Everolimus (RAD001) sensitizes prostate cancer cells to docetaxel by down-regulation of HIF-1α and sphingosine kinase 1

Resistance to docetaxel is a key problem in current prostate cancer management. Sphingosine kinase 1 (SK1) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways have been implicated in prostate cancer chemoresistance. Here we investigated whether their combined targeting may re-sensitize prostate cancer cells to docetaxel. In hormone-insensitive PC-3 and DU145 prostate cancer cells the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (RAD001) alone did not lead to significant cell death, however, it strongly sensitized cells to low levels (5 nM) of docetaxel. We show that mTOR inhibition has led to a decrease in hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) protein levels and SK1 mRNA. HIF-1α accumulation induced by CoCl2 has led to a partial chemoresistance to RAD001/docetaxel combination. SK1 overexpression has completely protected prostate cancer cells from RAD001/docetaxel effects. Using gene knockdown and CoCl2 treatment we showed that SK1 mRNA expression is downstream of HIF-1α. In a human xenograft model in nude mice single RAD001 and docetaxel therapies induced 23% and 15% reduction in prostate tumor volume, respectively, while their combination led to a 58% reduction. RAD001 alone or in combination with docetaxel has suppressed intratumoral mTOR and SK1 signaling, however as evidenced by tumor size, it required docetaxel for clinical efficacy. Combination therapy was well tolerated and had similar levels of toxicity to docetaxel alone. Overall, our data demonstrate a new mechanism of docetaxel sensitization in prostate cancer. This provides a mechanistic basis for further clinical application of RAD001/docetaxel combination in prostate cancer therapy

Design and methods for a randomized clinical trial comparing three outreach efforts to improve screening mammography adherence

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite the demonstrated need to increase screening mammography utilization and strong evidence that mail and telephone outreach to women can increase screening, most managed care organizations have not adopted comprehensive outreach programs. The uncertainty about optimum strategies and cost effectiveness have retarded widespread acceptance. While 70% of women report getting a mammogram within the prior 2 years, repeat mammography rates are less than 50%. This 5-year study is conducted though a Central Massachusetts healthcare plan and affiliated clinic. All womenhave adequate health insurance to cover the test.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This randomized study compares 3 arms: reminder letter alone; reminder letter plus reminder call; reminder letter plus a second reminder and booklet plus a counselor call. All calls provide women with the opportunity to schedule a mammogram in a reasonable time. The invention period will span 4 years and include repeat attempts. The counselor arm is designed to educate, motivate and counsel women in an effort to alleviate PCP burden.</p> <p>All women who have been in the healthcare plan for 24 months and who have a current primary care provider (PCP) and who are aged 51-84 are randomized to 1 of 3 arms. Interventions are limited to women who become ≥18 months from a prior mammogram. Women and their physicians may opt out of the intervention study.</p> <p>Measurement of completed mammograms will use plan billing records and clinic electronic records. The primary outcome is the proportion of women continuously enrolled for ≥24 months who have had ≥1 mammogram in the last 24 months. Secondary outcomes include the number of women who need repeat interventions. The cost effectiveness analysis will measure all costs from the provider perspective.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>So far, 18,509 women aged 51-84 have been enrolled into our tracking database and were randomized into one of three arms. At baseline, 5,223 women were eligible for an intervention. We anticipate that the outcome will provide firm data about the maximal effectiveness as well as the cost effectiveness of the interventions both for increasing the mammography rate and the repeat mammography rate.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><url>http://clinicaltrials.gov/</url><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01332032">NCT01332032</a></p

Trial Design and Objectives for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3

Evolving treatments, disease phenotypes, and biology, together with a changing drug development environment, have created the need to revise castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) clinical trial recommendations to succeed those from prior Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Groups

