Consensus Statement on Circulating Biomarkers for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Context: In advanced prostate cancer (PC), there is increasing investigation of circulating biomarkers, including quantitation and characterization of circulating tumour cells and cell-free nucleic acids, for therapeutic monitoring and as prognostic and predictive biomarkers. However, there is a lack of consensus and standardisation regarding analyses, reporting, and integration of results into specific clinical contexts. A consensus meeting on circulating biomarkers was held to address these topics. Objective: To present a report of the consensus statement on circulating biomarkers in advanced PC. Evidence acquisition: Four important areas of controversy in the field of circulating biomarkers in PC management were identified: known clinical utility of circulating biomarkers; unmet clinical needs for circulating biomarkers in PC care; most pressing blood-based molecular assays required; and essential steps for developing circulating biomarker assays. A panel of 18 international PC experts in the field of circulating biomarkers developed the programme and consensus questions. The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 50 predefined questions developed following a modified Delphi process. Evidence synthesis: Voting was based solely on panellist opinions of the predefined topics and therefore not on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article and in the detailed voting results provided in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: The expert voting results presented can guide the future development of circulating biomarkers for PC care. Notably, the consensus meeting highlighted the importance of reproducibility and variability studies, among other significant areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. Patient summary: A panel of international experts met to discuss and vote on the use of different blood-based prostate cancer tests, and how they can be used to guide treatment and disease monitoring to deliver more precise and better patient care

The Light Responsive Transcriptome of the Zebrafish: Function and Regulation

Most organisms possess circadian clocks that are able to anticipate the day/night cycle and are reset or “entrained” by the ambient light. In the zebrafish, many organs and even cultured cell lines are directly light responsive, allowing for direct entrainment of the clock by light. Here, we have characterized light induced gene transcription in the zebrafish at several organizational levels. Larvae, heart organ cultures and cell cultures were exposed to 1- or 3-hour light pulses, and changes in gene expression were compared with controls kept in the dark. We identified 117 light regulated genes, with the majority being induced and some repressed by light. Cluster analysis groups the genes into five major classes that show regulation at all levels of organization or in different subset combinations. The regulated genes cover a variety of functions, and the analysis of gene ontology categories reveals an enrichment of genes involved in circadian rhythms, stress response and DNA repair, consistent with the exposure to visible wavelengths of light priming cells for UV-induced damage repair. Promoter analysis of the induced genes shows an enrichment of various short sequence motifs, including E- and D-box enhancers that have previously been implicated in light regulation of the zebrafish period2 gene. Heterologous reporter constructs with sequences matching these motifs reveal light regulation of D-box elements in both cells and larvae. Morpholino-mediated knock-down studies of two homologues of the D-box binding factor Tef indicate that these are differentially involved in the cell autonomous light induction in a gene-specific manner. These findings suggest that the mechanisms involved in period2 regulation might represent a more general pathway leading to light induced gene expression

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions

Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND:Multiple loss-of-function alterations in genes that are involved in DNA repair, including homologous recombination repair, are associated with response to poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition in patients with prostate and other cancers. METHODS:We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluating the PARP inhibitor olaparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving a new hormonal agent (e.g., enzalutamide or abiraterone). All the men had a qualifying alteration in prespecified genes with a direct or indirect role in homologous recombination repair. Cohort A (245 patients) had at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM; cohort B (142 patients) had alterations in any of 12 other prespecified genes, prospectively and centrally determined from tumor tissue. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive olaparib or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone (control). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival in cohort A according to blinded independent central review. RESULTS:In cohort A, imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the control group (median, 7.4 months vs. 3.6 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.47; P<0.001); a significant benefit was also observed with respect to the confirmed objective response rate and the time to pain progression. The median overall survival in cohort A was 18.5 months in the olaparib group and 15.1 months in the control group; 81% of the patients in the control group who had progression crossed over to receive olaparib. A significant benefit for olaparib was also seen for imaging-based progression-free survival in the overall population (cohorts A and B). Anemia and nausea were the main toxic effects in patients who received olaparib. CONCLUSIONS:In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving enzalutamide or abiraterone and who had alterations in genes with a role in homologous recombination repair, olaparib was associated with longer progression-free survival and better measures of response and patient-reported end points than either enzalutamide or abiraterone. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.)

Olaparib for the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Alterations in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 in the PROfound Trial.

Olaparib improved PFS and OS across subgroups of BRCA1/2mut #prostatecancer patients in the PROFOUND phase III trial