Gleave, Martin

309 Background: Standard of care (SOC) treatment options for HR-PCa include RT with long-term androgen deprivation (LT-ADT) or RP with selective use of post-operative RT +/- androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The optimal treatment approach has been assessed in retrospective population-based and multi-center comparisons, which have yielded mixed results with substantial bias. Therefore, we conducted an emulated randomized comparison of RT vs RP in HR-PCa leveraging patients enrolled in RCTs. Methods: We searched Medline for RCTs in HR-PCa with a SOC arm of an RT- or RP-based regimen. Inclusion required similar experimental treatment and contemporaneous enrollment in the same country to reduce bias. This identified 2 trials, NRG/RTOG 0521 (RT+LT-ADT +/- 6 cycles docetaxel [doce]), and CALGB 90203 (RP +/- neoadjuvant 6 cycles doce and ADT). Due to inherent difference in the biochemical recurrence criteria after RT vs RP, we chose inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) cumulative incidence of distant metastasis (DM) as the primary endpoint, considering deaths as competing events. Death after DM was measured to create a harmonized metric of deaths likely attributed to PCa. To assess potential residual selection bias, death without DM to capture non-cancer associated deaths was analyzed. Results: Overall, 1290 patients (RT n=557, RP n=733) were included, with similar median follow-up of 6.4 years. Prior to IPTW, RP patients were significantly younger with lower baseline PSA compared to RT patients. Adjuvant (18%) and salvage therapy (44%) was used in RP cohort. Cumulative incidence of DM was significantly lower in patients who underwent RT compared to RP (8-year DM: 16% vs 23%; p=0.01; subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.48 [95%CI 0.34-0.69], p<0.001). 8-year rates of death after DM were 10% vs 8% (p=0.72) in the RP and RT patients, respectively. RT patients had significantly greater risk of death without DM (HR 2.09 [1.01-4.34], p=0.048) with early differences measured. On a cross-arm comparison, 8-year cumulative incidence of DM when comparing SOC RT+LT-ADT group versus the doce+ADT+RP group was 18% vs 21%, respectively (sHR 0.75 [0.45-1.24], p=0.26). Conclusions: HR-PCa patients enrolled on RCTs had significantly lower incidence of DM with an RT-based strategy compared to an RP-based approach. Longer follow-up is needed to assess deaths attributed to PCa. Despite the strengths of the comparison (use of cooperative group RCT data, contemporaneous enrollment in the same country, patients fit enough for chemotherapy, and IPTW adjustments) there appears to be residual unmeasured bias, as expected, based on greater early deaths without DM in the RT arm. Utilization of post-operative radiotherapy and ADT+Doce may mitigate differences between RP and SOC RT+LT-ADT.

AbstractCurrent US clinical practice guidelines for advanced prostate cancer management contain recommendations based on high‐level evidence from randomized controlled trials; however, these guidelines do not address the nuanced clinical questions that are unanswered by prospective trials but nonetheless encountered in day‐to‐day practice. To address these practical questions, the 2024 US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC 2024) was created to generate US‐focused expert clinical decision‐making guidance for circumstances in which level 1 evidence is lacking. At the second annual USPCC meeting (USPCC 2024), a multidisciplinary panel of experts convened to discuss ongoing clinical challenges related to 5 topic areas: biochemical recurrence; metastatic, castration‐sensitive prostate cancer; poly [ADP‐ribose] polymerase inhibitors; prostate‐specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy; and metastatic, castration‐resistant prostate cancer. Through a modified Delphi process, 34 consensus recommendations were developed and are intended to provide clinicians who manage prostate cancer with guidance related to the implementation of novel treatments and technologies. In this report, the authors review the areas of consensus identified by the USPCC 2024 experts and evaluate ongoing unmet needs regarding translational application of the current clinical evidence.

