PROMISE Registry: A prostate cancer registry of outcomes and germline mutations for improved survival and treatment effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Recently approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer have created a need for correlated analyses of patient outcomes data via germline genetic mutation status. Genetic registries address these gaps by identifying candidates for recently approved targeted treatments, expanding clinical trial data examining specific gene mutations, and understanding effects of targeted treatments in the real-world setting. METHODS: The PROMISE Registry is a 20-year (5-year recruitment, 15-year follow-up), US-wide, prospective genetic registry for prostate cancer patients. Five thousand patients will be screened through an online at-home germline testing to identify and enroll 500 patients with germline mutations, including: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in genes of interest. Patients will be followed for 15 years and clinical data with real time patient reported outcomes will be collected. Eligible patients will enter long-term follow-up (6-month PRO surveys and medical record retrieval). As a virtual study with patient self-enrollment, the PROMISE Registry may fill gaps in genetics services in underserved areas and for patients within sufficient insurance coverage. RESULTS: The PROMISE Registry opened in May 2021. 2114 patients have enrolled to date across 48 US states and 23 recruiting sites. 202 patients have met criteria for long-term follow-up. PROMISE is on target with the study's goal of 5000 patients screened and 500 patients eligible for long-term follow-up by 2026. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMISE Registry is a novel, prospective, germline registry that will collect long-term patient outcomes data to address current gaps in understanding resulting from recently FDA-approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer. Through inclusion of a broad nationwide sample, including underserved patients and those unaffiliated with major academic centers, the PROMISE Registry aims to provide access to germline genetic testing and to collect data to understand disease characteristics and treatment responses across the disease spectrum for prostate cancer with rare germline genetic variants.

CXCR2 antagonist navarixin in combination with pembrolizumab in select advanced solid tumors: a phase 2 randomized trial.

C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 2 (CXCR2) has a role in tumor progression, lineage plasticity, and reduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy. Preclinical evidence suggests potential benefit of CXCR2 inhibition in multiple solid tumors. In this phase 2 study (NCT03473925), adults with previously treated advanced or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer (MSS CRC), or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomized 1:1 to the CXCR2 antagonist navarixin 30 or 100 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks up to 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate (RECIST v1.1) and safety. Of 105 patients (CRPC, n=40; MSS CRC, n=40; NSCLC, n=25), 3 had a partial response (2 CRPC, 1 MSS CRC) for ORRs of 5%, 2.5%, and 0%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 1.8-2.4 months without evidence of a dose-response relationship, and the study was closed at a prespecified interim analysis for lack of efficacy. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 2/48 patients (4%) receiving navarixin 30 mg and 3/48 (6%) receiving navarixin 100 mg; events included grade 4 neutropenia and grade 3 transaminase elevation, hepatitis, and pneumonitis. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 70/105 patients (67%) and led to treatment discontinuation in 7/105 (7%). Maximal reductions from baseline in absolute neutrophil count were 44.5%-48.2% (cycle 1) and 37.5%-44.2% (cycle 2) and occurred within 6-12 hours postdose in both groups. Navarixin plus pembrolizumab did not demonstrate sufficient efficacy in this study. Safety and tolerability of the combination were manageable. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03473925).

Oncofetal protein glypican-3 is a biomarker and critical regulator of function for neuroendocrine cells in prostate cancer.

Neuroendocrine (NE) cells comprise ~1% of epithelial cells in benign prostate and prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa). However, they become enriched in hormonally treated and castration-resistant PCa (CRPC). In addition, close to 20% of hormonally treated tumors recur as small cell NE carcinoma (SCNC), composed entirely of NE cells, which may be the result of clonal expansion or lineage plasticity. Since NE cells do not express androgen receptors (ARs), they are resistant to hormonal therapy and contribute to therapy failure. Here, we describe the identification of glypican-3 (GPC3) as an oncofetal cell surface protein specific to NE cells in prostate cancer. Functional studies revealed that GPC3 is critical to the viability of NE tumor cells and tumors displaying NE differentiation and that it regulates calcium homeostasis and signaling. Since our results demonstrate that GPC3 is specifically expressed by NE cells, patients with confirmed SCNC may qualify for GPC3-targeted therapy which has been developed in the context of liver cancer and displays minimal toxicity due to its tumor-specific expression. © 2023 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

The Known and Unknown: Investigating the Carcinogenic Potential of Plastic Additives.

