which inhibits the growth of castration relapsed VCaP xenograft tumors and patient-derived xenograft organoids. Targeting of the ARK1C3/AR/AR-V7 axis with PTUPB and enzalutamide may overcome drug resistance to AR signaling inhibitors in advanced prostate cancer.

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.

The 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine Landscape of Prostate Cancer.

Analysis of DNA methylation is a valuable tool to understand disease progression and is increasingly being used to create diagnostic and prognostic clinical biomarkers. While conversion of cytosine to 5-methylcytosine (5mC) commonly results in transcriptional repression, further conversion to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC) is associated with transcriptional activation. Here we perform the first study integrating whole-genome 5hmC with DNA, 5mC, and transcriptome sequencing in clinical samples of benign, localized, and advanced prostate cancer. 5hmC is shown to mark activation of cancer drivers and downstream targets. Furthermore, 5hmC sequencing revealed profoundly altered cell states throughout the disease course, characterized by increased proliferation, oncogenic signaling, dedifferentiation, and lineage plasticity to neuroendocrine and gastrointestinal lineages. Finally, 5hmC sequencing of cell-free DNA from patients with metastatic disease proved useful as a prognostic biomarker able to identify an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer using the genes TOP2A and EZH2, previously only detectable by transcriptomic analysis of solid tumor biopsies. Overall, these findings reveal that 5hmC marks epigenomic activation in prostate cancer and identify hallmarks of prostate cancer progression with potential as biomarkers of aggressive disease. SIGNIFICANCE: In prostate cancer, 5-hydroxymethylcytosine delineates oncogene activation and stage-specific cell states and can be analyzed in liquid biopsies to detect cancer phenotypes. See related article by Wu and Attard, p. 3880.

Transcriptional profiling of matched patient biopsies clarifies molecular determinants of enzalutamide-induced lineage plasticity.

The androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitor enzalutamide (enza) is one of the principal treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Several emergent enza clinical resistance mechanisms have been described, including lineage plasticity in which the tumors manifest reduced dependency on the AR. To improve our understanding of enza resistance, herein we analyze the transcriptomes of matched biopsies from men with metastatic CRPC obtained prior to treatment and at progression (n = 21). RNA-sequencing analysis demonstrates that enza does not induce marked, sustained changes in the tumor transcriptome in most patients. However, three patients' progression biopsies show evidence of lineage plasticity. The transcription factor E2F1 and pathways linked to tumor stemness are highly activated in baseline biopsies from patients whose tumors undergo lineage plasticity. We find a gene signature enriched in these baseline biopsies that is strongly associated with poor survival in independent patient cohorts and with risk of castration-induced lineage plasticity in patient-derived xenograft models, suggesting that tumors harboring this gene expression program may be at particular risk for resistance mediated by lineage plasticity and poor outcomes.

Activation of neural lineage networks and ARHGEF2 in enzalutamide-resistant and neuroendocrine prostate cancer and association with patient outcomes.

Background: Treatment-emergent neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) after androgen receptor (AR) targeted therapies is an aggressive variant of prostate cancer with an unfavorable prognosis. The underlying mechanisms for early neuroendocrine differentiation are poorly defined and diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are needed. Methods: We performed transcriptomic analysis on the enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer cell line C4-2B MDVR and NEPC patient databases to identify neural lineage signature (NLS) genes. Correlation of NLS genes with clinicopathologic features was determined. Cell viability was determined in C4-2B MDVR and H660 cells after knocking down ARHGEF2 using siRNA. Organoid viability of patient-derived xenografts was measured after knocking down ARHGEF2. Results: We identify a 95-gene NLS representing the molecular landscape of neural precursor cell proliferation, embryonic stem cell pluripotency, and neural stem cell differentiation, which may indicate an early or intermediate stage of neuroendocrine differentiation. These NLS genes positively correlate with conventional neuroendocrine markers such as chromogranin and synaptophysin, and negatively correlate with AR and AR target genes in advanced prostate cancer. Differentially expressed NLS genes stratify small-cell NEPC from prostate adenocarcinoma, which are closely associated with clinicopathologic features such as Gleason Score and metastasis status. Higher ARGHEF2, LHX2, and EPHB2 levels among the 95 NLS genes correlate with a shortened survival time in NEPC patients. Furthermore, downregulation of ARHGEF2 gene expression suppresses cell viability and markers of neuroendocrine differentiation in enzalutamide-resistant and neuroendocrine cells. Conclusions: The 95 neural lineage gene signatures capture an early molecular shift toward neuroendocrine differentiation, which could stratify advanced prostate cancer patients to optimize clinical treatment and serve as a source of potential therapeutic targets in advanced prostate cancer.

