Freedland, Stephen J.

2 Background: Significant genomic diversity exists in the androgen receptor ( AR) and its activity (AR-A) in mCRPC. In localized prostate cancer, the biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic clinical implications of AR-A heterogeneity have yet to be interrogated Methods: Genome-wide expression profiles of FFPE RP or biopsy tumor samples were evaluated from a prospective registry cohort (n = 5,239, NCT02609269) and six retrospective institutional cohorts (n = 1,170). AR-A was calculated based on expression of 9 targets of AR.. Results: Utilizing 6,409 localized prostate adenocarcinomas with full transcriptomic data, we found there was marked inter-individual transcriptomic diversity in AR and AR-A expression, and weak correlation between them (r = 0.08 to 0.36 based on cohort), in contrast to mCRPC that has a strong correlation between AR and AR-A expression (r = 0.76). Additionally, serum PSA had no correlation to intratumoral AR-A (r = 0.06). Unsupervised hierarchical clustering identified a distinct subclass of low AR-A prostate tumors, which had increased markers of immunogenicity (decreased T-regs and MDSCs, and increased CD3 effector T-cells), increased neuroendocrine marker expression ( NCAM1, ENO2, and SCG2), and decreased DNA repair pathway expression (all p < 0.001). Clinically, low AR-A tumors had more rapid development of metastatic disease in three independent cohorts, were more prone to develop resistance to hormonal therapy and develop CRPC, and were found at an increased frequency in African-American men. Interrogating in vitro drug sensitivity analyses utilizing the NCI-60 panel, low AR-A tumors appear more sensitive to platinum chemotherapy and PARP inhibition, and less sensitive to hormone therapy and taxanes. Conclusions: The diversity in AR-signaling in localized prostate cancer represents important biological heterogeneity that is both prognostic and predictive of treatment response. These findings are provocative in that low AR-A tumors may be more susceptible to immunotherapy, PARP inhibition, platinum chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy. Patients with low AR-A tumors warrant dedicated biomarker enhanced clinical trials.

Objective To evaluate biochemical recurrence ( BCR ) patterns amongst men undergoing radical prostatectomy ( RP ) with specimens having negative ( NSM ), positive ( PSM ), and close surgical margins ( CSM ) from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital ( SEARCH ) cohort, as PSM after RP are a significant predictor of biochemical failure and possible disease progression, with CSM representing a diagnostic challenge for surgeons. Patients and Methods Men undergoing RP between 1988 and 2015 with known final pathological margin status were evaluated. The cohort was divided into three groups based on margin status; NSM , PSM , and CSM . CSM were defined by distance of tumour ≤1 mm from the surgical margin. BCR was defined as a prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA ) level of >0.2 ng/mL, two values at 0.2 ng/mL, or secondary treatment for an elevated PSA level. Predictors of BCR , metastases, and mortality were analysed using Cox proportional hazard models. Results Of 5515 men in the SEARCH database, 4337 (79%) men met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Of these, 2063 (48%) had NSM , 1902 (44%) had PSM , and 372 (8%) had CSM . On multivariable analysis, relative to NSM , men with CSM had a higher risk of BCR (hazard ratio [ HR ] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [ CI ] 1.25–1.82; P < 0.001) but a decreased risk of BCR when compared to those men with PSM ( HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.86–2.36; P < 0.001). Metastases, prostate cancer‐specific mortality and all‐cause mortality did not differ based on margin status alone. Conclusions Management of men with CSM is a diagnostic challenge, with a disease course that is not entirely benign. The evaluation of other known risk factors probably provides greater prognostic value for these men and may ultimately better select those who may benefit from adjuvant therapy.