Microplastics are routinely ingested and inhaled by humans and other organisms. Despite the frequency of plastic exposure, little is known about its health consequences. Of particular concern are plastic additives─chemical compounds that are intentionally or unintentionally added to plastics to improve functionality or as residual components of plastic production. Additives are often loosely bound to the plastic polymer and may be released during plastic exposures. To better understand the health effects of plastic additives, we performed a comprehensive literature search to compile a list of 2,712 known plastic additives. Then, we performed an integrated toxicogenomic analysis of these additives, utilizing cancer classifications and carcinogenic expression pathways as a primary focus. Screening these substances across two chemical databases revealed two key observations: (1) over 150 plastic additives have known carcinogenicity and (2) the majority (∼90%) of plastic additives lack data on carcinogenic end points. Analyses of additive usage patterns pinpointed specific polymers, functions, and products in which carcinogenic additives reside. Based on published chemical-gene interactions, both carcinogenic additives and additives with unknown carcinogenicity impacted similar biological pathways. The predominant pathways involved DNA damage, apoptosis, the immune response, viral diseases, and cancer. This study underscores the urgent need for a systematic and comprehensive carcinogenicity assessment of plastic additives and regulatory responses to mitigate the potential health risks of plastic exposure.

Olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROpel): final prespecified overall survival results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system-interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1-40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8-40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4-not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0-39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis. FUNDING: Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

The Value of Phenotypic Precision Medicine in Prostate Cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and the second leading cause of cancer-related death. For patients who develop metastatic disease, tissue-based and circulating-tumor-based molecular and genomic biomarkers have emerged as a means of improving outcomes through the application of precision medicine. However, the benefit is limited to a minority of patients. An additional approach to further characterize the biology of advanced prostate cancer is through the use of phenotypic precision medicine, or the identification and targeting of phenotypic features of an individual patient's cancer. In this review article, we will discuss the background, potential clinical benefits, and limitations of genomic and phenotypic precision medicine in prostate cancer. We will also highlight how the emergence of image-based phenotypic medicine may lead to greater characterization of advanced prostate cancer disease burden and more individualized treatment approaches in patients.

Concordance Between Genomic Alterations Detected by Tumor and Germline Sequencing: Results from a Tertiary Care Academic Center Molecular Tumor Board.

OBJECTIVE: The majority of tumor sequencing currently performed on cancer patients does not include a matched normal control, and in cases where germline testing is performed, it is usually run independently of tumor testing. The rates of concordance between variants identified via germline and tumor testing in this context are poorly understood. We compared tumor and germline sequencing results in patients with breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer who were found to harbor alterations in genes associated with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and increased hereditary cancer risk. We then evaluated the potential for a computational somatic-germline-zygosity (SGZ) modeling algorithm to predict germline status based on tumor-only comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) results. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed using an academic cancer center's databases of somatic and germline sequencing tests, and concordance between tumor and germline results was assessed. SGZ modeling from tumor-only CGP was compared to germline results to assess this method's accuracy in determining germline mutation status. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients with 146 total alterations were identified. Concordance rates between somatic and germline alterations ranged from 0% to 85.7% depending on the gene and variant classification. After correcting for differences in variant classification and filtering practices, SGZ modeling was found to have 97.2% sensitivity and 90.3% specificity for the prediction of somatic versus germline origin. CONCLUSIONS: Mutations in HRD genes identified by tumor-only sequencing are frequently germline. Providers should be aware that technical differences related to assay design, variant filtering, and variant classification can contribute to discordance between tumor-only and germline sequencing test results. In addition, SGZ modeling had high predictive power to distinguish between mutations of somatic and germline origin without the need for a matched normal control, and could potentially be considered to inform clinical decision-making.

