Identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic instability score distributions differ among breast cancer subtypes.

PURPOSE: A 3-biomarker homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score is a key component of a currently FDA-approved companion diagnostic assay to identify HRD in patients with ovarian cancer using a threshold score of ≥ 42, though recent studies have explored the utility of a lower threshold (GIS ≥ 33). The present study evaluated whether the ovarian cancer thresholds may also be appropriate for major breast cancer subtypes by comparing the genomic instability score (GIS) distributions of BRCA1/2-deficient estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (ER + BC) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to the GIS distribution of BRCA1/2-deficient ovarian cancer. METHODS: Ovarian cancer and breast cancer (ER + BC and TNBC) tumors from ten study cohorts were sequenced to identify pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations, and GIS was calculated using a previously described algorithm. Pathologic complete response (pCR) to platinum therapy was evaluated in a subset of TNBC samples. For TNBC, a threshold was set and threshold validity was assessed relative to clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 560 ovarian cancer, 805 ER + BC, and 443 TNBC tumors were included. Compared to ovarian cancer, the GIS distribution of BRCA1/2-deficient samples was shifted lower for ER + BC (p = 0.015), but not TNBC (p = 0.35). In the subset of TNBC samples, univariable logistic regression models revealed that GIS status using thresholds of ≥ 42 and ≥ 33 were significant predictors of response to platinum therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the GIS thresholds used for ovarian cancer may also be appropriate for TNBC, but not ER + BC. GIS thresholds in TNBC were validated using clinical response data to platinum therapy.

Cell Cycle Progression Score, but Not Phosphatase and Tensin Homolog Loss, Is an Independent Prognostic Factor for Metastasis in Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer in Men Treated With and Without Salvage Radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: The prognostic value for metastasis of the cell-cycle progression score and phosphatase and tensin homolog haven't been evaluated jointly in contemporary men with exclusively intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. We evaluated associations of cell-cycle progression and phosphatase and tensin homolog with metastasis-free survival in contemporary intermediate/high-risk prostate cancer patients overall, and intermediate/high-risk men receiving salvage radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a case-cohort of 209 prostatectomy patients with intermediate/high-risk prostate cancer, and a cohort of 172 such men who received salvage radiotherapy, cell-cycle progression score was calculated from RNA expression, and phosphatase and tensin homolog was analyzed by immunohistochemistry. Proportional hazards regression, weighted for case-cohort design or unweighted for the salvage radiotherapy cohort, was used to evaluate associations of cell-cycle progression, phosphatase and tensin homolog with metastasis-free survival. Improvement in model discrimination was evaluated with the concordance index. RESULTS: In the case-cohort 41 men had metastasis, and 17 developed metastasis in the salvage radiotherapy cohort, at median follow-up of 3 and 4 years, respectively. For both case-cohort and salvage radiotherapy cohort, cell-cycle progression was independently associated with metastasis-free survival after adjustment for Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Post-Surgical: hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 3.11 (1.70-5.69) and 1.85 (1.19-2.85), respectively. Adding cell-cycle progression to Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Post-Surgical increased the concordance index from 0.861 to 0.899 (case-cohort), and 0.745 to 0.819 (salvage radiotherapy cohort). Although statistically significant in univariate analyses, phosphatase and tensin homolog was no longer significant after adjustment for Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Post-Surgical. Analysis of interaction with National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group showed that cell-cycle progression had the strongest effect among unfavorable intermediate-risk men. CONCLUSIONS: In the first study to evaluate metastasis risk associated with cell-cycle progression and phosphatase and tensin homolog in exclusively intermediate/high-risk prostate cancer, and in such men with salvage radiotherapy, cell-cycle progression but not phosphatase and tensin homolog was associated with significantly increased 2- to 3-fold risk of metastasis after Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Post-Surgical adjustment.

Development and validation of a cell cycle progression signature for decentralized testing of men with prostate cancer.

