Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 117(22): 12315-12323, 2020 06 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32424106

ABSTRACT

The androgen receptor (AR) antagonist enzalutamide is one of the principal treatments for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, not all patients respond, and resistance mechanisms are largely unknown. We hypothesized that genomic and transcriptional features from metastatic CRPC biopsies prior to treatment would be predictive of de novo treatment resistance. To this end, we conducted a phase II trial of enzalutamide treatment (160 mg/d) in 36 men with metastatic CRPC. Thirty-four patients were evaluable for the primary end point of a prostate-specific antigen (PSA)50 response (PSA decline ≥50% at 12 wk vs. baseline). Nine patients were classified as nonresponders (PSA decline <50%), and 25 patients were classified as responders (PSA decline ≥50%). Failure to achieve a PSA50 was associated with shorter progression-free survival, time on treatment, and overall survival, demonstrating PSA50's utility. Targeted DNA-sequencing was performed on 26 of 36 biopsies, and RNA-sequencing was performed on 25 of 36 biopsies that contained sufficient material. Using computational methods, we measured AR transcriptional function and performed gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) to identify pathways whose activity state correlated with de novo resistance. TP53 gene alterations were more common in nonresponders, although this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.055). AR gene alterations and AR expression were similar between groups. Importantly, however, transcriptional measurements demonstrated that specific gene sets-including those linked to low AR transcriptional activity and a stemness program-were activated in nonresponders. Our results suggest that patients whose tumors harbor this program should be considered for clinical trials testing rational agents to overcome de novo enzalutamide resistance.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Drug Resistance, Neoplasm , Phenylthiohydantoin/analogs & derivatives , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/genetics , Receptors, Androgen/administration & dosage , Receptors, Androgen/genetics , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Benzamides , Gene Expression Profiling , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nitriles , Phenylthiohydantoin/administration & dosage , Prostate-Specific Antigen/metabolism , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/drug therapy , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/metabolism , Receptors, Androgen/metabolism
2.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw ; 16(8): 933-937, 2018 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30099369

ABSTRACT

Background: PARP inhibition is a promising therapeutic strategy for the treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose tumors harbor homologous recombination DNA repair gene alterations. However, questions remain for many practicing clinicians about which patients are ideally suited for PARP inhibitor treatment. This report details our institutional experience using PARP inhibitor therapy in patients whose tumors harbored specific DNA repair gene alterations. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients at Oregon Health & Science University who were treated with PARP inhibition. We identified 8 patients and determined the impact of the specific DNA repair gene alterations on tumor response and time on treatment with PARP inhibition. Results: A number of DNA repair gene alterations were identified. Three patients had pathogenic BRCA2 mutations and one had a BRCA2 mutation of uncertain significance. Conversely, the 4 other patients' tumors harbored alterations in other DNA repair genes, none of which were clearly pathogenic. A statistically significant difference in benefit was seen between patients whose tumors harbored BRCA2 gene alterations and those whose tumors did not, as measured by >50% decline in prostate-specific antigen levels (100% vs 0%; P=.03) and duration on therapy (31.4 vs 6.4 weeks; P=.03). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that not all DNA repair alterations are equally predictive of PARP inhibitor response. Importantly, all responding patients had tumors harboring BRCA2 DNA repair alterations, including one without a known pathogenic mutation. Conversely, among the 4 nonresponders, several DNA repair alterations in genes other than BRCA2 were identified that were not clearly pathogenic. This demonstrates the need to carefully examine the functional relevance of the DNA repair alterations identified, especially in genes other than BRCA2, when considering patients for PARP inhibitor treatment.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor/genetics , DNA Repair/genetics , Drug Resistance, Neoplasm/genetics , Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors/pharmacology , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/drug therapy , Aged , BRCA2 Protein/genetics , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mutation , Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Prognosis , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/genetics , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
3.
Front Oncol ; 10: 1381, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32850444

ABSTRACT

Background: Phase 3 studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors have not shown a survival benefit in prostate cancer, but some patients have a profound anticancer response. Patients and Methods: We evaluated the efficacy of the CTLA-4 targeted agent, ipilimumab, in metastatic prostate cancer patients who had an incomplete biochemical response to initial androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. Ten patients were enrolled, each treated with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (every 3 weeks for up to 4 doses) with maintenance ipilimumab every 12 weeks for non-progressing patients. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with an undetectable PSA. The total sample size was 30 patients, but there was an interim analysis planned at 10 for futility. If none of the 10 patients achieved an undetectable PSA, the study would be halted. Results: The study was halted at the interim analysis as none of the 10 patients achieved the primary endpoint, but 30% of patients demonstrated a >50% reduction in PSA, with one patient achieving a >90% reduction in PSA. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) examined by mass cytometry showed that patients with clinical responses had an increase in effector memory T-cell subsets as well as an increase in T-cell expression of T-bet, suggesting induction of a Th1 response. Conclusions: This study provides further evidence that ipilimumab has activity in some patients with prostate cancer and provides further rationale for the development of future studies aimed at identifying a subset of patients with CPRC that are more likely to derive a benefit from treatment with ipilimumab. Implications for Practice: There is insufficient evidence to use ipilimumab in prostate cancer in routine practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01498978. Registered 26 December 2011. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01498978?term=julie+graff&rank=3.

4.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31650098

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is the lethal form of the disease. Many groups have performed mutational or immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing in metastatic CRPC to identify treatment targets. However, the frequency with which mutational or IHC data have an impact on clinical decision making and the outcomes of molecularly guided therapy in CRPC are largely unknown. We report our institution's experience with mutational and IHC testing in patients with metastatic CRPC and its impact on clinical decision making and patient outcomes. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2015, 59 patients with CRPC underwent metastatic tissue biopsies and were genotyped with a 37-cancer gene panel in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratory. PTEN expression by IHC testing was also measured in 35 of these samples. A retrospective chart review was performed to determine whether the genomic information was acted upon and the outcome of patients whose treatment was guided by molecular testing. RESULTS: Forty-six of 59 patients with CRPC (78.0%) had biopsies with adequate tumor for mutational testing. Thirty-one of 46 subjects (67.4%) had mutations identified by sequencing. Of the 35 patients with CRPC whose biopsies were evaluated for PTEN expression by IHC testing, 13 had PTEN loss. Two patients had treatment on the basis of molecular testing, and one of these subjects had greater tumor control with molecularly guided therapy than his immediate prior therapy. CONCLUSION: Targeted sequencing and IHC can identify clinically informative molecular abnormalities in CRPC. Despite this, a small minority of patients in our series underwent therapies guided by mutational or IHC testing. Actionability of abnormalities identified in metastatic CRPC may be improved with access to clinical trials, insurance approval for unapproved uses of existing anticancer drugs, and larger gene sequencing panels that include more frequently mutated genes.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL