Developing a Novel Enzalutamide-Resistant Prostate Cancer Model via AR F877L Mutation in LNCaP Cells.

Prostate cancer is a leading diagnosis and major cause of cancer-related deaths in men worldwide. As a typical hormone-responsive disease, prostate cancer is commonly managed with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to curb its progression and potential metastasis. Unfortunately, progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), a notably more aggressive phase of the disease, occurs within a timeframe of 2-3 years following ADT. Enzalutamide, a recognized androgen receptor (AR) antagonist, has been employed as a standard of care for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) since it was first approved in 2012, due to its ability to prolong survival. However, scientific evidence suggests that sustained treatment with AR antagonists may induce acquired AR mutations or splice variants, such as AR F877L, T878A, and H875Y, leading to drug resistance and thereby diminishing the therapeutic efficacy of these agents. Thus, the establishment of prostate cancer models incorporating these particular mutations is essential for developing new therapeutic strategies to overcome such resistance and evaluate the efficacy of next-generation AR-targeting drugs. We have developed a CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)-based knock-in technology to introduce an additional F877L mutation in AR into the human prostate cell line LNCaP. This article provides comprehensive descriptions of the methodologies for cellular gene editing and establishment of an in vivo model. Using these methods, we successfully identified an enzalutamide-resistant phenotype in both in vitro and in vivo models. We also assessed the efficacy of target protein degraders (TPDs), such as ARV-110 and ARV-667, in both models, and the corresponding validation data are also included here. © 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Generation of AR F877L-mutated LNCaP cell line using CRISPR technology Basic Protocol 2: Validation of drug resistance in AR F877L-mutated LNCaP cell line using the 2D CTG assay Support Protocol: Testing of sgRNA efficiency in HEK 293 cells Basic Protocol 3: Validation of drug resistance in AR F877L-mutated LNCaP cell line in vivo.

Development and Characterisation of a New Patient-Derived Xenograft Model of AR-Negative Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

As the treatment landscape for prostate cancer gradually evolves, the frequency of treatment-induced neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) and double-negative prostate cancer (DNPC) that is deficient for androgen receptor (AR) and neuroendocrine (NE) markers has increased. These prostate cancer subtypes are typically refractory to AR-directed therapies and exhibit poor clinical outcomes. Only a small range of NEPC/DNPC models exist, limiting our molecular understanding of this disease and hindering our ability to perform preclinical trials exploring novel therapies to treat NEPC/DNPC that are urgently needed in the clinic. Here, we report the development of the CU-PC01 PDX model that represents AR-negative mCRPC with PTEN/RB/PSMA loss and CTNN1B/TP53/BRCA2 genetic variants. The CU-PC01 model lacks classic NE markers, with only focal and/or weak expression of chromogranin A, INSM1 and CD56. Collectively, these findings are most consistent with a DNPC phenotype. Ex vivo and in vivo preclinical studies revealed that CU-PC01 PDX tumours are resistant to mCRPC standard-of-care treatments enzalutamide and docetaxel, mirroring the donor patient's treatment response. Furthermore, short-term CU-PC01 tumour explant cultures indicate this model is initially sensitive to PARP inhibition with olaparib. Thus, the CU-PC01 PDX model provides a valuable opportunity to study AR-negative mCRPC biology and to discover new treatment avenues for this hard-to-treat disease.

First-line combination treatment with PARP and androgen receptor-signaling inhibitors in HRR-deficient mCRPC: Applying clinical study findings to clinical practice in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains incurable and develops from biochemically recurrent PC treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) following definitive therapy for localized PC, or from metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC). In the mCSPC setting, treatment intensification of ADT plus androgen receptor (AR)-signaling inhibitors (ARSIs), with or without chemotherapy, improves outcomes vs ADT alone. Despite multiple phase 3 trials demonstrating a survival benefit of treatment intensification in PC, there remains high use of ADT monotherapy in real-world clinical practice. Prior studies indicate that co-inhibition of AR and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) may result in enhanced benefit in treating tumors regardless of alterations in DNA damage response genes involved either directly or indirectly in homologous recombination repair (HRR). Three recent phase 3 studies evaluated the combination of a PARP inhibitor (PARPi) with an ARSI as first-line treatment for mCRPC: TALAPRO-2, talazoparib plus enzalutamide; PROpel, olaparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP); and MAGNITUDE, niraparib plus AAP. Results from these studies have led to the recent approval in the United States of talazoparib plus enzalutamide for the treatment of mCRPC with any HRR alteration, and of both olaparib and niraparib indicated in combination with AAP for the treatment of mCRPC with BRCA alterations. SUMMARY: Here, we review the newly approved PARPi plus ARSI treatments within the context of the mCRPC treatment landscape, provide an overview of practical considerations for the combinations in clinical practice, highlight the importance of HRR testing, and discuss the benefits of treatment intensification for patients with mCRPC.