Aim: The 46-gene Prolaris® cell cycle progression test provides information on the risk of prostate cancer progression. Here we developed and validated a 16-gene kit-based version. Methods: RNA was extracted from prostate cancer biopsy tissue. Amplification efficiency, minimum tumor content, repeatability, reproducibility and equivalence with the 46-gene test were evaluated. Results: Amplification efficiencies for all genes were within the acceptable range (90-110%), and samples with ≥50% tumor content were appropriate for the 16-gene test. Results were repeatable (standard deviation: 0.085) and reproducible (standard deviation: 0.115). Instrument, operator and kit lot had minimal impact on results. Cell cycle progression scores from the 46- and 16-gene tests were highly correlated (r = 0.969; bias = 0.217). Conclusion: The 16-gene test performs consistently and similarly to the 46-gene test.

Prostate cancer does not always require aggressive treatment, and some men with low risk of disease progression may chose active surveillance. One way to measure the risk of disease progression is the Prolaris^® cell cycle progression test, which is performed at a commercial testing facility and measures the expression of 46 genes. However, certain European countries would prefer to run this test at a centralized testing facility. To this end we developed a streamlined kit measuring 16 genes to be used in these testing facilities, and showed that the cell cycle progression scores derived from the kit test are robust and equivalent to those obtained with the larger 46-gene test.

Hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in the community urology practice setting.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of integrating a hereditary cancer risk assessment (HCRA) process in the community urology practice setting for patients with prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: In this prospective intervention, an HCRA process was implemented across six different community urology clinics between May 2019 and April 2020. The intervention included a process integration during which the workflow at each site was refined, a post-integration period during which HCRA was conducted in all patients with PCa, and a follow-up period during which healthcare providers and patients reported their satisfaction with the HCRA and genetic testing process. RESULTS: Among patients who completed a family history assessment during the post-integration period, 23.6% met guideline criteria for genetic testing. Of all patients seen at the clinic during the post-integration period, 8.7% completed genetic testing; this was a twofold increase over the period immediately preceding process integration (4.2%), and a sevenfold increase over the same period 1 year prior (1.2%). The majority of providers reported that the HCRA was as important as other regularly performed assessments (61.0%) and planned to continue using the process in their practice (68.3%). Most patients believed that the genetic test results were important for their future cancer care (84.7%) and had already shared their test results with at least one family member (63.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that implementing an HCRA process in the community urology practice setting was feasible, generally favored by providers and patients, and resulted in an increase in the number of patients with PCa who completed genetic testing.

The Clinical Cell-Cycle Risk (CCR) Score Is Associated With Metastasis After Radiation Therapy and Provides Guidance on When to Forgo Combined Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Dose-Escalated Radiation.

PURPOSE: The clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which combines the University of California, San Francisco's Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) and the cell cycle progression (CCP) molecular score, has been validated to be prognostic of disease progression for men with prostate cancer. This study evaluated the ability of the CCR score to prognosticate the risk of metastasis in men receiving dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study included men with localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk prostate cancer (N = 741). Patients were treated with dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. The primary outcome was time to metastasis. RESULTS: The CCR score prognosticated metastasis with a hazard ratio (HR) per unit score of 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.89; P < .001). The CCR score better prognosticated metastasis than NCCN risk group (CCR, P < .001; NCCN, P = .46), CAPRA score (CCR, P = .002; CAPRA, P = .59), or CCP score (CCR, P < .001; CCP, P = .59) alone. In bivariable analyses, CCR score remained highly prognostic when accounting for ADT versus no ADT (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.61-2.96; P < .001), ADT duration as a continuous variable (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.79; P < .001), or ADT given at or below the recommended duration for each NCCN risk group (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.69-2.86; P < .001). Men with CCR scores below or above the multimodality threshold (CCR score, 2.112) had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7% and 21.24%, respectively. Men with below-threshold scores receiving RT alone had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7%, and for men receiving RT plus ADT, the 10-year risk of metastasis was also 3.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The CCR score accurately and precisely prognosticates metastasis and adds clinically actionable information relative to guideline-recommended therapies based on NCCN risk in men undergoing dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. For men with scores below the multimodality threshold, adding ADT may not significantly reduce their 10-year risk of metastasis.

