Sweeney, Christopher

AbstractBackgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is a clinically heterogeneous disease. The creation of an expression‐based subtyping model based on prostate‐specific biological processes was sought.MethodsUnsupervised machine learning of gene expression profiles from prospectively collected primary prostate tumors (training, n = 32,000; evaluation, n = 68,547) was used to create a prostate subtyping classifier (PSC) based on basal versus luminal cell expression patterns and other gene signatures relevant to PCa biology. Subtype molecular pathways and clinical characteristics were explored in five other clinical cohorts.ResultsClustering derived four subtypes: luminal differentiated (LD), luminal proliferating (LP), basal immune (BI), and basal neuroendocrine (BN). LP and LD tumors both had higher androgen receptor activity. LP tumors also had a higher expression of cell proliferation genes, MYC activity, and characteristics of homologous recombination deficiency. BI tumors possessed significant interferon γactivity and immune infiltration on immunohistochemistry. BN tumors were characterized by lower androgen receptor activity expression, lower immune infiltration, and enrichment with neuroendocrine expression patterns. Patients with LD tumors had less aggressive tumor characteristics and the longest time to metastasis after surgery. Only patients with BI tumors derived benefit from radiotherapy after surgery in terms of time to metastasis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01–0.71; n = 855). In a phase 3 trial that randomized patients with metastatic PCa to androgen deprivation with or without docetaxel (n = 108), only patients with LP tumors derived survival benefit from docetaxel (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09–0.51).ConclusionsWith the use of expression profiles from over 100,000 tumors, a PSC was developed that identified four subtypes with distinct biological and clinical features.Plain language summary Prostate cancer can behave in an indolent or aggressive manner and vary in how it responds to certain treatments. To differentiate prostate cancer on the basis of biological features, we developed a novel RNA signature by using data from over 100,000 prostate tumors—the largest data set of its kind. This signature can inform patients and physicians on tumor aggressiveness and susceptibilities to treatments to help personalize cancer management.

Importance The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown. Objective To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups. Data Sources For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database’s inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a “living” auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available. Study Selection Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Results This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT. Conclusions and Relevance The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

Purpose of review To summarize the role of chemotherapy and offer some guidance regarding the selection of chemotherapy in mPC. Recent findings Patients with mHSPC have varied prognoses with testosterone suppression alone (androgen deprivation therapy, ADT) and differential responses to docetaxel with ADT. Patients with de novo and metachronous high-volume disease have a robust survival benefit with the addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapies. Patients with synchronous low-volume disease have a more modest survival benefit from docetaxel and there is no evidence of survival benefit with docetaxel in patients with metachronous low-volume disease. Integration of biomarkers may refine treatment selection regardless of volume of disease. Docetaxel and cabazitaxel also impart an OS benefit in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The choice of chemotherapy in mCRPC depends on treatment received in mHSPC setting. Docetaxel remains the first line chemotherapy in castration-resistant patients who have not received it in mHSPC followed by cabazitaxel, otherwise cabazitaxel can be deployed without docetaxel retreatment. Summary Chemotherapy is a key class of therapy for selected patients with mHSPC and mCRPC.

AbstractBackgroundE3805 (CHAARTED) is a phase 3 trial demonstrating improved survival for men with metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) randomized to treatment with docetaxel (D) and androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone. We assessed the association of baseline body mass index (BMI) and metformin exposure with quality of life (QOL) and prostate cancer outcomes including survival in patients enrolled in the CHAARTED study.MethodsWe performed a posthoc exploratory analysis of the CHAARTED trial of men with mHSPC randomized to treatment with ADT with or without D between 2006 and 2012. Cox proportional hazards models and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to evaluate the association between BMI with QOL and prostate cancer outcomes and between metformin exposure and survival.ResultsIn 788 of 790 enrolled patients with prospectively recorded baseline BMI and metformin exposure status, lower BMI was not associated with survival, but was associated with high volume disease (p < 0.0001) and poorer baseline QOL on functional assessment of cancer therapy–prostate (p = 0.008). Only 68 patients had prevalent metformin exposure at baseline in the CHAARTED trial. Four groups were identified: ADT + D + metformin (n = 39); ADT + D (n = 357); ADT + metformin (n = 29); and ADT alone (n = 363). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between groups. In this small exploratory multivariable analysis, metformin exposure was not associated with survival (hazard ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.81–1.63, p = 0.44).ConclusionsThere was no link between baseline BMI and survival, but lower baseline BMI was associated with features of greater cancer burden and poorer QOL.