[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ENZA-p): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide and lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 both improve overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Androgen and PSMA receptors have a close intracellular relationship, with data suggesting complementary benefit if targeted concurrently. In this study, we assessed the activity and safety of enzalutamide plus adaptive-dosed [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: ENZA-p was an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial done at 15 hospitals in Australia. Participants were men aged 18 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer not previously treated with docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-PET-CT (PSMA-PET-CT) positive disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and at least two risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by a centralised, web-based system using minimisation with a random component to stratify for study site, disease burden, use of early docetaxel, and previous treatment with abiraterone acetate. Patients were either given oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily alone or with adaptive-dosed (two or four doses) intravenous 7·5 GBq [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 every 6-8 weeks dependent on an interim PSMA-PET-CT (week 12). The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival, defined as the interval from the date of randomisation to the date of first evidence of PSA progression, commencement of non-protocol anticancer therapy, or death. The analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, using stratified Cox proportional hazards regression. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04419402, and participant follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: 162 participants were randomly assigned between Aug 17, 2020, and July 26, 2022. 83 men were assigned to the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group, and 79 were assigned to the enzalutamide group. Median follow-up in this interim analysis was 20 months (IQR 18-21), with 32 (39%) of 83 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 16 (20%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group remaining on treatment at the data cutoff date. Median age was 71 years (IQR 64-76). Median PSA progression-free survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·0-17·0) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 7·8 months (95% CI 4·3-11·0) in the enzalutamide group (hazard ratio 0·43, 95% CI 0·29-0·63, p<0·0001). The most common adverse events (all grades) were fatigue (61 [75%] of 81 patients), nausea (38 [47%]), and dry mouth (32 [40%]) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and fatigue (55 [70%] of 79), nausea (21 [27%]), and constipation (18 [23%]) in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 32 (40%) of 81 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 32 (41%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3 events that occurred only in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group included anaemia (three [4%] of 81 participants) and decreased platelet count (one [1%] participant). No grade 4 or 5 events were attributed to treatment on central review in either group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 to enzalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival providing evidence of enhanced anticancer activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide and warrants further evaluation of the combination more broadly in metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Research Alliance (Movember and Australian Federal Government), St Vincent's Clinic Foundation, GenesisCare, Roy Morgan Research, and Endocyte (a Novartis company).

Determination of enzalutamide long-term safety and efficacy for castration-resistant prostate cancer patients after combined anti-androgen blockade followed by alternative anti-androgen therapy: a multicenter prospective DELC study.

BACKGROUND: Alternative anti-androgen therapy has been widely used as a first-line treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer, and it may affect treatment outcome of subsequent agents targeting the androgen receptor axis. We conducted the prospective observational DELC (Determination of Enzalutamide Long-term safety and efficacy for Castration-resistant prostate cancer patients after combined anti-androgen blockade followed by alternative anti-androgen therapy) study to evaluate the efficacy of enzalutamide in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who underwent prior combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide and then alternative anti-androgen therapy with flutamide. METHODS: The DELC study enrolled 163 Japanese patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who underwent alternative anti-androgen therapy with flutamide following failure of initial combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide in multiple institutions between January 2016 and March 2019. Primary endpoint was overall survival. Administration of enzalutamide was started at 160 mg orally once daily in all patients. RESULTS: The rate of decline of prostate-specific antigen by 50% or more was 72.2%, and median overall survival was 42.05 months. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher pretreatment serum levels of prostate-specific antigen (≥11.3 ng/mL; P = 0.004), neuron-specific enolase (P = 0.014) and interleukin-6 (≥2.15 pg/mL; P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for overall survival. Fatigue (30.0%), constipation (19.6%) and appetite loss (17.8%) were the most common clinically relevant adverse events. The enzalutamide dose was not reduced in any patient under the age of 70, but adherence was decreased in those over 70. CONCLUSIONS: In the DELC study, the safety of enzalutamide was comparable to that in previous reports. Serum levels of neuron-specific enolase and interleukin-6 were suggested as prognostic factors for castration-resistant prostate cancer with potential clinical utility.