KEYNOTE-991: pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide and androgen deprivation for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

Current treatment for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) delays disease progression and improves survival, but resistance is inevitable. Additional therapies that prolong survival are needed. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with next-generation hormonal agents, such as enzalutamide, is standard-of-care for men with mHSPC. Emerging evidence suggests potential synergism between enzalutamide and the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in prostate cancer. The phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind KEYNOTE-991 trial will investigate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo in combination with enzalutamide when initiating ADT in participants with mHSPC naive to next-generation hormonal agents. Approximately 1232 patients will be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or placebo every 3 weeks, both with enzalutamide 160 mg once daily and ADT. Dual primary end points are overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival. Secondary end points include time to first subsequent therapy, time to symptomatic skeletal related event, objective response rate and safety and tolerability. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04191096 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The impact of enzalutamide on quality of life in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on prior therapy, risk, and symptom subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in ARCHES (NCT02677896). While health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was generally maintained in the intent-to-treat population, we further analyzed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in defined subgroups. METHODS: ARCHES was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Patients with mHSPC received enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus ADT (n = 574) or placebo plus ADT (n = 576). Questionnaires, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), were completed at baseline, Week 13, and every 12 weeks until disease progression. PRO endpoints were time to first confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (TTFCD) in HRQoL or pain. Subgroups included prognostic risk, pain/HRQoL, prior docetaxel, and local therapy (radical prostatectomy [RP] and/or radiotherapy [RT]). RESULTS: There were several between-treatment differences in TTFCD for pain and functioning/HRQoL PROs. Enzalutamide plus ADT delayed TTFCD for worst pain in the prior RT group (not reached vs. 14.06 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.94]) and pain interference in low-baseline-HRQoL group (19.32 vs. 11.20 months; HR: 0.64 [0.44-0.94]) versus placebo plus ADT. In prior/no prior RP, prior RT, prior local therapy, no prior docetaxel, mild baseline pain, and low-risk subgroups, TTFCD was delayed for the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide plus ADT provides clinical benefits in defined patient subgroups versus ADT alone, while maintaining lack of pain and high HRQoL, with delayed deterioration in several HRQoL measures.

Prospective clinical trial of disulfiram plus copper in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: In preclinical models of prostate cancer (PC), disulfiram (DSF) reduced tumor growth only when co-administered with copper (Cu), and Cu uptake in tumors is partially regulated by androgen-receptor signaling. However, prior trials of DSF in PC used DSF as monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of concurrent administration of DSF with Cu, we conducted a phase 1b clinical trial of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving Cu with DSF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mCRPC were treated in two cohorts: mCRPC with nonliver/peritoneal metastases (A), and mCRPC with liver and/or peritoneal metastases (B). Baseline Cu avidity was measured by 64 CuCl2 PET scan. Intravenous (IV) CuCl2 was given weekly for three doses with oral daily DSF followed by daily oral Cu gluconate and DSF until disease progression. DSF and metabolite diethyldithiocarbamic acid methyl ester (Me-DDC) levels in plasma were measured. DSF and Me-DDC were then assessed for cytotoxicity in vitro. RESULTS: We treated nine patients with mCRPC (six on cohort A and three on cohort B). Bone and nodal metastases showed differential and heterogeneous Cu uptake on 64 CuCl2 PET scans. No confirmed PSA declines or radiographic responses were observed. Median PFS was 2.8 months and median OS was 8.3 months. Common adverse events included fatigue and psychomotor depression; no Grade 4/5 AEs were observed. Me-DDC was measurable in all samples (LOQ = 0.512 ng/ml), whereas DSF was not (LOQ = 0.032 ng/ml, LOD = 0.01 ng/ml); Me-DDC was not cytotoxic in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: Oral DSF is not an effective treatment for mCRPC due to rapid metabolism into an inactive metabolite, Me-DDC. This trial has stopped enrollment and further work is needed to identify a stable DSF formulation for treatment of mCRPC.

Novel role of the Mu-opioid receptor in pancreatic cancer: potential link between opioid use and cancer progression.

