Cooperberg, Matthew R

Abstract Background Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease comprising diverse cell types within the tumor microenvironment that support cancer cell survival. Using single cell and spatial transcriptomics, we previously identified subpopulations of treatment-persistent cancer cells exhibiting regenerative properties and a distinct molecular signature. Herein, we aimed to characterize the locked ‘Persist’ signature (PS) and its association with outcomes in a large cohort of non-metastatic prostate cancer tumors. Methods Patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer that underwent Decipher prostate genomic classifier and whole-transcriptome profiling on biopsy (BX, n=146,941) and radical prostatectomy (RP, n=55,329) specimens between October 2016 and February 2024 were included (Veracyte Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Baseline clinical and pathological data from deidentified patients as well as signature scores were retrieved from the Decipher Genomic Resource for Intelligent Discovery (GRID) registry (Clinical Trials identifier: NCT02609269). The PS score based on the expression of 17 genes was calculated for all samples. Results PS was significantly associated with adverse clinical and pathological variables. In biopsy sample, PS was higher in cases with worse T3/4 clinical stage, Grade group (GG4-5), and high/very high NCCN risk (p<0.001 for all). In RP sample, PS was significantly higher in patients with GG4-5, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node involvement (p<0.001 for all). PS was also higher in patients with very high Decipher (>0.85) in both BX and RP (p<0.001 for both). When evaluating the prognosis of PS in multiple retrospective cohorts, PS in biopsy was prognostic of adverse pathology features at RP. PS was also prognostic of distance metastasis (DM) in multiple RP cohorts with long-term follow up (META855). In the ARNEO trial testing apalutamide in addition to ADT as neo-adjuvant treatment prior RP, PS was prognostic of early recurrence. In the Stampede trial, PS was prognostic of progression free survival, PCSM and OS in both non-metastatic and metastatic disease. When associating PS with other GRID signatures, PS was higher in samples with homologous recombination deficiency, TP53 mutations, Luminal B and luminal proliferating subtypes. On the other hand, PS was lower in samples with low androgen receptor-activity, RB-loss and neuroendocrine-like tumors. Finally, PS was positively correlated with radiation sensitivity signatures. Conclusions Persist is a novel molecular signature associated with more aggressive tumor characteristics. Future studies aim to further examine beyond this signature potential to identify patients at risk of aggressive prostate cancer, and understand what the optimal treatments for those with treatment-persistent prostate cancer cells are. Citation Format: Francesco Ballesio, Sinja Taavitsainen, Mohammed Alshalalfa, Antti Kiviaho, Mazlina Ismail, Reetta Nätkin, Alexander Giesen, Thomas Munro, James A. Proudfoot, Hyunnam Ryu, Elai Davicioni, Matthew C. Cooperberg, R. Jeffrey. Karnes, Ruochen Jiang, Steven Joniau, Gerhardt Attard, Frank Claessens, Matti Nykter, Alfonso Urbanucci. Persist: a molecular signature for prostate cancer patients with preexisting treatment-persistent cells associated with aggressive disease [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Innovations in Prostate Cancer Research and Treatment; 2026 Jan 20-22; Philadelphia PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(2_Suppl):Abstract nr B079.

Background: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. Results: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. Conclusions: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

Purpose: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. Results: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. Conclusions: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

Purpose: The advent of new imaging agents offers enhanced sensitivity and specificity in the detection and staging of prostate cancer. A growing array of treatment options and ongoing advancements in imaging technologies allow earlier and more extensive detection of metastatic disease and shifting the boundaries between disease states previously defined by conventional imaging. This review seeks to synthesize existing data and expert opinion to better guide patient management in the new era of targeted precision imaging (TPI). Materials and Methods: The Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence VI Group gathered to develop pathways/recommendations regarding how TPI could best be deployed, given approvals of key radiotracers including 18F-fluciclovine, 68Ga-PSMA, and 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/CT. Results: Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence VI Group members developed consensus pathways/suggestions based on the best available evidence for use of TPI in prostate cancer. Conclusions: Patients with prostate cancer have the potential to benefit from judicious use of TPI. However, additional research is needed to ensure that TPI is used appropriately and provides actionable findings that inform treatment decisions for these patients.

Abstract Background Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling. Methods Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations. Results Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from “finances in general” was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7). Conclusions In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.

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.