There are no biomarkers predictive of resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel validated for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We assessed the association between ABCB1 amplification and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel for patients with mCRPC, using circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Patients with ≥1 plasma sample drawn within 12 months before starting docetaxel (cohort A) or cabazitaxel (cohort B) for mCRPC were identified from the Dana–Farber Cancer Institute IRB approved database. Sparse whole genome sequencing was performed on the selected cfDNA samples and tumor fractions were estimated using the computational tool ichorCNA. We evaluated the association between ABCB1 amplification or other copy number alterations and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel. Of the selected 176 patients, 45 samples in cohort A and 21 samples in cohort B had sufficient tumor content. No significant association was found between ABCB1 amplification and primary resistance to docetaxel (p = 0.58; odds ratio (OR) = 1.49) or cabazitaxel (p = 0.97; OR = 1.06). No significant association was found between exploratory biomarkers and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel. In this study, ABCB1 amplification did not predict primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel for mCRPC. Future studies including ABCB1 amplification in a suite of putative biomarkers and a larger cohort may aid in drawing definitive conclusions.

PURPOSE The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) is a standard therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Based on data that angiogenesis plays a role in urothelial carcinoma growth and progression, a randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed with the primary objective of testing whether patients treated with GC and bevacizumab (GCB) have superior overall survival (OS) than patients treated with GC and placebo (GCP). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between July 2009 and December 2014, 506 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma without prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease and no neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy within 12 months were randomly assigned to receive either GCB or GCP. The primary end point was OS, with secondary end points of progression-free survival, objective response, and toxicity. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 76.3 months among alive patients, the median OS was 14.5 months for patients treated with GCB and 14.3 months for patients treated with GCP (hazard ratio for death = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; two-sided stratified log-rank P = .14). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months for GCB and 6.7 months for GCP (hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.95; P = .016). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or greater adverse events did not differ significantly between both arms, although increased bevacizumab-related toxicities such as hypertension and proteinuria occurred in the bevacizumab-treated arm. CONCLUSION The addition of bevacizumab to GC did not result in improved OS. The observed median OS of about 14 months is consistent with prior phase III trials of cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Abstract VEGF blockade does not uniformly result in clinical benefit. We evaluated safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), antitumor efficacy, and exploratory biomarkers including pharmacogenomics and pharmacokinetics with sorafenib, bevacizumab, and paclitaxel in patients with refractory cancers. The study had a “3 + 3” design, using paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 every week for 3 weeks, in every 4 week cycles, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, and sorafenib 200 or 400 mg twice a day, 5 or 7 days/week (5/7, 7/7). The MTD cohort was expanded. Twenty-seven patients enrolled in 3 cohorts: sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 5/7, 200 mg twice a day 7/7, and 400 mg twice a day 5/7. DLTs were grade 3 neutropenia &gt;7 days (cohort 1, 1), grade 3 hypertension (cohort 2, 1), grade 3 hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR; cohort 3, 2). MTD was sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 7/7. Six DLTs occurred in cohort 2 expansion: grade 3 HFSR (2), grade 2 HFSR with sorafenib delay &gt;7 days (2), grade 4 cerebrovascular accident (1), grade 3 neutropenia &gt;7 days (1). RP2D was sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 5/7. Most patients (62%) dose reduced sorafenib to 200 mg daily 5/7 after a median 3 (range, 2–17) cycles. Response rates were 48% overall (27) and 64% for ovarian cancers (14). VEGF-A-1154AA and -7TT recessive homozygous genotypes conferred worse overall survival versus alternative genotypes (7 vs. 22 months). Intermittent, low-dose sorafenib (200 mg twice a day 5/7) combined with bevacizumab and paclitaxel was tolerable and had high antitumor efficacy in patients with refractory cancer (NCT00572078).

Abstract Background: Inflammation is linked to prostate cancer progression and is mediated by NF-κB. Tristetraprolin is a key node of NF-κB activation and we investigated its biological and prognostic role in lethal prostate cancer. Methods: In vitro assays assessed the function of tristetraprolin and the association between low mRNA tristetraprolin levels and lethal prostate cancer (metastatic disease or death) was assessed across independent prostatectomy cohorts: (i) nested case-control studies from Health Professionals Follow-up Study and Physicians’ Health Study, and (ii) prostatectomy samples from Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Tristetraprolin expression levels in prostatectomy samples from patients with localized disease and biopsies of metastatic castration–resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were assessed in a Cornell University cohort. Results: In vitro tristetraprolin expression was inversely associated with NF-κB–controlled genes, proliferation, and enzalutamide sensitivity. Men with localized prostate cancer and lower quartile of tumor tristetraprolin expression had a significant, nearly two-fold higher risk of lethal prostate cancer after adjusting for known clinical and histologic prognostic features (age, RP Gleason score, T-stage). Tristetraprolin expression was also significantly lower in mCRPC compared with localized prostate cancer. Conclusions: Lower levels of tristetraprolin in human prostate cancer prostatectomy tissue are associated with more aggressive prostate cancer and may serve as an actionable prognostic and predictive biomarker. Impact: There is a clear need for improved biomarkers to identify patients with localized prostate cancer in need of treatment intensification, such as adjuvant testosterone suppression, or treatment de-intensification, such as active surveillance. Tristetraprolin levels may serve as informative biomarkers in localized prostate cancer.