Opioids are the most popular drugs for both acute and chronic pain management. The G protein-coupled mu-opioid receptor (MOR) is the therapeutic target for most clinically used opioids, including morphine. A mounting number of publications suggest a relationship between the MOR and possible cancer progression and recurrence extending to managing chronic cancer pain. In this study, we studied the possible link between opioid use and pancreatic cancer (PC) progression. We found increased MOR expression in murine and human PC cell lines, human PC-derived organoids, and in the undifferentiated or poorly differentiated areas of surgically resected PC tissues. Direct stimulation of MOR by morphine (MOR agonist) caused a significant dose-dependent increase in proliferation, invasion, and levels of stemness markers in PC cells. In a co-culture system, MOR stimulation of macrophages also resulted in increased proliferation of PC cells. MOR overexpression increased proliferation and cancer stemness, whereas knock-down of MOR followed opposite results in the PC cells. Morphine induced chemoresistance to conventional chemotherapeutic agents used for PC treatment. Overall, our results suggest that MOR is expressed in pancreatic cancer and may be involved in tumor progression and chemoresistance.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted theranostics: past, present, and future approaches.

Although prostate cancer is the type of cancer most commonly survived by men in the United States, it remains the second most common cause of death from cancer, largely owing to metastatic disease. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) whose disease has progressed on standard-of-care therapies have few options and a poor prognosis. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a type II integral membrane protein that is commonly expressed in prostate cancer. Expression is limited on extra-prostatic tissues other than the salivary glands, lacrimal glands, duodenal epithelium, Kupffer cells, and renal tubules. PSMA-directed theranostics has emerged to exploit the specificity of PSMA for prostate cancer cells and has demonstrated promising results in the clinic. Radionuclides linked to PSMA inhibitors/binders have resulted in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of 2 radiodiagnostics for PSMA-directed positron emission tomography/computed tomography. In addition, these radionuclides have led to the development of lutetium Lu 177PSMA-617 therapy, which is currently under priority FDA review. Multiple novel PSMA-targeted modalities have been developed and are currently under clinical investigation, including ligand-drug and cellular immune therapies. In this review, we discuss the development of PSMA-directed theranostics, along with its clinical implications, limitations, and future directions.

A prospective trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in Black and White men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective analyses of randomized trials suggest that Black men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have longer survival than White men. The authors conducted a prospective study of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone to explore outcomes by race. METHODS: This race-stratified, multicenter study estimated radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in Black and White men with mCRPC. Secondary end points included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics, overall survival (OS), and safety. Exploratory analysis included genome-wide genotyping to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with progression in a model incorporating genetic ancestry. One hundred patients self-identified as White (n = 50) or Black (n = 50) were enrolled. Eligibility criteria were modified to facilitate the enrollment of individual Black patients. RESULTS: The median rPFS for Black and White patients was 16.6 and 16.8 months, respectively; their times to PSA progression (TTP) were 16.6 and 11.5 months, respectively; and their OS was 35.9 and 35.7 months, respectively. Estimated rates of PSA decline by ≥50% in Black and White patients were 74% and 66%, respectively; and PSA declines to <0.2 ng/mL were 26% and 10%, respectively. Rates of grade 3 and 4 hypertension, hypokalemia, and hyperglycemia were higher in Black men. CONCLUSIONS: Multicenter prospective studies by race are feasible in men with mCRPC but require less restrictive eligibility. Despite higher comorbidity rates, Black patients demonstrated rPFS and OS similar to those of White patients and trended toward greater TTP and PSA declines, consistent with retrospective reports. Importantly, Black men may have higher side-effect rates than White men. This exploratory genome-wide analysis of TTP identified a possible candidate marker of ancestry-dependent treatment outcomes.

Efficacy of Enzalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer by Pattern of Metastatic Spread: ARCHES Post Hoc Analyses.

