Haddad, Zaid

36 Background: Following radical prostatectomy (RP), 30-40% of patients have adverse pathology and are deemed at high risk for metastatic progression. The objective of this study was to validate the ability of Decipher, a genomic classifier (GC), to improve prediction of metastatic disease progression compared with clinical variables in order to better identify candidates for therapy intensification. Methods: A previously developed 22-feature GC model was validated in a prospectively designed case-cohort study of a clinically high-risk population (i.e., with one or more adverse pathological features) of 1,010 RP patients treated at Mayo Clinic between 2000-2006. A random sample of 20% of the cohort was subjected to microarray analysis and GC scores were generated for 219 patients. The primary endpoint, the c-index for predicting metastatic disease progression (i.e., positive bone or CT scans) was evaluated in a blinded analysis. Cox modeling and decision curve analyses were used to compare the performance of GC to individual clinical variables and prediction models. Results: GC had a c-index 0.79 (95% CI 0.71-0.86) that was significantly better than any single clinical variable. Cumulative incidence curves in the cohort showed that 72% of patients had low GC scores with only 3% and 6% incidence of metastatic disease at 5 and 10 years post RP. In contrast, for the 28% of patients with high GC scores, the cumulative incidence was 17% and 25% at 5 and 10 years post RP. Decision curve analysis showed that the GC model had higher overall net benefit compared to clinical variables over a wide range of ‘decision-to-treat’ thresholds for risk of metastasis. In multivariable modeling with clinicopathologic variables, GC remained the only significant independent predictor of metastasis (HR=1.51, for each 0.1 unit increment, p<0.001). Conclusions: GC can better predict metastatic disease progression compared with clinical variables and may select among patients with adverse pathology a majority that is in fact at low risk for metastasis.

303 Background: Small cell (SC) neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate has very poor prognosis and does not respond well to androgen receptor (AR)-targeted therapies. Neuroendocrine prostate carcinomas are increasingly recognized to show a spectrum of morphologic changes, and may not always be distinguishable from adenocarcinoma (adeno) based on morphology alone. Here we hypothesize that SC carcinoma harbor a unique gene expression signature that, when measured in primary prostatic adenocarcinoma, may help guide subsequent management. Methods: In total, 617 whole genome expression profiles were retrieved from the Decipher GRID providing gene expression data for 1.4 million markers. 17 morphologically-diagnosed SC carcinoma samples were compared to 32 Gleason 8-10 and 77 Gleason 6 RP adeno samples with no prior treatment and no evidence of metastasis, and this comparison was used to define SC Genomic Fingerprint (SCGFt) through adjusted median fold difference and Wilcoxon test. An additional 493 RP adeno from Mayo Clinic and John Hopkins Hospital were used to evaluate the utility of the SCGFt for predicting outcome. Results: Based on genomic prognostic tests calculated using the Decipher assay including Decipher, Penney and microarray-derived Cell Cycle Progression, SC carcinomas have very poor prognosis compared to high grade adeno. A total of 356 genes defined the SCGFt with 258 gene upregulated in SC and 98 down-regulated. PEG10, HELLS and RB1-loss program are the most overexpressed genes in SC and AR-related genes the most down-regulated. As expected, SC lacked ERG and alternative ETS expression and showed relatively low SPINK1 expression. A median summarization of the 356 genes in SCGFt was used to build a small cell genomic score (SCGS). Evaluating SCGS in RP adeno cohorts showed that patients with high SCGS are at higher risk of developing metastasis after RP in a natural history cohort or after adjuvant hormonal therapy based on Kaplan Meier analysis (both p< 0.001). When restricted to patients with high Decipher scores, SCGS provided independent prognostic information. Conclusions: SC carcinoma has a distinct genomic profile that may be useful for treatment management of patients with adenocarcinoma.

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.

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.

175 Background: The efficient delivery of adjuvant and salvage therapy after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer is hampered by a lack of biomarkers to assess the risk of clinically significant recurrence and progression. Methods: Mayo Clinic Radical Prostatectomy Registry (RP) patient specimens were selected from a case-control cohort with 14 years median follow-up for training and initial validation of an expression biomarker genomic classifier (GC). An independent, blinded case-cohort study of high-risk RP subjects was used to validate GC, comparing the performance of GC to a multivariate logistic regression clinical model (CM) and GC combined with clinical variables (genomic-clinical classifier, GCC) for predicting clinical recurrence (defined as positive bone or CT scan within 5 years after biochemical recurrence). The concordance index (c-index) and Cox model were used to evaluate discrimination and estimate the risk of clinical recurrence. Results: In the training subset (n=359), both GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.90 whereas CM had a c-index of 0.76. In the internal validation set (n=186), GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.76 and 0.75, while CM had a c-index of 0.69. In an independent high-risk study (n=219), GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.77 and 0.76, while CM had a c-index of 0.68. In subset analysis of Gleason score 7 patients within the high-risk group, GC and GCC showed improved discrimination with c-index of 0.78 and 0.76, respectively compared to 0.70 for CM. In the high-risk group, the risk of recurrence by GC model score quartiles at 5 years after RP was estimated at 1%, 5%, 5% and 18%. Conclusions: The GC model shows improved performance over CM in the prediction of clinical recurrence in a high-risk cohort and in subset analysis of Gleason score 7 patients. The addition of clinical variables to the GC model did not significantly contribute to classifier performance in patients with high-risk features. We are further testing the performance of the GC and GCC models and their usefulness in guiding decision-making (e.g., for the adjuvant therapy setting) in additional studies of prostate cancer clinical risk groups.

