Next-generation sequencing of advanced prostate cancer treated with androgen-deprivation therapy

<b>Background:</b> Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is standard treatment for locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Many patients develop castration resistance (castration-resistant PCa [CRPC]) after approximately 2–3 yr, with a poor prognosis. The molecular mechanisms underlying CRPC progression are unclear.<p></p> <b>Objective:</b> To undertake quantitative tumour transcriptome profiling prior to and following ADT to identify functionally important androgen-regulated pathways or genes that may be reactivated in CRPC.<p></p> <b>Design, setting, and participants:</b> RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed on tumour-rich, targeted prostatic biopsies from seven patients with locally advanced or metastatic PCa before and approximately 22 wk after ADT initiation. Differentially regulated genes were identified in treatment pairs and further investigated by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) on cell lines and immunohistochemistry on a separate CRPC patient cohort. Functional assays were used to determine the effect of pathway modulation on cell phenotypes.<p></p> <b>Outcome measurements and statistical analysis:</b> We searched for gene expression changes affecting key cell signalling pathways that may be targeted as proof of principle in a CRPC in vitro cell line model.<p></p> <b>Results and limitations:</b> We identified ADT-regulated signalling pathways, including the Wnt/β-catenin signalling pathway, and observed overexpression of β-catenin in a subset of CRPC by immunohistochemistry. We validated 6 of 12 (50%) pathway members by qRT-PCR on LNCaP/LNCaP-AI cell RNAs, of which 4 (67%) demonstrated expression changes consistent with RNA-seq data. We show that the tankyrase inhibitor XAV939 (which promotes β-catenin degradation) reduced androgen-independent LNCaP-AI cell line growth compared with androgen-responsive LNCaP cells via an accumulation of cell proportions in the G0/G1 phase and reduction in the S and G2/M phases. Our biopsy protocol did not account for tumour heterogeneity, and pathway inhibition was limited to pharmacologic approaches.<p></p> <b>Conclusions:</b> RNA-seq of paired PCa samples revealed ADT-regulated signalling pathways. Proof-of-principle inhibition of the Wnt/β-catenin signalling pathway specifically delays androgen-independent PCa cell cycle progression and proliferation and warrants further investigation as a potential target for therapy for CRPC.<p></p&gt

Adjuvant Sorafenib for Renal Cell Carcinoma at Intermediate or High Risk of Relapse: Results From the SORCE Randomized Phase III Intergroup Trial.

PURPOSE: SORCE is an international, randomized, double-blind, three-arm trial of sorafenib after surgical excision of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) found to be at intermediate or high risk of recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned participants (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo (arm A), 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo (arm B), or 3 years of sorafenib (arm C). The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, amended to 400 mg daily. The primary outcome analysis, which was revised as a result of external results, was investigator-reported disease-free survival (DFS) comparing 3 years of sorafenib versus placebo. RESULTS: Between July 2007 and April 2013, we randomly assigned 1,711 participants (430, 642, and 639 participants in arms A, B, and C, respectively). Median age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, 84% had clear cell histology, 53% were at intermediate risk of recurrence, and 47% were at high risk of recurrence. We observed no differences in DFS or overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, patients with high risk of recurrence, or patients with clear cell RCC only. Median DFS was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.23; P = .95). We observed nonproportional hazards; the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for placebo (RMST difference, 0.01 year; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.48 year; P = .99). Despite offering treatment adaptations, more than half of participants stopped treatment by 12 months. Grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction was reported in 24% of participants on sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy for RCC. Active surveillance remains the standard of care for patients at intermediate or high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy and is the appropriate control of our current international adjuvant RCC trial, RAMPART.CRU

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). INTERPRETATION: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups)

Identification of a candidate prognostic gene signature by transcriptome analysis of matched pre-and post-treatment prostatic biopsies from patients with advanced prostate cancer

Background: Although chemotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa) can improve patient survival, some tumours are chemo-resistant. Tumour molecular profiles may help identify the mechanisms of drug action and identify potential prognostic biomarkers. We performed in vivo transcriptome profiling of pre- and post-treatment prostatic biopsies from patients with advanced hormone-naive prostate cancer treated with docetaxel chemotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with an aim to identify the mechanisms of drug action and identify prognostic biomarkers. Methods: RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was performed on biopsies from four patients before and ~22 weeks after docetaxel and ADT initiation. Gene fusion products and differentially-regulated genes between treatment pairs were identified using TopHat and pathway enrichment analyses undertaken. Publically available datasets were interrogated to perform survival analyses on the gene signatures identified using cBioportal. Results: A number of genomic rearrangements were identified including the TMPRSS2/ERG fusion and 3 novel gene fusions involving the ETS family of transcription factors in patients, both pre and post chemotherapy. In total, gene expression analyses showed differential expression of at least 2 fold in 575 genes in post-chemotherapy biopsies. Of these, pathway analyses identified a panel of 7 genes (ADAM7, FAM72B, BUB1B, CCNB1, CCNB2, TTK, CDK1), including a cell cycle-related geneset, that were differentially-regulated following treatment with docetaxel and ADT. Using cBioportal to interrogate the MSKCC-Prostate Oncogenome Project dataset we observed a statistically-significant reduction in disease-free survival of patients with tumours exhibiting alterations in gene expression of the above panel of 7 genes (p = 0.015). Conclusions: Here we report on the first “real-time” in vivo RNA-Seq-based transcriptome analysis of clinical PCa from pre- and post-treatment TRUSS-guided biopsies of patients treated with docetaxel chemotherapy plus ADT. We identify a chemotherapy-driven PCa transcriptome profile which includes the down-regulation of important positive regulators of cell cycle progression. A 7 gene signature biomarker panel has also been identified in high-risk prostate cancer patients to be of prognostic value. Future prospective study is warranted to evaluate the clinical value of this panel

Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio

Measuring testosterone and testosterone replacement therapy in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer:A survey of UK uro-oncologists' opinions and practice

Aim To explore the practice and attitudes of uro‐oncologists in the UK regarding monitoring testosterone levels and the use of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in their prostate cancer patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Methods An expert‐devised online questionnaire was completed by the members of the British Uro‐oncology Group (BUG). Results Of 160 uro‐oncologists invited, 84 completed the questionnaire. Before initiating ADT in patients with non‐metastatic prostate cancer, only 45% of respondents measured testosterone levels and 61% did not measure testosterone at all during ADT in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. However, in men with metastatic prostate cancer, 71% of the uro‐oncologists measured testosterone before starting ADT and the majority continued testing during treatment. Approximately two‐thirds of respondents did not prescribe TRT for their patients who were in remission following neo(adjuvant) ADT and who had castration levels of testosterone. Discussion Among UK uro‐oncologists, the measurement of testosterone levels before and during ADT was not typically part of routine practice in the management of patients with prostate cancer. However, testosterone levels were checked more frequently for patients with metastatic disease than disease at an earlier stage. Testing could be conducted in parallel with PSA measurement as testosterone levels are linked to biochemical failure. The majority of specialists participating in the survey did not prescribe TRT for their patients in remission following ADT. Conclusion Uro‐oncologists in the UK do not generally measure testosterone as part of their patient management and they remain cautious about the possible benefits of TRT in men with prostate cancer