PURPOSE: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy has previously been shown to improve clinical outcomes in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ARCHES; NCT02677896). Here, we assessed if and how the pattern of metastatic spread impacts efficacy of enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in men enrolled in ARCHES. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus androgen deprivation therapy or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel treatment. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival. Secondary end points included time to prostate specific antigen progression, initiation of new antineoplastic therapy, first symptomatic skeletal event and castration resistance. Post hoc analyses were performed by pattern of metastatic spread based on study entry imaging. RESULTS: Of the overall population with metastases identified at enrollment (1,146), the largest patient subgroups were those with bone metastases only (513) and those with bone plus lymph node metastases (351); there were fewer men with lymph node metastases only (154) and men with visceral±bone or lymph node metastases (128). Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy reduced the risk of radiographic progression vs placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy in men with bone metastases only (HR 0.33) and bone plus lymph node metastases (HR 0.31). Similar improvements in secondary end points were also observed in these subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that treatment with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy provides improvements in men with bone and/or lymph node metastases but may be less effective in men with visceral patterns of spread.

Implementation and Impact of a Risk-Stratified Prostate Cancer Screening Algorithm as a Clinical Decision Support Tool in a Primary Care Network.

BACKGROUND: Implementation methods of risk-stratified cancer screening guidance throughout a health care system remains understudied. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a preliminary analysis of the implementation of a risk-stratified prostate cancer screening algorithm in a single health care system. DESIGN: Comparison of men seen pre-implementation (2/1/2016-2/1/2017) vs. post-implementation (2/2/2017-2/21/2018). PARTICIPANTS: Men, aged 40-75 years, without a history of prostate cancer, who were seen by a primary care provider. INTERVENTIONS: The algorithm was integrated into two components in the electronic health record (EHR): in Health Maintenance as a personalized screening reminder and in tailored messages to providers that accompanied prostate-specific antigen (PSA) results. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: percent of men who met screening algorithm criteria; percent of men with a PSA result. Logistic repeated measures mixed models were used to test for differences in the proportion of individuals that met screening criteria in the pre- and post-implementation periods with age, race, family history, and PSA level included as covariates. KEY RESULTS: During the pre- and post-implementation periods, 49,053 and 49,980 men, respectively, were seen across 26 clinics (20.6% African American). The proportion of men who met screening algorithm criteria increased from 49.3% (pre-implementation) to 68.0% (post-implementation) (p < 0.001); this increase was observed across all races, age groups, and primary care clinics. Importantly, the percent of men who had a PSA did not change: 55.3% pre-implementation, 55.0% post-implementation. The adjusted odds of meeting algorithm-based screening was 6.5-times higher in the post-implementation period than in the pre-implementation period (95% confidence interval, 5.97 to 7.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary analysis, following implementation of an EHR-based algorithm, we observed a rapid change in practice with an increase in screening in higher-risk groups balanced with a decrease in screening in low-risk groups. Future efforts will evaluate costs and downstream outcomes of this strategy.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel's discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Molecular determinants for enzalutamide-induced transcription in prostate cancer.

Enzalutamide, a second-generation androgen receptor (AR) antagonist, has demonstrated clinical benefit in men with prostate cancer. However, it only provides a temporary response and modest increase in survival, indicating a rapid evolution of resistance. Previous studies suggest that enzalutamide may function as a partial transcriptional agonist, but the underlying mechanisms for enzalutamide-induced transcription remain poorly understood. Here, we show that enzalutamide stimulates expression of a novel subset of genes distinct from androgen-responsive genes. Treatment of prostate cancer cells with enzalutamide enhances recruitment of pioneer factor GATA2, AR, Mediator subunits MED1 and MED14, and RNA Pol II to regulatory elements of enzalutamide-responsive genes. Mechanistically, GATA2 globally directs enzalutamide-induced transcription by facilitating AR, Mediator and Pol II loading to enzalutamide-responsive gene loci. Importantly, the GATA2 inhibitor K7174 inhibits enzalutamide-induced transcription by decreasing binding of the GATA2/AR/Mediator/Pol II transcriptional complex, contributing to sensitization of prostate cancer cells to enzalutamide treatment. Our findings provide mechanistic insight into the future combination of GATA2 inhibitors and enzalutamide for improved AR-targeted therapy.