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 Radical prostatectomy (RP) alone is often inadequate in curing men with clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer (PC). We hypothesized that chemohormonal therapy (CHT) with androgen-deprivation therapy plus docetaxel before RP would improve biochemical progression–free survival (BPFS) over RP alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with clinically localized, high-risk PC were assigned to RP alone or neoadjuvant CHT with androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 body surface area every 3 weeks for 6 cycles) and RP. The primary end point was 3-year BPFS. Biochemical failure was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen level > 0.2 ng/mL that increased on 2 consecutive occasions that were at least 3 months apart. Secondary end points included 5-year BPFS, overall BPFS, local recurrence, metastasis-free survival (MFS), PC-specific mortality, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS In total, 788 men were randomly assigned. Median follow-up time was 6.1 years. The overall rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events during chemotherapy were 26% and 19%, respectively. No difference was seen in 3-year BPFS between neoadjuvant CHT plus RP and RP alone (0.89 v 0.84, respectively; 95% CI for the difference, −0.01 to 0.11; P = .11). Neoadjuvant CHT was associated with improved overall BPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.99), improved MFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95), and improved OS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94) compared with RP alone. CONCLUSION The primary study end point, 3-year BPFS, was not met. Although some improvement was seen in secondary end points, any potential benefit must be weighed against toxicity. Our data do not support the routine use of neoadjuvant CHT and RP in patients with clinically localized, high-risk PC at this time.

5079 Background: Neoadjuvant CHT followed by RP did not increase 3-year biochemical progression free-survival (bPFS) compared to RP alone in men with CLHRPC. However, there is evidence that bPFS and overall survival over time was improved. In the current analysis we assessed whether CHT followed by RP improved pathological specimen features compared to RP alone. Methods: CALGB 90203 (Alliance) is a Phase III study which randomly assigned, in a 1:1 fashion, men with CLHRPC [biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 4 or 5 or Kattan pre-op nomogram bPFS < 60%] to RP alone or RP plus neoadjuvant CHT [androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles)]. We conducted an exploratory analysis comparing histologic findings, determined at the treating center, in the RP specimens of men receiving CHT plus RP and men treated with RP alone. We used the Chi-square test, with P-values adjusted by the Holm method for multiple comparisons. Results: A total of 788 men (median age, 62; range: 32-83 years) were randomized, with 738 ultimately undergoing RP. There was no difference in pathologic GGG (Table). Men treated with neoadjuvant CHT had a lower pathologic T-stage and lower likelihood of having seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), positive pelvic lymph nodes, or positive surgical margins (SM) (Table). Conclusions: Most pathologic features in the RP specimen were improved in men receiving neoadjuvant CHT compared to RP alone. The relationship between pathologic changes and the development of metastasis and survival require further analysis. RP pathologic outcomes. Summary statistics are calculated for the number of patients with non-missing data for each characteristic. Clinical trial information: NCT00430183. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Treatment-induced neuroendocrine prostate cancer (tNEPC) is an aggressive variant of late-stage metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer that commonly arises through neuroendocrine transdifferentiation (NEtD). Treatment options are limited, ineffective, and, for most patients, result in death in less than a year. We previously developed a first-in-field patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model of NEtD. Longitudinal deep transcriptome profiling of this model enabled monitoring of dynamic transcriptional changes during NEtD and in the context of androgen deprivation. Long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) are implicated in cancer where they can control gene regulation. Until now, the expression of lncRNAs during NEtD and their clinical associations were unexplored. Results We implemented a next-generation sequence analysis pipeline that can detect transcripts at low expression levels and built a genome-wide catalogue (n = 37,749) of lncRNAs. We applied this pipeline to 927 clinical samples and our high-fidelity NEtD model LTL331 and identified 821 lncRNAs in NEPC. Among these are 122 lncRNAs that robustly distinguish NEPC from prostate adenocarcinoma (AD) patient tumours. The highest expressed lncRNAs within this signature are H19, LINC00617, and SSTR5-AS1. Another 742 are associated with the NEtD process and fall into four distinct patterns of expression (NEtD lncRNA Class I, II, III, and IV) in our PDX model and clinical samples. Each class has significant (z-scores &gt;2) and unique enrichment for transcription factor binding site (TFBS) motifs in their sequences. Enriched TFBS include (1) TP53 and BRN1 in Class I, (2) ELF5, SPIC, and HOXD1 in Class II, (3) SPDEF in Class III, (4) HSF1 and FOXA1 in Class IV, and (5) TWIST1 when merging Class III with IV. Common TFBS in all NEtD lncRNA were also identified and include E2F, REST, PAX5, PAX9, and STAF. Interrogation of the top deregulated candidates (n = 100) in radical prostatectomy adenocarcinoma samples with long-term follow-up (median 18 years) revealed significant clinicopathological associations. Specifically, we identified 25 that are associated with rapid metastasis following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Two of these lncRNAs (SSTR5-AS1 and LINC00514) stratified patients undergoing ADT based on patient outcome. Discussion To date, a comprehensive characterization of the dynamic landscape of lncRNAs during the NEtD process has not been performed. A temporal analysis of the PDX-based NEtD model has for the first time provided this dynamic landscape. TFBS analysis identified NEPC-related TF motifs present within the NEtD lncRNA sequences, suggesting functional roles for these lncRNAs in NEPC pathogenesis. Furthermore, select NEtD lncRNAs appear to be associated with metastasis and patients receiving ADT. Treatment-related metastasis is a clinical consequence of NEPC tumours. Top candidate lncRNAs FENDRR, H19, LINC00514, LINC00617, and SSTR5-AS1 identified in this study are implicated in the development of NEPC. We present here for the first time a genome-wide catalogue of NEtD lncRNAs that characterize the transdifferentiation process and a robust NEPC lncRNA patient expression signature. To accomplish this, we carried out the largest integrative study that applied a PDX NEtD model to clinical samples. These NEtD and NEPC lncRNAs are strong candidates for clinical biomarkers and therapeutic targets and warrant further investigation.