Co-expression of Twist and Snai1: predictor of poor prognosis and biomarker of treatment resistance in untreated prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) remains one of the most complex tumors in men. The assessment of gene expression is expected to have a profound impact on cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment decisions. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) transcription factors Twist and Snai1 in the treatment of naïve prostate cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) prostate tissues from 108 PCa patients and 20 control biopsies using real-time quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and 2-ΔΔCt methods for Twist and Snail gene expression. The expression of Twist and Snai1 mRNA was significantly overexpressed in primary tissues of PCa patients compared with controls using ROC curve. Statistical analysis showed that the mRNAs of these two genes expression Snai1 and Twist were positively correlated with tumor development and prognostic parameters as Gleason score (p < 0.001; r = 0.707) and (p < 0.001; r = 0.627) respectively. The results of Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that mRNA expression of Snai1 and Twist genes expression were significant predictors of poor overall survival (OS) (Log rank p < 0.001) and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients (Log rank p < 0.001). Furthermore, our results showed that the expression of Snai1 and Twist genes expression in primary tissues of PCa patients could predict resistance to androgen deprivation therapy (p < 0.001) and resistance to the acidic drugs abiraterone or enzalutamide (p < 0.001). However, these two transcription factors failed to predict taxanes resistance at the time of diagnosis (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that Snai1 and Twist are overexpressed during the onset and progression of PCa malignancies and may be theranostic markers of resistance to ADT, abiraterone, or enzalutamide therapy.

Survival outcome of chemotherapy-naïve castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with new-generation androgen receptor axis-targeted agents in real-world analysis.

PURPOSE: The androgen receptor axis-targeted (ARAT) agents abiraterone and enzalutamide have been introduced against castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, determining which of these agents should be used first is a clinical challenge. Therefore, in this study, we compared the efficacy of first-line abiraterone and enzalutamide treatments in chemotherapy-naïve patients with CRPC. METHODS: A total of 242 chemotherapy-naïve CRPC cases treated with first-line ARAT were analyzed. Outcome measures were PSA response, PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), cancer specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Abiraterone (A) and enzalutamide (E) were administered to 61 and 181 patients, respectively. The median PSA response rate (- 65.4% [A] and - 78.8% [E], p = 0.0341), PSA decline ≥ 30% (55.7% [A] and 72.9% [E], p = 0.0183), PSA-PFS (median 4 months [A] and 8 months [E], p = 0.0126), TTF (median 6 months [A] and 14 months [E], p < 0.0001), CSS (median 45 months [A] and not reached [E], p < 0.0001), and OS (median 28 months [A] and 80 months [E], p < 0.001) were significantly better in the enzalutamide group. In the multivariate analyses for CSS and OS, ALP (p = 0.00376) and ARAT (p < 0.001) (CSS), evidence of metastasis (p = 0.0467), Hb (p = 0.00205), and ARAT (p = 0.00514) (OS) were significant factors, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed that PSA response, PSA-PFS, TTF, CSS, and OS were better with first-line enzalutamide administration. Direct inhibition of androgen receptor signaling by enzalutamide is associated with better clinical outcomes.

Causal inferences and real-world evidence: A comparative effectiveness evaluation of abiraterone acetate against enzalutamide.

