Tosoian, Jeffrey J.

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.

337 Background: Current risk stratification schema have limited prognostic performance in predicting outcome within National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk to very high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: Two multicenter high-risk cohorts were used for training (n = 214) and validation (n = 151) of a novel RNA microarray-based integrated clinical-genomic Classifier Optimized for Outcome in High-risk Prostate cancer (COOHP) to classify patients as COOHP favorable high-risk, standard high-risk, or very high-risk. Cox analysis was used to model metastasis-free survival (MFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS). Model performance was compared to prior sub-classification systems using time-dependent c-indices. Results: Among NCCN high/very high-risk patients in the training cohort, 11% were classified as COOHP favorable high-risk, 70% as COOHP standard high-risk, and 18% as COOHP very high-risk. Patients with COOHP favorable high-risk disease had better rates of 5-year MFS compared to those with COOHP standard high-risk disease (94% vs 76%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.10, p = 0.02), and patients with COOHP very high-risk disease had worse 5-year MFS compared to those with COOHP standard high-risk disease (34% vs 76%, HR 3.5, p < 0.0001). Similarly, patients with COOHP very high-risk disease had worse 10-year PCSS compared to those with COOHP standard high-risk disease (36% vs 82%, HR 4.4, p < 0.0001). The c-indices for 5-year MFS and 10-year PCSS in the training cohort were 0.80 and 0.74, significantly improved compared to prior clinical and clinical-genomic risk stratification systems (0.62-0.69 for 5-year MFS and 0.56-0.63 for 10-year PCSS). These results were consistent in the validation cohort, where 5-year MFS significantly varied among the three COOHP subgroups (100% vs 89% vs 79%, p = 0.020), as did 10-year OS (100% vs 71% vs 53%, p = .040). Conclusions: A clinical-genomic risk stratification system specifically designed to discriminate prognosis in high-risk prostate cancer better identified favorable high-risk and very high-risk subsets of disease compared to prior clinical and clinical-genomic stratification systems.

PURPOSE Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is used widely for prostate cancer (PCa) evaluation. Approximately 35% of aggressive tumors, however, are not visible on mpMRI. We sought to identify the molecular alterations associated with mpMRI-invisible tumors and determine whether mpMRI visibility is associated with PCa prognosis. METHODS Discovery and validation cohorts included patients who underwent mpMRI before radical prostatectomy and were found to harbor both mpMRI-visible (Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System 3 to 5) and -invisible (Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System 1 or 2) foci on surgical pathology. Next-generation sequencing was performed to determine differential gene expression between mpMRI-visible and -invisible foci. A genetic signature for tumor mpMRI visibility was derived in the discovery cohort and assessed in an independent validation cohort. Its association with long-term oncologic outcomes was evaluated in a separate testing cohort. RESULTS The discovery cohort included 10 patients with 26 distinct PCa foci on surgical pathology, of which 12 (46%) were visible and 14 (54%) were invisible on preoperative mpMRI. Next-generation sequencing detected prioritized genetic mutations in 14 (54%) tumor foci (n = 8 mpMRI visible, n = 6 mpMRI invisible). A nine-gene signature (composed largely of cell organization/structure genes) associated with mpMRI visibility was derived (area under the curve = 0.89), and the signature predicted MRI visibility with 75% sensitivity and 100% specificity (area under the curve = 0.88) in the validation cohort. In the testing cohort (n = 375, median follow-up 8 years) there was no significant difference in biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis, or cancer-specific mortality in patients with predicted mpMRI-visible versus -invisible tumors (all P > .05). CONCLUSION Compared with mpMRI-invisible disease, mpMRI-visible tumors are associated with underexpression of cellular organization genes. mpMRI visibility does not seem to be predictive of long-term cancer outcomes, highlighting the need for biopsy strategies that detect mpMRI-invisible tumors.

Abstract Purpose: Currently, no genomic signature exists to distinguish men most likely to progress on adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Here we develop and validate a gene expression signature to predict response to postoperative ADT. Experimental Design: A training set consisting of 284 radical prostatectomy patients was established after 1:1 propensity score matching metastasis between adjuvant-ADT (a-ADT)-treated and no ADT–treated groups. An ADT Response Signature (ADT-RS) was identified from neuroendocrine and AR signaling–related genes. Two independent cohorts were used to form three separate data sets for validation (set I, n = 232; set II, n = 435; set III, n = 612). The primary endpoint of the analysis was postoperative metastasis. Results: Increases in ADT-RS score were associated with a reduction in risk of metastasis only in a-ADT patients. On multivariable analysis, ADT-RS by ADT treatment interaction term remained associated with metastasis in both validation sets (set I: HR = 0.18, Pinteraction = 0.009; set II: HR = 0.25, Pinteraction = 0.019). In a matched validation set III, patients with Low ADT-RS scores had similar 10-year metastasis rates in the a-ADT and no-ADT groups (30.1% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.989). Among High ADT-RS patients, 10-year metastasis rates were significantly lower for a-ADT versus no-ADT patients (9.4% vs. 29.2%, P = 0.021). The marginal ADT-RS by ADT interaction remained significant in the matched dataset (Pinteraction = 0.035). Conclusions: Patients with High ADT-RS benefited from a-ADT. In combination with prognostic risk factors, use of ADT-RS may thus allow for identification of ADT-responsive tumors that may benefit most from early androgen blockade after radical prostatectomy. We discovered a gene signature that when present in primary prostate tumors may be useful to predict patients who may respond to early ADT after surgery. Clin Cancer Res; 24(16); 3908–16. ©2018 AACR.