Enzalutamide with androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A subgroup analysis of the phase III ARCHES study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of the Japanese subgroup in the phase III, randomized, multinational ARCHES study (NCT02677896) was carried out. Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomized to receive enzalutamide or a placebo, plus androgen deprivation therapy, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel therapy. The primary end-point was radiographic progression-free survival. Secondary end-points included time to prostate-specific antigen progression and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 1150 patients, 92 Japanese patients were randomized to enzalutamide (n = 36) or a placebo (n = 56), plus androgen deprivation therapy; none received prior docetaxel. Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy reduced the risk of radiographic progression or death in Japanese patients by 61% versus the placebo, similar to the overall population. Similar results were observed with secondary end-points, showing clinical benefit of enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese patients. Overall survival data were immature. Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 47% and 25% of the enzalutamide and placebo groups, respectively. Nasopharyngitis, hypertension and abnormal hepatic function were reported more frequently in Japanese patients versus the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy has clinical benefit with a tolerable safety profile in Japanese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, consistent with the overall population.

Discordant and heterogeneous clinically relevant genomic alterations in circulating tumor cells vs plasma DNA from men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Circulating tumor cell (CTC) and cell-free (cf) DNA-based genomic alterations are increasingly being used for clinical decision-making in oncology. However, the concordance and discordance between paired CTC and cfDNA genomic profiles remain largely unknown. We performed comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) on CTCs and cfDNA, and low-pass whole genome sequencing (lpWGS) on cfDNA to characterize genomic alterations (CNA) and tumor content in two independent prospective studies of 93 men with mCRPC treated with enzalutamide/abiraterone, or radium-223. Comprehensive analysis of 69 patient CTCs and 72 cfDNA samples from 93 men with mCRPC, including 64 paired samples, identified common concordant gains in FOXA1, AR, and MYC, and losses in BRCA1, PTEN, and RB1 between CTCs and cfDNA. Concordant PTEN loss and discordant BRCA2 gain were associated with significantly worse outcomes in Epic AR-V7 negative men with mCRPC treated with abiraterone/enzalutamide. We identified and externally validated CTC-specific genomic alternations that were discordant in paired cfDNA, even in samples with high tumor content. These CTC/cfDNA-discordant regions included key genomic regulators of lineage plasticity, osteomimicry, and cellular differentiation, including MYCN gain in CTCs (31%) that was rarely detected in cfDNA. CTC MYCN gain was associated with poor clinical outcomes in AR-V7 negative men and small cell transformation. In conclusion, we demonstrated concordance of multiple genomic alterations across CTC and cfDNA platforms; however, some genomic alterations displayed substantial discordance between CTC DNA and cfDNA despite the use of identical copy number analysis methods, suggesting tumor heterogeneity and divergent evolution associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Phase 1b trial of docetaxel, prednisone, and pazopanib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel prednisone is a standard of care for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels are a poor prognostic factor in this population; therefore, we evaluated the combination of docetaxel prednisone with pazopanib, an oral VEGF receptor inhibitor, for safety and preliminary efficacy. METHODS: This is a two-site phase 1b Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium trial of docetaxel, prednisone, and pazopanib once daily and ongoing androgen deprivation therapy and prophylactic pegfilgrastim in men with mCRPC. The primary endpoint was safety and the determination of a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) through a dose-escalation and expansion design; secondary endpoints included progression-free and overall survival (OS), prostate specific antigen (PSA) declines, radiographic responses, and pharmacokinetic and plasma angiokine biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-five men were treated over six dose levels. Pegfilgrastim was added to the regimen after myelosuppression limited dose escalation. With pegfilgrastim, our target MTD of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q3 weeks; prednisone 10 mg daily; and pazopanib 800 mg daily was reached. Eleven additional patients were accrued at this dose level for a total of 36 patients. Dose-limiting toxicities included neutropenia, syncope, and hypertension. Three deaths attributed to study treatment occurred. The objective response rate was 31%; median PFS was 14.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.1 and 22.2); and OS was 18.6 months (95% CI: 11.8 and 22.2). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of docetaxel, prednisone, and pazopanib (with pegfilgrastim) was tolerable at full doses and demonstrated promising efficacy in a relatively poor risk patients with mCRPC. Further development of predictive biomarkers may enrich for patients who receive clinical benefit from this regimen.