Abiraterone in Metastatic Prostate Cancer without Previous Chemotherapy

BackgroundAbiraterone acetate, an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, improves overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. We evaluated this agent in patients who had not received previous chemotherapy.MethodsIn this double-blind study, we randomly assigned 1088 patients to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival.ResultsThe study was unblinded after a planned interim analysis that was performed after 43% of the expected deaths had occurred. The median radiographic progression-free survival was 16.5 months with abiraterone-prednisone and 8.3 months with prednisone alone (hazard ratio for abiraterone-prednisone vs. prednisone alone, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.62; P&lt;0.001). Over a median follow-up period of 22.2 months, overall survival was improved with abiraterone-prednisone (median not reached, vs. 27.2 months for prednisone alone; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93; P=0.01) but did not cross the efficacy boundary. Abiraterone-prednisone showed superiority over prednisone alone with respect to time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, opiate use for cancer-related pain, prostate-specific antigen progression, and decline in performance status. Grade 3 or 4 mineralocorticoid-related adverse events and abnormalities on liver-function testing were more common with abiraterone-prednisone.ConclusionsAbiraterone improved radiographic progression-free survival, showed a trend toward improved overall survival, and significantly delayed clinical decline and initiation of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development, formerly Cougar Biotechnology; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00887198.)

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making

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

Abiraterone in metastatic prostate cancer without previous chemotherapy

Background: Abiraterone acetate, an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, improves overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. We evaluated this agent in patients who had not received previous chemotherapy. Methods: In this double-blind study, we randomly assigned 1088 patients to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Results: The study was unblinded after a planned interim analysis that was performed after 43% of the expected deaths had occurred. The median radiographic progressionfree survival was 16.5 months with abiraterone - prednisone and 8.3 months with prednisone alone (hazard ratio for abiraterone - prednisone vs. prednisone alone, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.62; P<0.001). Over a median follow-up period of 22.2 months, overall survival was improved with abiraterone - prednisone (median not reached, vs. 27.2 months for prednisone alone; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93; P = 0.01) but did not cross the efficacy boundary. Abiraterone - prednisone showed superiority over prednisone alone with respect to time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, opiate use for cancer-related pain, prostate-specific antigen progression, and decline in performance status. Grade 3 or 4 mineralocorticoid-related adverse events and abnormalities on liver-function testing were more common with abiraterone-prednisone. Conclusions: Abiraterone improved radiographic progression-free survival, showed a trend toward improved overall survival, and significantly delayed clinical decline and initiation of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high- level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. Results and limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and 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 healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Twitter summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. Take-home message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer is summarised here

Adaptation of the Socioecological Model to Address Disparities in Engagement of Black Men in Prostate Cancer Genetic Testing

BACKGROUND: Black men consistently have higher rates of prostate cancer (PCA)- related mortality. Advances in PCA treatment, screening, and hereditary cancer assessment center around germline testing (GT). Of concern is the significant under-engagement of Black males in PCA GT, limiting the benefit of precision therapy and tailored cancer screening despite longstanding awareness of these disparities. To address these critical disparities, the Socioecological Model (SEM) was employed to develop comprehensive recommendations to overcome barriers and implement equitable strategies to engage Black males in PCA GT. METHODS: Clinical/research experts, national organization leaders, and community stakeholders spanning multiple regions in US and Africa participated in developing a framework for equity in PCA GT grounded in the SEM. A novel mixed-methods approach was employed to generate key areas to be addressed and informed statements for consensus consideration utilizing the modified Delphi model. Statements achieving strong consensus (\u3e =75% agreement) were included in final equity frameworks addressing clinical/community engagement and research engagement. RESULTS: All societal levels of the SEM (interpersonal, institutional, community, and policy/advocacy) must deliver information about PCA GT to Black males that address benefits/limitations, clinical impact, hereditary cancer implications, with acknowledgment of mistrust (mean scores [MS] 4.57-5.00). Interpersonal strategies for information delivery included engagement of family/friends/peers/Black role models to improve education/awareness and overcome mistrust (MS 4.65-5.00). Institutional strategies included diversifying clinical, research, and educational programs and integrating community liaisons into healthcare institutions (MS 4.57-5.00). Community strategies included partnerships with healthcare institutions and visibility of healthcare providers/researchers at community events (MS 4.65-4.91). Policy/advocacy included improving partnerships between advocacy and healthcare/community organizations while protecting patient benefits (MS 4.57-5.00). Media strategies were endorsed for the first time at every level (MS 4.56-5.00). CONCLUSION: The SEM-based equity frameworks proposed provide the first multidisciplinary strategies dedicated to increase engagement of Black males in PCA GT, which are critical to reduce disparities in PCA-mortality through informing tailored screening, targeted therapy, and cascade testing in families