3 Background: There is a clear need to develop a clinically relevant molecular subtyping approach for prostate cancer. We hypothesized that prostate cancer can be subtyped based on luminal versus basal lineage. Methods: We applied the PAM50 classifier, which is used clinically to identify luminal and basal cancers in breast cancer, to subtype a total of 3,782 prostate cancer samples using a high-density microarray platform run in a CLIA-certified laboratory. We examined the associations of these subtypes and clinical outcomes. Results: We demonstrate that PAM50 segregates prostate cancer into three reproducible subtypes in both retrospective cohorts and on prospective validation: luminal A (33.3%-34.3%), luminal B (28.5%-32.6%), and basal (34.1%-37.1%). Luminal B prostate cancers exhibited the worst clinical prognoses, followed by basal and luminal A subtypes (10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival: 29/39/41%; distant metastasis-free survival: 53/73/73%; prostate cancer-specific survival: 78/86/89%; overall survival: 69/80/82% respectively) on both univariable and multivariable analyses accounting for standard clinicopathologic prognostic factors. Known luminal lineage markers, such as NKX3.1 and KRT18, and the basal lineage CD49f signature, were enriched in luminal- and basal-like cancers respectively, demonstrating the connection between these subtypes and established prostate cancer biology. While both luminal-like subtypes were associated with increased AR expression and signaling, only luminal B prostate cancers were significantly associated with post-operative response to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in a subset analysis matching patients based on clinicopathologic variables (interaction p = 0.006, luminal B 10-year metastasis: 33% (treated) vs. 55% (untreated), non-luminal B: 37% (treated) vs. 21% (untreated)). Conclusions: These findings contribute novel insight into the biology of prostate cancer, and provide translatable clinical tools for personalizing post-operative ADT for patients with prostate cancer. Similar to breast cancer, these findings suggest that luminal/basal subtyping may be useful in treatment selection in prostate cancer.

142 Background: Despite documented oncological benefit, postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) utilization in prostate cancer (PCa) patients is still limited in the US. We aimed to develop and internally validate a risk stratification tool incorporating the Decipher score, along with routinely available clinicopathologic features, to identify patients who would benefit the most from aRT. Methods: Our cohort included a total of 512 PCa patients treated with RP at one of four US academic centers between 1990-2010. All patients had ≥ pT3a disease, positive margins, and/or pathologic lymph node invasion (LNI). Multivariable Cox regression analysis (MVA) tested the relationship between available predictors (including Decipher score) and clinical recurrence (CR), which were then used to develop a novel risk stratification tool. Our study adhered to the TRIPOD guidelines for development of prognostic models. Results: Overall, 21.9% patients received aRT. Median follow-up in censored patients was 8.3 years. The 10-year CR rate was 4.9% vs. 17.4% in patients treated with aRT vs. initial observation (p < 0.001). Pathological T3b/T4 stage, Gleason score 8-10, LNI and Decipher score > 0.6 were independent predictors of CR (all p < 0.01) Cumulative number of risk factors was 0, 1, 2, and 3-4 in respectively 46.5, 28.9, 17.2, and 7.4% of patients. Adjuvant RT was associated with decreased CR rate in patients with ≥ 2 risk factors (10-year CR rate 10.1% in aRT vs. 42.1% in initial observation, p = 0.008), but not in those with < 2 risk factors (p = 0.23). Conclusions: Utilizing the novel model to indicate aRT might reduce overtreatment, decrease unnecessary side effects, and reduce risk of CR in the subset of patients (~25% of all patients with aggressive pathological disease) who really benefit from this therapy.

133 Background: The genomic classifier, Decipher, has been validated to predict risk of metastasis after radical prostatectomy (RP). However, the cohort size and event rate in the previous studies did not allow for a thorough investigation into performance within individual clinicopathologic or treatment subgroups. In this study, we present the first meta-analysis of the performance of the 22-marker genomic classifier in men with prostate cancer (PCa) post-RP. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Decipher genomic resource information database were searched for published reports of men with PCa treated by RP between 2010 and 2016 where the benefit of the Decipher genomic classifier test was assessed. The primary end point was the ability of Decipher to independently improve prognostication of regional or distant metastasis over routine clinicopathologic factors. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects modeling, and extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined with the I2 test. Results: Five studies (975 total patients, and 855 with individual patient genomic and clinicopathologic data) were eligible for analysis. The median follow-up was 8 years. All patients had clinical high-risk disease, yet 60.9%, 22.6%, and 16.5% of patients were classified as low, intermediate, and high-risk, respectively by Decipher and had 10-year cumulative incidence rates of metastases of 5.5%, 15.0% and 26.7% (p < 0.001), respectively. Adjusting for standard clinicopathologic variables, on multivariable analysis Decipher remained a statistically significant predictor of metastasis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.30 per 0.1 unit, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.47, p < 0.001), and the summary HR for metastasis of Decipher across the 5 studies was 1.52 (95% CI 1.39-1.67) per 0.1 unit. Conclusions: The genomic classifier test, Decipher, has the ability to independently improve prognostication of men post-RP, as well as within nearly all clinicopathologic and treatment subgroups. Strong consideration should be given to incorporating the use of genomic testing in clinical decision making and clinical trials to better individualize treatment.

