Nguyen, Paul L.

106 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is one of the main treatment options for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is inherently less sensitive or even resistant to ADT. NEPC can be observed de novo (e.g., small cell prostate cancer) but more commonly arises after exposure to ADT. We hypothesized that a gene expression signature of NEPC when measured in primary tumor specimens (RP) of prostatic adenocarcinoma may be useful for predicting patients with innate resistance to ADT. Methods: Expression profiles of 1023 PCa patients treated with RP were obtained from the Decipher GRID database. These were split into training (n=529) and validation (n=494) sets and stratified by the receipt of adjuvant ADT (n=243) or no adjuvant ADT (n=780). A literature review of ADT resistance and neuroendocrine genes identified 1,557 genes as candidates. This set was further filtered, using logistic regression to select a 52-gene ADT resistance signature (ARS). ARS was trained using a generalized linear model with lasso regularization. Survival c-index and Kaplan Meier was used to compare survival differences between treated and untreated patients with high and low ARS scores (defined by median split). Results: In validation cohorts, the ARS was predictive of metastasis in cohorts receiving adjuvant ADT (10-year metastasis free survival c-index of 0.69 (95% CI 0.59-0.78) as compared to 0.45 (95% CI 0.29-0.61) in patients not treated with ADT). Similarly in a separate cohort of untreated patients that received no ADT until after metastatic onset, ARS was not prognostic (c-index 0.53). Among ADT treated patients, those with low ARS scores had a 10 year MFS of 87%, versus 70% in those with high ARS scores (p<0.001). In the subset of men who received ADT after metastatic onset and who developed castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC, n = 41), median time to treatment failure was 1 year in patients with high ARS compared to 2 years for those with low ARS scores (p=0.07). Conclusions: A 52-gene ADT resistance signature was developed which showed significant differences in metastasis-free survival among adjuvant hormone treated but not untreated patients.

1 Background: To determine whether the efficacy of a hypofractionated (H) schedule is no worse than a conventional (C) schedule in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Methods: From April 2006 to December 2009, one thousand one hundred fifteen men with low-risk prostate cancer (clinical stage T1-2a, Gleason ≤ 6, PSA < 10) were randomly assigned 1:1 to a conventional (C) schedule (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to a hypofractionated (H) schedule (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). The trial was designed to establish with 90% power and alpha = 0.05 that (H) results in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) that is not lower than (C) by more than 7% (hazard ratio (HR) < 1.52). Secondary endpoints include freedom from biochemical recurrence (FFBR) and overall survival. At the third planned interim analysis (July 2015), the NRG Oncology Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the results of the trial be reported. Results: One thousand one hundred and one protocol eligible men were randomized: 547 to C and 554 to H. Median follow-up is 5.9 years. Baseline characteristics are not different according to treatment arm. At the time of analysis 185 DFS events have been observed; 99 in the C arm and 86 in the H arm. The estimated 7-year disease-free survival is 75.6% (95% CI 70.3, 80.1) in the C arm and 81.8% (77.5, 85.3) in the H arm. The DFS HR (C/H) is 0.85 (0.64, 1.14). Comparison of biochemical recurrence (HR = 0.77, (0.51, 1.17)) and overall survival (HR = 0.95, (0.65, 1.41)) also met protocol non-inferiority criteria. Grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity is 3.0% (C) vs. 4.6% (H), Relative risk (RR) for H vs. C 1.53, (95% CI 0.86, 2.83); grade ≥ 3 GU toxicity is 4.5% (C) vs. 6.4% (H), RR = 1.43 (0.86,2.37). Conclusions: In men with low-risk prostate cancer, 70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks is non-inferior to 73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks. Clinical trial information: NCT00331773.

Purpose: To present the most updated American College of Radiology consensus guidelines formed from an expert panel on treatment of locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer Methods: The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. Results: The panel summarized the most recent and relevant literature on the topic and voted on 4 clinical variants illustrating the appropriate management of locally advanced, high-risk cancer. Numerical rating and commentary reflecting the panel consensus was given for each treatment approach in each variant. Conclusions: Aggressive local approaches including surgery followed by adjuvant XRT, beam combined with androgen deprivation therapy, and beam combined with brachytherapy have resulted in unpresented success in locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer. By combining most recent medical literature and expert opinion, this guideline can aid clinicians in the appropriate integration of available therapeutic modalities.

