Personalization of prostate cancer prevention and therapy: are clinically qualified biomarkers in the horizon?

Prostate cancer remains the most common malignancy among men and the second leading cause of male cancer-related mortality. Death from this disease is invariably due to resistance to androgen deprivation therapy. Our improved understanding of the biology of prostate cancer has heralded a new era in molecular anticancer drug development, with multiple novel anticancer drugs for castration resistant prostate cancer now entering the clinic. These include the taxane cabazitaxel, the vaccine sipuleucel-T, the CYP17 inhibitor abiraterone, the novel androgen receptor antagonist MDV-3100 and the radionuclide alpharadin. The management and therapeutic landscape of prostate cancer has now been transformed with this growing armamentarium of effective antitumor agents. This review discusses strategies for the prevention and personalization of prostate cancer therapy, with a focus on the development of predictive and intermediate endpoint biomarkers, as well as novel clinical trial designs that will be crucial for the optimal development of such anticancer therapeutics

Prostate Cancer Foundation Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Biomarker Working Group Meeting Summary.

Androgen deprivation therapy remains the backbone therapy for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). In recent years, several treatments, including docetaxel, abiraterone + prednisone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, have each been shown to demonstrate survival benefit when used upfront along with androgen deprivation therapy. However, treatment selection for an individual patient remains a challenge. There is no high level clinical evidence for treatment selection among these choices based on biological drivers of clinical disease. In August 2020, the Prostate Cancer Foundation convened a working group to meet and discuss biomarkers for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, the proceedings of which are summarized here. This meeting covered the state of clinical and biological evidence for systemic therapies in the mHSPC space, with emphasis on charting a course for the generation, interrogation, and clinical implementation of biomarkers for treatment selection

The Added Value of Circulating Tumor Cell Enumeration to Standard Markers in Assessing Prognosis in a Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Population.

Purpose: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a heterogeneous disease for which better prognostic models for survival are needed. We examined the added value of circulating tumor cell (CTC) enumeration relative to common prognostic laboratory measures from patients with CRPC. Methods: Utility of CTC enumeration as a baseline and postbaseline prognostic biomarker was examined using data from two prospective randomized registration-directed trials (COU-AA-301 and ELM-PC4) within statistical models used to estimate risk for survival. Discrimination and calibration were used to measure model predictive accuracy and the added value for CTC enumeration in the context of a Cox model containing albumin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), PSA, hemoglobin, and alkaline phosphatase (ALK). Discrimination quantifies how accurately a risk model predicts short-term versus long-term survivors. Calibration measures the closeness of actual survival time to the predicted survival time. Results: Adding CTC enumeration to a model containing albumin, LDH, PSA, hemoglobin, and ALK ("ALPHA") improved its discriminatory power. The weighted c-index for ALPHA without CTCs was 0.72 (SE, 0.02) versus 0.75 (SE, 0.02) for ALPHA + CTCs. The increase in discrimination was restricted to the lower-risk cohort. In terms of calibration, adding CTCs produced a more accurate model-based prediction of patient survival. The absolute prediction error for ALPHA was 3.95 months (SE, 0.28) versus 3.75 months (SE, 0.22) for ALPHA + CTCs. Conclusions: Addition of CTC enumeration to standard measures provides more accurate assessment of patient risk in terms of baseline and postbaseline prognosis in the mCRPC population. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 1967-73. ©2016 AACR

Clinical outcomes and survival surrogacy studies of prostate-specific antigen declines following enzalutamide in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel.

Background In the AFFIRM trial, enzalutamide significantly increased overall survival (OS) for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after chemotherapy versus placebo and significantly decreased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. The goal of this post hoc analysis was to associate levels of PSA decline from baseline after enzalutamide with clinical outcomes in the postchemotherapy mCRPC setting.Methods Men in the AFFIRM trial (n = 1199) were grouped by maximal PSA decline in the first 90 days of treatment. Kaplan-Meier estimates evaluated the association of defined PSA changes from baseline with OS, progression-free survival (PFS), radiographic PFS (rPFS), and pain response. Each PSA decline category was assessed for OS surrogacy using Prentice criteria, proportion of treatment effect explained (PTE), and proportion of variation explained.Results Men treated with enzalutamide had improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.63; P 19.0; P .20).Conclusions PSA declines of any, ≥30%, and ≥50% following enzalutamide were associated with greater clinical and pain response and improvements in PFS and OS. Surrogacy of PSA decline for OS was not fully established, possibly due to lack of PSA declines with placebo, and discordant results between PSA and imaging responses over time, and because some declines were not durable due to rapid resistance development. However, a lack of PSA decline by 90 days following enzalutamide treatment was a poor prognosis indicator in this setting. Conclusions from sensitivity analyses of maximal PSA decline from baseline over the entire treatment period are consistent with PSA declines restricted to the first 90 days. Cancer 2017;123:2303-2311. © 2017 American Cancer Society

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana(®), Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m(2) of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage

Circulating tumour cell increase as a biomarker of disease progression in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with low baseline CTC counts.

Background:The development of treatment response and surrogate biomarkers for advanced prostate cancer care is an unmet clinical need. Patients with baseline circulating tumour cell (BLCTCs) counts <5/7.5 mL represent a good prognosis subgroup but are non-evaluable for response assessment (decrease in CTCs). The aim of the study is to determine the value of any increase in CTCs (CTC progression) as an indicator of progression in prostate cancer patients with low pre-treatment CTCs (<5). Patients and methods:We carried out a post hoc analysis of patients with BLCTCs < 5 treated in the COU-AA-301 (abiraterone or placebo + prednisone) and IMMC-38 (chemotherapy) trials. The association of CTC progression (increase in CTCs at 4, 8 or 12 weeks) with overall survival (OS) was evaluated in multi-variable Cox regression models. Performance of survival models with and without CTC progression was evaluated by calculating ROC curve area under the curves (AUCs) and weighted c-indices. Results:Overall, 511 patients with CTCs < 5 (421 in COU-AA-301 and 90 in IMMC-38) were selected; 212 (41.7%) had CTC progression at 4, 8 or 12 weeks after treatment initiation. CTC progression was associated with significantly worse OS [27.1 versus 15.1 m; hazard ratio (HR) 3.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-4.5; P < 0.001)], independent of baseline CTCs and established clinical variables. Adding CTC progression to the OS model significantly improved ROC AUC (0.77 versus 0.66; P < 0.001). Models including CTC progression had superior ROC AUC (0.77 versus 0.69; P < 0.001) and weighted c-index [0.750 versus 0.705; delta c-index: 0.045 (95% CI 0.019-0.071)] values than those including CTC conversion (increase to CTCs ≥ 5). In COU-AA-301, the impact of CTC progression was independent of treatment arm. Conclusions:Increasing CTCs during the first 12 weeks of treatment are independently associated with worse OS from advanced prostate cancer in patients with baseline CTCs < 5 treated with abiraterone or chemotherapy and improve models with established prognostic variables. These findings must be prospectively validated