Purpose Despite documented oncologic benefit, use of postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) in patients with prostate cancer is still limited in the United States. We aimed to develop and internally validate a risk-stratification tool incorporating the Decipher score, along with routinely available clinicopathologic features, to identify patients who would benefit the most from aRT. Patient and Methods Our cohort included 512 patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy at one of four US academic centers between 1990 and 2010. All patients had ≥ pT3a disease, positive surgical margins, and/or pathologic lymph node invasion. Multivariable Cox regression analysis tested the relationship between available predictors (including Decipher score) and clinical recurrence (CR), which were then used to develop a novel risk-stratification tool. Our study adhered to the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis guidelines for development of prognostic models. Results Overall, 21.9% of patients received aRT. Median follow-up in censored patients was 8.3 years. The 10-year CR rate was 4.9% vs. 17.4% in patients treated with aRT versus initial observation ( P < .001). Pathologic T3b/T4 stage, Gleason score 8-10, lymph node invasion, and Decipher score > 0.6 were independent predictors of CR (all P < .01). The cumulative number of risk factors was 0, 1, 2, and 3 to 4 in 46.5%, 28.9%, 17.2%, and 7.4% of patients, respectively. aRT was associated with decreased CR rate in patients with two or more risk factors (10-year CR rate 10.1% in aRT v 42.1% in initial observation; P = .012), but not in those with fewer than two risk factors ( P = .18). Conclusion Using the new model to indicate aRT might reduce overtreatment, decrease unnecessary adverse effects, and reduce risk of CR in the subset of patients (approximately 25% of all patients with aggressive pathologic disease in our cohort) who benefit from this therapy.

23 Background: Perineural invasion (PNI) on prostate cancer (PC) biopsies has been associated with disease upgrading among those undergoing radical prostatectomy. However, the clinical significance of PNI in men on active surveillance (AS) has been evaluated by a limited number of studies. Thus, we sought to evaluate the association of PNI with time to clinical and pathological progression in men with PC on AS. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 289 men 48 to 82 years old on AS for low-risk PC (T1c-T2a), Gleason ≤6, ≤3 positive cores, ≤50% of any core involved, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤11ng/ml, life expectancy >5 years and follow-up data in the REduction by Dutasteride of clinical progression Events in Expectant Management study. Progression was divided in pathological (>3 positive cores, >50% core involvement or Gleason >6 in a repeat biopsy) or therapeutic (any treatment for PC) or both. Time to progression was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier plots, log-rank tests and Cox model adjusting for age, PSA density, percent cores involved, maximum core involvement and treatment. Results: A total of 11 (4%) patients had PNI on baseline biopsy. PNI was associated with higher tumor length and maximum core involvement (all P<0.05). PNI was not associated with patient’s age, race, PSA levels or density, percent or number of positive cores. After a median follow-up of 37 months, 125 (43%) patients developed progression. Of these, 95 (76%) patients had pathological and 30 (24%) had therapeutic progression. In univariable analysis, patients with baseline PNI had a shorter time to overall and pathological progression (HR=2.62, 95%CI=1.31-5.23, P=0.006 and HR=2.42, 95%CI=1.03-5.66, P=0.041, respectively). Similar results were obtained in multivariable analysis for overall and pathological progression (HR=2.26, 95%CI=1.10-4.68, P=0.028 and HR=2.13, 95%CI=0.88-5.13, P=0.092, respectively). Conclusions: Among patients with PC on AS, PNI is independently associated with shorter time to progression. Thus, PNI may be used to help select patients for AS and stratify them according to the risk of disease progression.