Validation of the cell cycle progression score to differentiate indolent from aggressive prostate cancer in men diagnosed through transurethral resection of the prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Validation of biomarker-based prognostic models to improve risk stratification in men with localized prostate cancer (PrCa) remains a clinical need. It has previously been shown that the cell cycle progression (CCP) test provides significant, independent prognostic information for men who were incidentally diagnosed with PrCa after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and were conservatively managed. AIM: The results have been extended in a newly analyzed retrospective cohort of UK men diagnosed through TURP biopsy (TURP1B; N = 305). METHODS AND RESULTS: The CCP score was derived from TURP biopsy tissue and combined with a modified UCSF Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score (CAPRA) to generate the clinical cell-cycle risk score (CCR). The primary endpoint was PrCa-specific mortality (PSM). Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for a one-unit change in score. Median follow-up was 9.6 (IQR: 5.4, 14.1) years, and 67 (22%) men died from PrCa within 10 years of diagnosis. The median CCP score was 1.1 (IQR: 0.6, 1.7). In univariate analyses, CCR proved a significant prognosticator of PSM (HR per unit score change = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.89, 2.74; P = 1.0 × 10-19 ). In multivariate analyses, CCR remained a significant prognosticator of PSM after adjusting for CAPRA (HR per unit score change = 4.36; 95% CI: 2.65, 7.16; P = 1.3 × 10-8 ), indicating that its molecular component, CCP, provides significant, independent prognostic information. CONCLUSION: These findings validate a combined clinicopathologic and molecular prognostic model for conservatively managed men who are diagnosed through TURP, supporting the use of CCR to inform clinical management.

Personalizing Localized Prostate Cancer: Validation of a Combined Clinical Cell-cycle Risk (CCR) Score Threshold for Prognosticating Benefit From Multimodality Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The combined clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score is a validated model that combines the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score with the University of California San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. This score determines the risk of progressive disease for men with prostate cancer. Here, we further validate the prognostic ability of the CCR score and evaluate its ability to help determine which patients may safely forgo multimodality therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the CCR and a CCR-based multimodality threshold (2.112) in a retrospective, multi-institutional cohort of men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk localized disease (N = 718). These men received single or multimodality therapy (androgen deprivation with radiation [RT], or surgery with adjuvant RT or hormones). RESULTS: CCR score prognosticated metastasis for single-modality therapy, as a continuous variable (hazard ratio, 3.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.61-6.06) and when dichotomized at the threshold (hazard ratio, 15.90; 95% CI, 5.43-46.52). The 10-year Kaplan-Meier risk for those receiving single-modality (RT or surgical) therapy with CCR scores below and above the threshold for single-modality treatment was 4.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-17.1%) and 20.4% (95% CI, 13.2%-30.7%), respectively. Using the threshold, 27% of men with newly diagnosed high-risk and 73% with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease could avoid multimodality therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CCR scores below the multimodality threshold (2.112) may safely forgo multimodality therapy. The CCR score can be used as a decision aid to counsel men whether or not single-modality therapy would be sufficient for their intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.

