Pow‐Sang, Julio M.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

Background: Bone metastatic prostate cancer (BMPCa), despite the initial responsiveness to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), inevitably becomes resistant. Recent clinical trials with upfront treatment of ADT combined with chemotherapy or novel hormonal therapies (NHTs) have extended overall patient survival. These results indicate that there is significant potential for the optimization of standard-of-care therapies to delay the emergence of progressive metastatic disease. Methods: Here, we used data extracted from human bone metastatic biopsies pre- and post-abiraterone acetate/prednisone to generate a mathematical model of bone metastatic prostate cancer that can unravel the treatment impact on disease progression. Intra-tumor heterogeneity in regard to ADT and chemotherapy resistance was derived from biopsy data at a cellular level, permitting the model to track the dynamics of resistant phenotypes in response to treatment from biological first-principles without relying on data fitting. These cellular data were mathematically correlated with a clinical proxy for tumor burden, utilizing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) production as an example. Results: Using this correlation, our model recapitulated the individual patient response to applied treatments in a separate and independent cohort of patients (n = 24), and was able to estimate the initial resistance to the ADT of each patient. Combined with an intervention-decision algorithm informed by patient-specific prediction of initial resistance, we propose to optimize the sequence of treatments for each patient with the goal of delaying the evolution of resistant disease and limit cancer cell growth, offering evidence for an improvement against retrospective data. Conclusions: Our results show how minimal but widely available patient information can be used to model and track the progression of BMPCa in real time, offering a clinically relevant insight into the patient-specific evolutionary dynamics of the disease and suggesting new therapeutic options for intervention. Trial registration: NCT # 01953640. Funding: Funded by an NCI U01 (NCI) U01CA202958-01 and a Moffitt Team Science Award. CCL and DB were partly funded by an NCI PSON U01 (U01CA244101). AA was partly funded by a Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program (W81XWH-15-1-0184) fellowship. LC was partly funded by a postdoctoral fellowship (PF-13-175-01-CSM) from the American Cancer Society.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel’s discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

AbstractMotivationThe use of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) interactions to predict complex diseases is getting more attention during the past decade, but related statistical methods are still immature. We previously proposed the SNP Interaction Pattern Identifier (SIPI) approach to evaluate 45 SNP interaction patterns/patterns. SIPI is statistically powerful but suffers from a large computation burden. For large-scale studies, it is necessary to use a powerful and computation-efficient method. The objective of this study is to develop an evidence-based mini-version of SIPI as the screening tool or solitary use and to evaluate the impact of inheritance mode and model structure on detecting SNP–SNP interactions.ResultsWe tested two candidate approaches: the ‘Five-Full’ and ‘AA9int’ method. The Five-Full approach is composed of the five full interaction models considering three inheritance modes (additive, dominant and recessive). The AA9int approach is composed of nine interaction models by considering non-hierarchical model structure and the additive mode. Our simulation results show that AA9int has similar statistical power compared to SIPI and is superior to the Five-Full approach, and the impact of the non-hierarchical model structure is greater than that of the inheritance mode in detecting SNP–SNP interactions. In summary, it is recommended that AA9int is a powerful tool to be used either alone or as the screening stage of a two-stage approach (AA9int+SIPI) for detecting SNP–SNP interactions in large-scale studies.Availability and implementationThe ‘AA9int’ and ‘parAA9int’ functions (standard and parallel computing version) are added in the SIPI R package, which is freely available at https://linhuiyi.github.io/LinHY_Software/.Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Abstract Motivation Testing SNP–SNP interactions is considered as a key for overcoming bottlenecks of genetic association studies. However, related statistical methods for testing SNP–SNP interactions are underdeveloped. Results We propose the SNP Interaction Pattern Identifier (SIPI), which tests 45 biologically meaningful interaction patterns for a binary outcome. SIPI takes non-hierarchical models, inheritance modes and mode coding direction into consideration. The simulation results show that SIPI has higher power than MDR (Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction), AA_Full, Geno_Full (full interaction model with additive or genotypic mode) and SNPassoc in detecting interactions. Applying SIPI to the prostate cancer PRACTICAL consortium data with approximately 21 000 patients, the four SNP pairs in EGFR-EGFR, EGFR-MMP16 and EGFR-CSF1 were found to be associated with prostate cancer aggressiveness with the exact or similar pattern in the discovery and validation sets. A similar match for external validation of SNP–SNP interaction studies is suggested. We demonstrated that SIPI not only searches for more meaningful interaction patterns but can also overcome the unstable nature of interaction patterns. Availability and Implementation The SIPI software is freely available at http://publichealth.lsuhsc.edu/LinSoftware/. Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Abstract Breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers are hormone-related and may have a shared genetic basis, but this has not been investigated systematically by genome-wide association (GWA) studies. Meta-analyses combining the largest GWA meta-analysis data sets for these cancers totaling 112,349 cases and 116,421 controls of European ancestry, all together and in pairs, identified at P < 10−8 seven new cross-cancer loci: three associated with susceptibility to all three cancers (rs17041869/2q13/BCL2L11; rs7937840/11q12/INCENP; rs1469713/19p13/GATAD2A), two breast and ovarian cancer risk loci (rs200182588/9q31/SMC2; rs8037137/15q26/RCCD1), and two breast and prostate cancer risk loci (rs5013329/1p34/NSUN4; rs9375701/6q23/L3MBTL3). Index variants in five additional regions previously associated with only one cancer also showed clear association with a second cancer type. Cell-type–specific expression quantitative trait locus and enhancer–gene interaction annotations suggested target genes with potential cross-cancer roles at the new loci. Pathway analysis revealed significant enrichment of death receptor signaling genes near loci with P < 10−5 in the three-cancer meta-analysis. Significance: We demonstrate that combining large-scale GWA meta-analysis findings across cancer types can identify completely new risk loci common to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers. We show that the identification of such cross-cancer risk loci has the potential to shed new light on the shared biology underlying these hormone-related cancers. Cancer Discov; 6(9); 1052–67. ©2016 AACR. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 932