Objectives To prospectively evaluate the performance of a pre‐specified statistical model based on four kallikrein markers in blood (total prostate‐specific antigen [PSA], free PSA, intact PSA, and human kallikrein‐related peptidase 2), commercially available as the 4Kscore, in predicting Gleason Grade Group (GG) ≥2 prostate cancer at biopsy in an international multicentre study at three academic medical centres, and whether microseminoprotein‐β (MSP) adds predictive value. Patients and Methods A total of 984 men were prospectively enrolled at three academic centres. The primary outcome was GG ≥2 on prostate biopsy. Three pre‐specified statistical models were used: a base model including PSA, age, digital rectal examination and prior negative biopsy; a model that added free PSA to the base model; and the 4Kscore. Results A total of 947 men were included in the final analysis and 273 (29%) had GG ≥2 on prostate biopsy. The base model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.775 increased to 0.802 with the addition of free PSA, and to 0.824 for the 4Kscore. Adding MSP to the 4Kscore model yielded an increase (0.014–0.019) in discrimination. In decision‐curve analysis of clinical utility, the 4Kscore showed a benefit starting at a 7.5% threshold. Conclusion A prospective multicentre evaluation of a pre‐specified model based on four kallikrein markers (4Kscore) with the addition of MSP improves the predictive discrimination for GG ≥2 prostate cancer on biopsy and could be used to inform biopsy decision‐making.

PURPOSE Pretreatment estimates of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) are challenging and significantly influence the management of prostate cancer. We sought to improve current models to predict SVI through the development of an SVI prediction genomic signature. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 15,889 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) with available baseline clinical, pathology, and transcriptome data were retrieved from the GRID registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02609269 ) and other retrospective cohorts. These data were divided into a training (n = 6,766), test (n = 3,363), and two validation (n = 5,062 and 698) cohorts. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the predictive effect of the genomic SVI (gSVI) classifier in the presence of established nomograms (Partin Tables and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC]). RESULTS In the training cohort, univariable filtering identified 2,132 genes that were differentially expressed between RP tumors with and without SVI. Model parameters were tuned to maximize the area under the curve (AUC) in the testing cohort, resulting in a logistic generalized linear model with 581 genes. The gSVI model scores range from 0 to 1. In the first validation set, gSVI showed superior discrimination of patients with and without SVI at RP compared with other prognostic signatures trained to predict distant metastasis or clinical recurrence. Of the 698 patients in the second validation set, gSVI combined with the MSKCC nomogram had a superior AUC (0.86) compared with either nomogram individually (0.81). CONCLUSION The gSVI represents a novel and validated expression signature to predict the presence of SVI before treatment with surgery. This genomic tool adds discriminatory power to existing clinical predictive nomograms and may help with pretreatment counseling and decision making.

295 Background: While 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT is approved in the US and recommended by the NCCN, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT is more common in Europe/Australia and recommended by the EAU. Less is known about the biology of lesions detected by either modality. 18F-fluciclovine PET relies on radiotracer uptake by amino acid transporters LAT1-4 and ASCT1-2. PSMA PET is dependent on surface expression of PSMA. We compared relative expression of PSMA and fluciclovine transporter genes in radical prostatectomy (RP) samples to determine their distribution across subtypes and correlation with outcomes. Methods: Gene expression data of 19,102 RP samples were analyzed using the Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray. 1,135 patients had long term follow up. Associations between expression of PSMA and fluciclovine transporter genes (LAT1-4 and ASCT1-2) and pathologic variables, molecular subtypes, and clinical outcomes were conducted. Results: All fluciclovine transporter genes (LAT 1-4, ASCT1-2) were expressed at lower levels than PSMA (p <0.0001). PSMA expression was positively correlated with genomic risk score and pathologic Gleason score (p<0.0001), but LAT2-3 and ASCT2 were inversely correlated with genomic risk in primary tumors (p<0.0001) and less expressed in GS 9-10 tumors (p<0.0001). PSMA expression was associated with worse metastasis-free survival (MFS) (HR 1.45, p=0.001) and lymph node involvement (HR 2.14, p<0.0001). Expression of LAT2, LAT3, ASCT2 expression was associated with better MFS (HR 0.85, 0.63, 0.74, p<0.0001-0.04). After multivariable adjustment, PSMA expression remained independently prognostic of poorer MFS (HR 1.3, p=0.028). Luminal B subtype was notable for PSMA overexpression; Luminal A was enriched in ASCT2 and LAT2 (p<0.0001). PSMA expression did not correlate with ERG fusion prostate cancers, but LAT2, ASCT1, and ASCT2 were overexpressed in ERG fusion negative tumors (p<0.0001). Conclusions: PSMA expression is associated with more aggressive disease and poorer clinical outcomes than fluciclovine transporter genes in localized prostate cancer. Molecular subtypes of prostate cancer vary in PSMA and fluciclovine transporter gene expression.