Freedland, Stephen J.

Abstract Background: Missing risk factors, whether random or not measured at all, across different hospitals and patients provide challenges, both for the developers of online clinical risk tools and the patients trying to use such tools. This paper provides a development and end-user solution to the commonly encountered limitations of clinical risk tool based decision making due to missing information.Methods: Six state-of-the-art logistic regression approaches accommodating missing data were compared using prostate cancer data from ten North American and European cohorts from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG). An additional large European PBCG cohort was withheld for external validation, where calibration-in-the-large (CIL), calibration curves, and area-underneath-the-receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were evaluated. Ten-fold leave-one-cohort-internal validation further validated the optimal missing data approach.Results: Among 12,703 biopsies from 10 training cohorts, 3,597 (28%) had clinically significant prostate cancer, compared to 1,757 of 5,540 (32%) in the external validation cohort. In external validation, the available cases method that pooled individual patient data containing all risk factors input by an end-user had best CIL, under-predicting risks as percentages by 2.9% on average, and obtained an AUC of 75.7%. Imputation had the worst CIL (-13.3%). The available cases method was further validated as optimal in internal cross-validation and thus used for development of an online risk tool. For end-users of the risk tool, two risk factors were mandatory: serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and age, and ten were optional: digital rectal exam, prostate volume, prior negative biopsy, 5-alpha-reductase-inhibitor use, prior PSA screen, African ancestry, Hispanic ethnicity, first-degree prostate-, breast-, and second-degree prostate-cancer family history.Conclusion: Developers of clinical risk prediction tools should optimize use of available data and sources even in the presence of high amounts of missing data and offer options for users with missing risk factors.

Abstract Purpose: The role of immune-oncologic mechanisms of racial disparities in prostate cancer remains understudied. Limited research exists to evaluate the molecular underpinnings of immune differences in African American men (AAM) and European American men (EAM) prostate tumor microenvironment (TME). Experimental Design: A total of 1,173 radiation-naïve radical prostatectomy samples with whole transcriptome data from the Decipher GRID registry were used. Transcriptomic expressions of 1,260 immune-specific genes were selected to assess immune-oncologic differences between AAM and EAM prostate tumors. Race-specific differential expression of genes was assessed using a rank test, and intergene correlational matrix and gene set enrichment was used for pathway analysis. Results: AAM prostate tumors have significant enrichment of major immune-oncologic pathways, including proinflammatory cytokines, IFNα, IFNγ, TNFα signaling, ILs, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition. AAM TME has higher total immune content score (ICSHIGH) compared with 0 (37.8% vs. 21.9%, P = 0.003). AAM tumors also have lower DNA damage repair and are genomically radiosensitive as compared with EAM. IFITM3 (IFN-inducible transmembrane protein 3) was one of the major proinflammatory genes overexpressed in AAM that predicted increased risk of biochemical recurrence selectively for AAM in both discovery [HRAAM = 2.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.21–4.34; P = 0.01] and validation (HRAAM = 2.42; 95% CI, 1.52–3.86; P = 0.0001) but not in EAM. Conclusions: Prostate tumors of AAM manifest a unique immune repertoire and have significant enrichment of proinflammatory immune pathways that are associated with poorer outcomes. Observed immune-oncologic differences can aid in a genomically adaptive approach to treating prostate cancer in AAM.

Objectives: Immunotherapy (IO) has become standard of care (SOC) for many advanced malignancies, although identifying patients likely to benefit remains difficult. We sought to assess whether demographic factors are associated with response to IO, compared with SOC systemic therapy, using stratified meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from inception to October 2, 2018. Randomized controlled trials comparing IO to SOC in patients with advanced solid organ malignancies were included if results were stratified by age, performance status (PS), or race, assessing overall survival (OS). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each group using random-effects models independently. Results: We identified 21 eligible randomized controlled trials, including 20 stratified by age, 17 by PS, and 4 by race. Patients with PS 0 (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86) and PS≥1 (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.83) had similar OS benefits from IO compared with SOC (P=0.80). There was no difference on the basis of patient race (white vs. nonwhite) (P=0.46). IO demonstrated an OS benefit for younger (below 65 y: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82) and older (65 y and above: HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.88) patients with no difference between age groups (P=0.27). Among prespecified subgroup analyses, there was significant effect modification in 2 subgroups: younger patients in the first-line setting (P=0.03) and those receiving anti-CTLA-4 drugs (P=0.05). Conclusions: When examining OS using stratified meta-analysis, we did not demonstrate significant differences in IO efficacy according to patient age, PS or race, though data on race were sparse.