Cell-cycle risk score more accurately determines the risk for metastases and death in prostatectomy patients compared with clinical features alone.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer treatment aims to prevent metastases and disease-specific mortality. Pathologic parameters have limited ability to predict these outcomes, but biomarkers can improve risk discrimination. We evaluated the ability of cell-cycle progression and combined cell-cycle risk scores to predict metastases and disease-specific mortality after prostatectomy. METHODS: Eligibility included (1) treatment with radical prostatectomy (1985-1997); (2) cell-cycle progression score; (3) preoperative prostate-specific antigen; (4) no neoadjuvant therapy; and (5) clinical follow-up (N = 360). Cancer of the prostate risk assessment postsurgical score was combined with cell cycle progression into the prespecified combined cell-cycle risk score. Hazard ratios (HRs) are reported per unit score. RESULTS: In total, 11% (41/360) developed metastases and 9% (33/360) experienced disease-specific mortality. Combined cell-cycle risk score predicted metastases and disease-specific mortality post-radical prostatectomy (p < 1 × 10-8 ). Adjusting for cancer of the prostate risk assessment postsurgical score, the combined cell-cycle risk score remained a predictor of metastases (HR = 3.03 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.49, 6.20]; p = .003] and disease-specific mortality (HR = 3.40 [95% CI: 1.52, 7.59]; p = .004). Of patients with biochemical recurrence, 25% (41/163) developed metastases. Cancer of the prostate risk assessment postsurgical score was predictive of metastases postbiochemical recurrence but was improved by the addition of cell cycle progression (HR = 1.70 [95% CI: 1.14, 2.53]; p = .012). The combined cell-cycle risk was also prognostic of metastases post-biochemical recurrence (HR = 1.56 [95% CI: 1.20, 2.03]; p = .001). CONCLUSION: Combined cell-cycle risk and cell cycle progression scores predict metastases and disease-specific mortality post-radical prostatectomy and should help identify patients at greatest risk of treatment failure who might benefit from earlier intervention.

Prognostic capabilities and clinical utility of cell cycle progression testing, prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2, and clinicopathologic data in management of localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the prognostic capabilities and clinical utility of the cell cycle progression (CCP) gene expression classifier test, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring, and clinicopathologic data in select prostate cancer (PCa) medical management scenarios. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective, observational analysis of patients (N = 222) ascertained sequentially from a single urology practice from January 2015 to June 2018. Men were included if they had localized PCa, a CCP score, and an mpMRI PI-RADS v2 score. Cohort 1 (n = 156): men with newly diagnosed PCa, with or without a previous negative biopsy. Cohort 2 (n = 66): men who initiated active surveillance (AS) without CCP testing, but who received the test during AS. CCP was combined with the UCSF Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score to produce a clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which was reported in the context of a validated AS threshold. Spearman's rank correlation test was used to evaluate correlations between variables. Generalized linear models were used to predict binary Gleason score category and medical management selection (AS or curative therapy). Likelihood-ratio tests were used to determine predictor significance in both univariable and multivariable models. RESULTS: In the combined cohorts, modest but significant correlations were observed between PI-RADS score and CCP (rs = 0.22, P = 8.1 × 10-4), CAPRA (rs= 0.36, P = 4.8 × 10-8), or CCR (rs = 0.37, P = 2.0 × 10-8), suggesting that much of the prognostic information captured by these measures is independent. When accounting for CAPRA and PI-RADS score, CCP was a significant predictor of higher-grade tumor after radical prostatectomy, with the resected tumor approximately 4 times more likely to harbor Gleason ≥4+3 per 1-unit increase in CCP in Cohort 1 (Odds Ratio [OR], 4.10 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46, 14.12], P = 0.006) and in the combined cohorts (OR, 3.72 [95% CI, 1.39, 11.88], P = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, PI-RADS score was not a significant predictor of post-radical prostatectomy Gleason score. Both CCP and CCR were significant and independent predictors of AS versus curative therapy in Cohort 1 on multivariable analysis, with each 1-unit increase in score corresponding to an approximately 2-fold greater likelihood of selecting curative therapy (CCP OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.16, 3.94], P = 0.014) (CCR OR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.48, 3.87], P = 1.5 × 10-4). CCR at or below the AS threshold significantly reduced the probability of selecting curative therapy over AS (OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.13, 0.57], P = 4.4 × 10-4), further validating the clinical utility of the AS threshold. CONCLUSION: CCP was a better predictor of both tumor grade and subsequent patient management than was PI-RADS. Even in the context of targeted biopsy, molecular information remains essential to ensure precise risk assessment for men with newly diagnosed PCa.