256 Background: B7-H3 (CD276), part of the B7 superfamily, has been shown to play an immunomodulatory role, however its regulation, receptor and mechanism of action remain unclear. Protein levels of B7-H3 have been previously shown to relate to prostate cancer outcomes and currently, humanized monoclonal antibodies are being developed for clinical use (MGA271, Macrogenics). Here we use genomic expression data to examine the relationship of B7-H3 to prostate cancer outcomes and molecular subtypes. Methods: Prostatectomy tissue from 905 patients were profiled using the Affymetrix HuEx 1.0 ST microarray. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to identify significant associations of B7-H3 expression with clinico-pathologic variables, and survival analysis were used to evaluate the prognostic value of B7-H3. Pearson’s correlation analyses were also performed to assess the relationship of B7-H3 expression with molecular subtypes and individual transcripts. Androgen receptor (AR) occupancy of promoter regions was derived in silico from chromosomal immune-precipitation (ChIP) data. Results: B7-H3 expression was positively associated with Gleason score (p < 0.01) and tumor stage (p < 0.01). High B7-H3 expression also correlated with the development of metastasis and prostate cancer specific mortality (HR of 3.4 and 2.4 respectively, p < 0.05 for both), but this was not significant on multi-variable analysis. B7-H3 was positively associated with ERG+ disease (n = 670, r = 0.85, p < 0.05) and AR expression (n = 670, r = 0.46, p < 0.001). B7-H3 was found to be one of the most correlated genes with AR (95th percentile) and ChIP analysis revealed AR binding upstream of B7-H3, suggesting potential androgen dependent regulation. Conclusions: B7-H3 expression correlates with high Gleason grade and advanced prostate cancer stage with higher quartiles of expression portending poor oncologic outcomes in two independent prostatectomy cohorts. B7-H3 expression appears to relate to the androgen receptor.

12 Background: In 3 published randomized trials, adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) for prostate cancer (PCa) resulted in improved progression free survival. However, the impact on metastases and overall survival is unclear. To date, there have been no published prospective trials examining the impact of salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in this disease state. Hence, we conducted a retrospective, nonrandomized comparative study of ART, SRT, or no radiation following radical prostatectomy (RP) for men with pT3 disease or positive margins (adverse pathologic features, APF). Methods: 422 PCa men treated at 4 institutions with RP and having APF were analyzed with a primary end point of clinical metastasis. ART (n = 111), early SRT (n = 70) and delayed SRT (n = 83) were defined by PSA levels of < 0.2, 0.2 to 0.5, and ≥ 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, prior to RT initiation. Remaining 157 men who did not receive additional therapy prior to metastatic onset formed the no RT arm. Clinical-genomic risk was assessed by CAPRA-S and Decipher. Cox multivariable (MVA) model was used to evaluate the impact of treatment on outcome. Results: During study follow-up, 37 men developed metastasis with a median follow-up of 8 years. Both CAPRA-S and Decipher had independent predictive value on MVA for metastatic outcome (both p < 0.05). On MVA adjusting for clinical-genomic risk, delayed SRT and no RT had an HR of 4.31 (95%CI, 1.20-15.47) and 5.42 (95% CI, 1.59-18.44) for metastasis compared to ART. No significance difference was observed between early SRT and ART (p = 0.28). Men with low to intermediate CAPRA-S and low Decipher have a low rate of metastatic events regardless of treatment selection. In contrast, men with high CAPRA-S and Decipher benefit from ART, however the cumulative incidence of metastasis remains high. Conclusions: The decision as to the timing and need for additional local therapy following RP is nuanced and requires providers and men to balance risks of morbidity with improved oncologic outcomes. This analysis provides the most robust and accurate quantification of risk for these men. Post-RP treatment can be safely avoided for men who are low risk by clinical-genomic risk, whereas those at high risk should favor enrollment in clinical trials.