Objective To better characterize the genomics of patients with biochemical recurrence ( BCR ) who have metastatic disease progression in order to improve treatment decisions for prostate cancer. Methods The expression profiles of three clinical outcome groups after radical prostatectomy ( RP ) were compared: those with no evidence of disease ( NED ; n = 108); those with BCR (rise in prostate‐specific antigen [ PSA ] level without metastasis; n = 163); and those with metastasis ( n = 192). The patients were profiled using Human Exon 1.0 ST microarrays, and outcomes were supported by a median 18 years of follow‐up. A metastasis signature was defined and verified in an independent RP cohort to ensure the robustness of the signature. Furthermore, bioinformatics characterization of the signature was conducted to decipher its biology. Results Minimal gene expression differences were observed between adjuvant treatment‐naïve patients in the NED group and patients without metastasis in the BCR group. More than 95% of the differentially expressed genes (metastasis signature) were found in comparisons between primary tumours of metastasis patients and the two other outcome groups. The metastasis signature was validated in an independent cohort and was significantly associated with cell cycle genes, ubiquitin‐mediated proteolysis, DNA repair, androgen, G‐protein coupled and NOTCH signal transduction pathways. Conclusion This study shows that metastasis development after BCR is associated with a distinct transcriptional programme that can be detected in the primary tumour. Patients with NED and BCR have highly similar transcriptional profiles, suggesting that measurement of PSA on its own is a poor surrogate for lethal disease. Use of genomic testing in patients undergoing RP with an initial rise in PSA level may be useful to improve secondary therapy decision‐making.

Abstract Motivations: Gleason score is the most prognostic variable in prostate cancer pathology. Patients with high Gleason (8+) are the most likely to experience biochemical recurrence (BCR), clinical progression (CP) and prostate-cancer specific mortality (PCSM), whereas patients with Gleason ≤6 are expected to have excellent long-term outcomes. However, the majority of prostate cancer patients are diagnosed with Gleason score 7, a heterogeneous group in terms of patient outcomes. In the absence of adverse pathological factors (APF, such as preoperative PSA, SM+, ECE and SVI) most Gleason 7 patients will have excellent outcomes. In contrast, Gleason 7 patients with APF are considered at high-risk for recurrence and therefore are candidates for adjuvant therapy. In this study, we have investigated whether a classifier based on differentially expressed genomic features could be used to improve prognostication of Gleason 7 patients, independent of APF. Methods: Two whole-transcriptome (1.4 million feature) oligonucleotide microarray expression datasets from radical prostatectomy specimens were analyzed. The first one (GEO accession: GSE21032) consisted of 125 fresh frozen (FF) samples from the MSKCC Oncogenome Project and the second dataset had 545 formalin-fixed-paraffin- embedded (FFPE) samples from the Mayo Clinic tumor registry. For genomic feature selection, differential expression in the FF dataset between Gleason ≤6 (n=40) and ≥8 (n=15) was assessed with false discovery rate adjusted t-tests (p&lt;0.05). Next, a k-nearest neighbor (KNN) classifier was trained and tuned using the selected features to predict clinical progression (i.e., positive bone or CT scans after BCR) in the FFPE dataset, again using samples with Gleason score ≤6 (n=63) and ≥8 (n=211). The KNN classifier was evaluated on Gleason score 7 (n=209) FFPE samples (not used for training) using multivariable logistic regression. Results: The KNN classifier segregated the Gleason 7 samples into high and low risk CP groups. The KNN odds ratios were 2.9 (p&lt;0.005), 2.1 (p&lt;0.05) and 2.8 (p&lt;0.05) for BCR, CP and PCSM end-points, respectively when comparing high and low risk groups. Multivariable analysis revealed that the KNN classifier was independently prognostic. Conclusions: A KNN classifier developed using differentially expressed genomic features significantly stratified Gleason score 7 patients for several clinically relevant endpoints. Future validation studies will address the utility of this classifier in predicting pathological Gleason score from biopsy specimens, which may be particularly useful for evaluation of biopsy Gleason 6 cases. In these patients, deferring prostatectomy in favour of active surveillance is an appealing treatment option unless the ‘true’ Gleason of the index lesion is in fact a Gleason 7 or higher, where immediate surgery is likely a life-saving procedure. Citation Format: Nicholas Erho, Thomas Sierocinski, Elai Davicioni, Robert B. Jenkins, Mercedeh Gadhessi, Christine Buerki, Ismael A. Vergara, Anamaria Crisan, Zaid Haddad, Benedikt Zimmermann, Anirban Mitra, Timothy J. Triche. Identification of biomarkers for stratification of Gleason score 7 patients using whole-transcriptome expression profiling [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Advances in Prostate Cancer Research; 2012 Feb 6-9; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(4 Suppl):Abstract nr B46.