Abstract Purpose: The heterogeneity of androgen receptor (AR)-activity (AR-A) is well-characterized in heavily treated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, the diversity and clinical implications of AR-A in treatment-naïve primary prostate cancer is largely unknown. We sought to characterize AR-A in localized prostate cancer and understand its molecular and clinical implications. Experimental Design: Genome-wide expression profiles from prostatectomy or biopsy samples from 19,470 patients were used, all with independent pathology review. This was comprised of prospective discovery (n = 5,239) and validation (n = 12,728) cohorts, six retrospective institutional cohorts with long-term clinical outcomes data (n = 1,170), and The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 333). Results: A low AR-active subclass was identified, which comprised 9%–11% of each cohort, and was characterized by increased immune signaling, neuroendocrine expression, and decreased DNA repair. These tumors were predominantly ERG and basal subtype. Low AR-active tumors had significantly more rapid development of recurrence or metastatic disease across cohorts, which was maintained on multivariable analysis [HR, 2.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22–5.60; P = 0.014]. Low AR-active tumors were predicted to be more sensitive to PARP inhibition, platinum chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, and less sensitive to docetaxel and androgen-deprivation therapy. This was validated clinically, in that low AR-active tumors were less sensitive to androgen-deprivation therapy (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21–0.80; P = 0.008). Conclusions: Leveraging large-scale transcriptomic data allowed the identification of an aggressive subtype of treatment-naïve primary prostate cancer that harbors molecular features more analogous to mCRPC. This suggests that a preexisting subgroup of patients may have tumors that are predisposed to fail multiple current standard-of-care therapies and warrant dedicated therapeutic investigation.

Abstract Introduction: Epidemiologic data support an inverse association between statin use and risk of lethal prostate cancer, but contributing mechanisms have not been elucidated. Herein, using data from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS), we updated our previous analysis of statins and lethal prostate cancer with a decade of additional follow-up, and incorporated immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based biomarkers and gene expression profiling to identify putative molecular mechanisms contributing to the association. Methods: We included data from 44,076 HPFS participants who were cancer free in 1990, with follow-up through 2012. Participants reported prediagnostic statin use on biennial questionnaires. Statin use was categorized as current vs. never/past use, with current users further categorized as long-term vs. short-term users (≥6 vs. <6 years). To classify prostate cancer molecular subtypes, genetically validated IHC assays for TMPRSS2:ERG fusion and PTEN loss were conducted on tissue microarrays for 891 and 660 cases, respectively. Whole-genome mRNA profiling of tumor and adjacent normal tissue was completed for 237 and 114 cases, respectively, using Affymetrix GeneChip Human Gene 1.0 ST arrays. We used Cox proportional hazards analysis to generate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between statin use and risk of overall, advanced (stage T3b or higher at diagnosis, metastatic or fatal), and lethal (metastatic or fatal) prostate cancer, as well as molecular subtypes, adjusted for PSA testing behavior and potential confounders including obesity and smoking. Moreover, we explored gene expression pathways in tumor and adjacent normal prostate tissue of statin users vs. nonusers using gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). Results: During 22 years of follow-up, 6,144 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer; 1,051 (17%) had advanced disease and 827 (13%) developed lethal prostate cancer. Of cases with molecular subtype available, 48% were ERG-positive and 14% PTEN-null. In multivariable analysis, relative to never/past use, current statin use was inversely associated with risk of advanced (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.68-1.04) and lethal (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68-1.01) prostate cancer. These associations were more pronounced in long-term users, where ≥6 years of prediagnosis statin use was significantly associated with a lower risk of advanced (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53-0.97) and lethal prostate cancer (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45-0.92), relative to nonuse. Long-term statin use was not associated with overall prostate cancer risk, whether ERG-positive (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.59-1.35) or ERG-negative (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.74-1.50). However, relative to nonuse, a longer duration of prediagnosis statin use was associated with reduced risk of PTEN-null cancers (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.20-0.90), but not PTEN-intact disease (HR 1.18; 95% CI 0.95-1.46; p-heterogeneity=0.01). In GSEA, we identified T cell, B cell, and phosphatidylinositol (PI3K) signaling among the top pathways enriched in tumor-adjacent normal prostate tissue of current statin users, relative to never users. Intriguingly, no gene sets were differentially expressed by statin use in the tumor. Discussion: Our updated findings from the HPFS are consistent with our prior findings and other epidemiologic data supporting a role for statins in lethal prostate cancer prevention. Molecular classification of tumors identified PTEN/PI3K signaling and inflammation/immune activation as two potential mechanisms contributing to this association. Elucidating molecular mechanisms mediating the association between statin use and lower risk of lethal prostate cancer will provide support for a causal effect of statins on lethal prostate cancer risk and could inform statin clinical trials with appropriate intermediate endpoints. Citation Format: Emma H. Allott, Ericka M. Ebot, Amparo G. Gonzalez-Feliciano, Sarah C. Markt, Kathryn M. Wilson, Thomas U. Ahearn, Travis A. Gerke, Mary K. Downer, Konrad H. Stopsack, Jennifer R. Rider, Stephen J. Freedland, Elizabeth A. Platz, Meir J. Stampfer, Edward L. Giovannucci, Christopher J. Sweeney, Stephen P. Finn, Lorelei A. Mucci. Molecular tumor profiling to identify mechanisms linking statin use with lower risk of lethal prostate cancer: Results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Prostate Cancer: Advances in Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research; 2017 Dec 2-5; Orlando, Florida. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(16 Suppl):Abstract nr A015.

Purpose In April 2017, the American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology released a joint evidence-based practice guideline on clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline except for two recommendations on cryosurgery. The two recommendations covering cryosurgery were not endorsed because the panel found that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of cryotherapy in this setting. Recommendations The ASCO Expert Panel endorsed all but two of the original guideline recommendations as written and offered a series of discussion points to guide practice.