Abstract Aims: Androgen-targeted therapies (ATTs) are the mainstay treatment for metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). However, ATTs promote adaptation of tumour cells and lead to castration resistant disease (CRPC). We have recently identified the cell surface receptor, Neuropilin-1 (NRP1) as increased during EMT and in CRPC. However, the role of NRP1 in the prostate epithelium is poorly understood. This study aims to determine whether the inhibition of NRP1 will be a feasible therapeutic strategy for blocking PCa metastasis and therapy resistance. Methods: qPCR and western blotting were used to assess NRP1 expression in PCa cell lines. NRP1 expression in CRPC was assessed using a murine LNCaP xenograft model of castration. NRP1 was knocked down with shRNA sequences from the pLKO.1 lentiviral construct. For metastasis assays, PC3 cells were microinjected into the zebrafish yolk sac and metastatic dissemination imaged 5 days later. NRP1 expression in radical prostatectomy (RP) samples from Mayo Clinic (545 patients) and Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions (JHMI; 188 patients) cohorts was quantified by Affymetrix exon arrays and multivariable analysis performed. Wound scratch migration and invasion assays were performed with the WoundMaker™ tool and IncuCyte™ FLR imaging systems. Results: NRP1 levels were elevated in humanCRPC xenografts, metastatic and castrate resistant clinical PCa samples (p &lt;0.0001), and PCa cell lines. NRP1 suppression significantly reduced metastasis of human xenografts in zebrafish and the migratory and invasive behaviour of metastatic PCa cells (p=0.0002). Multivariable analysis identified NRP1 as a significant independent prognostic indicator of metastasis and prostate cancer specific mortality in two large clinical cohorts (Mayo Clinic and JHMI; p=0.008/0.048 and 0.013/0,034 respectively). We show that NRP1 knockdown promotes E-Cadherin expression and loss of vimentin in mesenchymal PCa cells. Conclusion: These results will provide the preclinical data necessary to rationalise the use of anti-NRP1 directed adjuvant therapies for clinical use in PCa patients receiving ATTs, and will pave the way for larger scale preclinical and clinical trials in the PCa setting. Citation Format: Marianna Volpert, Brian Tse, Ellca Ratther, Nataly Stylianou, Mannan Nouri, Melanie Lehman, Stephen McPherson, Mani Roshan-Moniri, Mandeep Takhar, Nicholas Erho, Mohamed Alshalafa, Elai Davicioni, Robert Jenkins, Ashley Ross, Jeffrey Karnes, Robert Den, Ladan Fazli, Martin Gleave, Elizabeth Williams, Paul Rennie, Ralph Buttyan, Pamela Russell, Colleen Nelson, Brett Hollier. Neuropilin-1 is up-regulated in the adaptive response of prostate tumors to androgen targeted therapies and is prognostic of metastatic progression and patient mortality [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 4908. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-4908