Bioengineered BERA-Wnt5a siRNA Targeting Wnt5a/FZD2 Signaling Suppresses Advanced Prostate Cancer Tumor Growth and Enhances Enzalutamide Treatment.

The next-generation antiandrogen drugs such as enzalutamide and abiraterone extend survival times and improve quality of life in patients with advanced prostate cancer. However, resistance to both drugs occurs frequently through mechanisms that are incompletely understood. Wnt signaling, particularly through Wnt5a, plays vital roles in promoting prostate cancer progression and induction of resistance to enzalutamide and abiraterone. Development of novel strategies targeting Wnt5a to overcome resistance is an urgent need. In this study, we demonstrated that Wnt5a/FZD2-mediated noncanonical Wnt pathway is overexpressed in enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer. In patient databases, both the levels of Wnt5a and FZD2 expression are upregulated upon the development of enzalutamide resistance and correlate with higher Gleason score, biochemical recurrence, and metastatic status, and with shortened disease-free survival duration. Blocking Wnt5a/FZD2 signal transduction not only diminished the activation of noncanonical Wnt signaling pathway, but also suppressed the constitutively activated androgen receptor (AR) and AR variants. Furthermore, we developed a novel bioengineered BERA-Wnt5a siRNA construct and demonstrated that inhibition of Wnt5a expression by the BERA-Wnt5a siRNA significantly suppressed tumor growth and enhanced enzalutamide treatment in vivo. These results indicate that Wnt5a/FZD2 signal pathway plays a critical role in promoting enzalutamide resistance, and targeting this pathway by BERA-Wnt5a siRNA can be developed as a potential therapy to treat advanced prostate cancer.

The Immunotherapy and Immunosuppressive Signaling in Therapy-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in men. Initially, it is androgen-dependent, but it eventually develops into castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), which is incurable with current androgen receptor signaling target therapy and chemotherapy. Immunotherapy, specifically with immune checkpoint inhibitors, has brought hope for the treatment of this type of prostate cancer. Approaches such as vaccines, adoptive chimeric antigen receptor-T (CAR-T) cells, and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been employed to activate innate and adaptive immune responses to treat prostate cancer, but with limited success. Only Sipuleucel-T and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab are approved by the US FDA for the treatment of limited prostate cancer patients. Prostate cancer has a complex tumor microenvironment (TME) in which various immunosuppressive molecules and mechanisms coexist and interact. Additionally, prostate cancer is considered a "cold" tumor with low levels of tumor mutational burden, low amounts of antigen-presenting and cytotoxic T-cell activation, and high levels of immunosuppressive molecules including cytokines/chemokines. Thus, understanding the mechanisms of immunosuppressive signaling activation and immune evasion will help develop more effective treatments for prostate cancer. The purpose of this review is to summarize emerging advances in prostate cancer immunotherapy, with a particular focus on the molecular mechanisms that lead to immune evasion in prostate cancer. At the same time, we also highlight some potential therapeutic targets to provide a theoretical basis for the treatment of prostate cancer.

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.

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.

Olaparib-Induced Senescence Is Bypassed through G2-M Checkpoint Override in Olaparib-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PARP inhibition represents the dawn of precision medicine for treating prostate cancer. Despite this advance, questions remain regarding the use of PARP inhibitors (PARPi) for the treatment of this disease, including (i) how specifically do PARPi-sensitive tumor cells respond to treatment, and (ii) how does PARPi resistance develop? To address these questions, we characterized response to olaparib in sensitive LNCaP and C4-2B cells and developed two olaparib-resistant derivative cell line models from each, termed LN-OlapR and 2B-OlapR, respectively. OlapR cells possess distinct morphology from parental cells and display robust resistance to olaparib and other clinically relevant PARPis, including rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib. In LNCaP and C4-2B cells, we found that olaparib induces massive DNA damage, leading to activation of the G2-M checkpoint, activation of p53, and cell-cycle arrest. Furthermore, our data suggest that G2-M checkpoint activation leads to both cell death and senescence associated with p21 activity. In contrast, both LN-OlapR and 2B-OlapR cells do not arrest at G2-M and display a markedly blunted response to olaparib treatment. Interestingly, both OlapR cell lines harbor increased DNA damage relative to parental cells, suggesting that OlapR cells accumulate and manage persistent DNA damage during acquisition of resistance, likely through augmenting DNA repair capacity. Further impairing DNA repair through CDK1 inhibition enhances DNA damage, induces cell death, and sensitizes OlapR cells to olaparib treatment. Our data together further our understanding of PARPi treatment and provide a cellular platform system for the study of response and resistance to PARP inhibition.