Regulatory authorities are recognizing the need for real-world evidence (RWE) as a complement to randomized controlled trials in the approval of drugs. However, RWE needs to be fit for regulatory purposes. There is an ongoing discussion regarding whether pre-publication of a protocol on appropriate repositories, e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov, would increase the quality of RWE or not. This paper illustrates that an observational study based on a pre-published protocol can entail the same level of detail as a protocol for a randomized experiment. The strategy is exemplified by designing a comparative effectiveness evaluation of abiraterone acetate against enzalutamide in clinical practice. These two cancer drugs are prescribed to patients with advanced prostate cancer. Two complementary designs, including pre-analysis plans, were published before data on outcomes and proxy-outcomes were obtained. The underlying assumptions are assessed and both analyses show an increased mortality risk from being prescribed abiraterone acetate compared to enzalutamide.

Real-world survival outcome comparing abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and enzalutamide for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence of abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone for patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of real-world survival outcomes between AA plus prednisone and enzalutamide (Enz) in patients with nmCRPC, utilizing our consortium dataset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical records of 133 nmCRPC patients treated with first-line Enz or AA plus prednisone were analyzed. The primary endpoints of the study were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Cumulative incidence function (CIF) using Fine and Gray models was also utilized to assess non-cancer-caused death considering the competing risk of cancer-caused death. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 36 months, 34 patients (25.6%) had deceased, with a median OS of 99 months in the entire cohort. There were no significant differences in comorbidities between the Enz and AA groups. Time to PSA progression (TTPP: HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51-1.30, P = 0.375) and CSS (HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.55-3.44, P = 0.5141) were comparable between the two groups. However, intriguingly, there was a trend towards shorter OS in patients treated with AA plus prednisone compared to Enz (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29-1.12, P = 0.0978, median of 99 and 69 months in Enz and AA groups, respectively). CIF analysis revealed that nmCRPC patients treated with AA plus prednisone were more likely to result in non-cancer-caused death than those treated with Enz (HR 5.22, 95% CI 1.88-14.50, P = 0.0014). CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world survival analysis suggests that while AA plus prednisone may demonstrate comparable treatment efficacy to Enz in the context of nmCRPC, there may be an increased risk of non-cancer-caused death. Physicians should take into consideration this information when making treatment decisions for patients with nmCRPC.

PARPing up the right tree; an overview of PARP inhibitors for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are transforming the current treatment landscape of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. By reanalysing published data on olaparib, talazoparib, rucaparib and niraparib, we provide a concise overview of responses by molecular subgroup. As monotherapy, all PARPi showed comparable efficacy and the same hierarchy in responsiveness: patients with tumours harbouring aberrations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCAm) evidently demonstrate superior responses when compared to aberrations in other homologous recombination repair (HRR) related genes. Niraparib seems to cause more grade ≥3 adverse events in comparison to other PARPi. PARPi have also been combined with androgen-receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSI) for both patients with tumours harbouring aberrations in HRR genes (HRRm), and molecularly unselected patients. Compared to wildtype, BRCAm patients responded best, followed by HRRm. Olaparib-abiraterone, niraparib-abiraterone, and talazoparib-enzalutamide all prolonged progression-free survival compared to an ARSI alone in HRRm patients. In the non-HRRm subgroup, only olaparib-abiraterone and talazoparib-enzalutamide were effective. Results for the combination of rucaparib with enzalutamide are yet to be reported. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events for the combination regimens is 10-30% higher when compared to an ARSI alone. Given the limited efficacy in unselected patients, these PARPi-ARSI combinations may be best reserved for selected patients.

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.

Predicting response to enzalutamide and abiraterone in metastatic prostate cancer using whole-omics machine learning.

Response to androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSI) varies widely in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). To improve treatment guidance, biomarkers are needed. We use whole-genomics (WGS; n = 155) with matching whole-transcriptomics (WTS; n = 113) from biopsies of ARSI-treated mCRPC patients for unbiased discovery of biomarkers and development of machine learning-based prediction models. Tumor mutational burden (q < 0.001), structural variants (q < 0.05), tandem duplications (q < 0.05) and deletions (q < 0.05) are enriched in poor responders, coupled with distinct transcriptomic expression profiles. Validating various classification models predicting treatment duration with ARSI on our internal and external mCRPC cohort reveals two best-performing models, based on the combination of prior treatment information with either the four combined enriched genomic markers or with overall transcriptomic profiles. In conclusion, predictive models combining genomic, transcriptomic, and clinical data can predict response to ARSI in mCRPC patients and, with additional optimization and prospective validation, could improve treatment guidance.