ObjectivesTo investigate the dose‐dependent effect of androgen deprivation therapy on community‐acquired respiratory infections in patients with localized prostate cancer.MethodsWe identified 52 905 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results‐Medicare database between 1991 and 2006. We compared those who did not receive androgen deprivation therapy with those who received androgen deprivation therapy within 2 years of diagnosis, calculated as monthly equivalent doses (<7, 7–11, >11 doses), or orchiectomy. Adjusted Cox hazard models were fitted to predict the risk of community‐acquired respiratory infections (acute sinusitis, acute bronchitis, [severe] pneumonia) in patients treated with medical androgen deprivation therapy versus orchiectomy versus none.ResultsOverall, 43.4% received medical androgen deprivation therapy. These patients more likely experienced respiratory events compared with those who did not receive androgen deprivation therapy or who underwent orchiectomy (62.2% vs 54.5% vs 47.8%, P < 0.001). The risk of experiencing any respiratory event increased with the number of doses received. For example, men receiving >11 doses of androgen deprivation therapy were at greatest risk of acute sinusitis, acute bronchitis and pneumonia (HR 1.13, 1.26 and 1.15, respectively, all P < 0.001), except severe pneumonia. Furthermore, we did not detect any relationship between orchiectomy and respiratory events. Study limitations include the utilization of a retrospective population‐based dataset.ConclusionsIncreased exposure to medical androgen deprivation therapy for men with localized prostate cancer is associated with a higher risk of community‐acquired respiratory infections. Our results suggest that respiratory complications represent potentially underreported complications of medical androgen deprivation therapy.

Abstract Purpose: There is a clear need to improve risk stratification and to identify novel therapeutic targets in aggressive prostate cancer. The goal of this study was to investigate genes with outlier expression with prognostic association in high-risk prostate cancer patients as potential biomarkers and drug targets. Experimental Design: We interrogated microarray gene expression data from prostatectomy samples from 545 high-risk prostate cancer patients with long-term follow-up (mean 13.4 years). Three independent clinical datasets totaling an additional 545 patients were used for validation. Novel prognostic outlier genes were interrogated for impact on oncogenic phenotypes in vitro using siRNA-based knockdown. Association with clinical outcomes and comparison with existing prognostic instruments was assessed with multivariable models using a prognostic outlier score. Results: Analysis of the discovery cohort identified 20 prognostic outlier genes. Three top prognostic outlier genes were novel prostate cancer genes; NVL, SMC4, or SQLE knockdown reduced migration and/or invasion and outlier expression was significantly associated with poor prognosis. Increased prognostic outlier score was significantly associated with poor prognosis independent of standard clinicopathologic variables. Finally, the prognostic outlier score prognostic association is independent of, and adds to existing genomic and clinical tools for prognostication in prostate cancer (Decipher, the cell-cycle progression signature, and CAPRA-S). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study represents the first unbiased high-throughput investigation of prognostic outlier genes in prostate cancer and demonstrates the potential biomarker and therapeutic importance of this previously unstudied class of cancer genes. Clin Cancer Res; 22(7); 1777–86. ©2015 AACR.

Objective To assess recommendations for prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA ) screening in a national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists following the recent USA P reventive S ervices T ask F orce ( USPSTF ) grade D recommendation. Methods A random sample of 1366 radiation oncologists and urologists were identified from the A merican M edical A ssociation P hysician M asterfile. From N ovember 2011 to A pril 2012, a mail survey was sent to query PSA screening recommendations for men at average risk of prostate cancer for the following age groups: 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–74, 75–79 and ≥80 years. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test for differences in PSA ‐based screening recommendations by physician characteristics. Results Response rates were similar at 52% for radiation oncologists and urologists ( P = 0.92). Overall, 51.5% of respondents recommended PSA ‐based screening for men aged 40–49 years, while nearly all endorsed it for those aged 50–74 years (96.1% for 50–59, 97.3% for 60–69, and 87.7% for 70–74 years). However, screening recommendations decreased to 43.9% and 12.8% for men aged 75–79 and ≥80 years, respectively. On multivariable analysis, urologists were more likely to recommend screening for men aged 40–49 (odds ratio [ OR ] 3.09; P < 0.001) and 50–59 years ( OR 3.81; P = 0.01), but less likely for men aged 75–79 ( OR 0.66; P = 0.01) and ≥80 years ( OR 0.45; P = 0.002) compared with radiation oncologists. Conclusion While radiation oncologists and urologists recommended PSA screening for men aged 50–69 years, there was less agreement about screening for younger (40–49 years old) and older (≥70 years) men at average risk for prostate cancer.