Chemotherapy-Induced CXC-Chemokine/CXC-Chemokine Receptor Signaling in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Cells Confers Resistance to Oxaliplatin through Potentiation of Nuclear Factor-κB Transcription and Evasion of Apoptosis

Constitutive activation of nuclear factor (NF)-kappa B is linked with the intrinsic resistance of androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC) to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Interleukin-8 (CXCL8) is a transcriptional target of NF-kappa B whose expression is elevated in AIPC. This study sought to determine the significance of CXCL8 signaling in regulating the response of AIPC cells to oxaliplatin, a drug whose activity is reportedly sensitive to NF-kappa B activity. Administration of oxaliplatin to PC3 and DU145 cells increased NF-kappa B activity, promoting antiapoptotic gene transcription. In addition, oxaliplatin increased the transcription and secretion of CXCL8 and the related CXC-chemokine CXCL1 and increased the transcription and expression of CXC-chemokine receptors, especially CXC-chemokine receptor (CXCR) 2, which transduces the biological effects of CXCL8 and CXCL1. Stimulation of AIPC cells with CXCL8 potentiated NF-kappa B activation in AIPC cells, increasing the transcription and expression of NF-kappa B-regulated antiapoptotic genes of the Bcl-2 and IAP families. Coadministration of a CXCR2-selective antagonist, AZ10397767 (Bioorg Med Chem Lett 18:798-803, 2008), attenuated oxaliplatin-induced NF-kappa B activation, increased oxaliplatin cytotoxicity, and potentiated oxaliplatin-induced apoptosis in AIPC cells. Pharmacological inhibition of NF-kappa B or RNA interference-mediated suppression of Bcl-2 and survivin was also shown to sensitize AIPC cells to oxaliplatin. Our results further support NF-kappa B activity as an important determinant of cancer cell sensitivity to oxaliplatin and identify the induction of autocrine CXCR2 signaling as a novel mode of resistance to this drug.

Constitutive and Treatment-Induced CXCL8-Signalling Selectively Modulates the Efficacy of Anti-Metabolite Therapeutics in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Background: The current study was undertaken to characterize the effect of anti-metabolites on inducing CXCL8 signaling and determining whether the constitutive and/or drug-induced CXCL8 signaling in metastatic prostate cancer (CaP) cells modulates their sensitivity to this class of agent.

Methods: The response of metastatic CaP cells to 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), Pemetrexed or Tomudex was determined using cell count assays, flow cytometry and PARP cleavage analysis. Quantitative-PCR, ELISA and immunoblots were employed to determine effects of drugs or CXCL8 administration on target gene/protein expression.

Results: Administration of 5-FU but not pemetrexed potentiated CXCL8 secretion and increased CXCR1 and CXCR2 gene expression in metastatic PC3 cells. Consistent with this, the inhibition of CXCL8 signaling using a CXCR2 antagonist, AZ10397767, increased the cytotoxicity of 5-FU by 4-fold (P,0.001), and increased 5-FU-induced apoptosis in PC3 cells (P,0.01). In contrast, while administration of AZ10397767 had no effect on the sensitivity of pemetrexed, the CXCR2 antagonist exerted the greatest effect in increasing the sensitivity of PC3 cells to Tomudex, a directed thymidylate synthase (TS) inhibitor. Subsequent experiments confirmed that administration of recombinant human CXCL8 increased TS expression, a response mediated in part by the CXCR2 receptor. Moreover, siRNA-mediated knockdown of the CXCL8-target gene Bcl-2 increased the sensitivity of PC3 cells to 5-FU.

Conclusions: CXCL8 signaling provides a selective resistance of metastatic prostate cancer cells to specific anti-metabolites by promoting a target-associated resistance, in addition to underpinning an evasion of treatment-induced apoptosis. © 2012 Wilson et al.

Use of radionuclides in metastatic prostate cancer:pain relief and beyond

Bone metastases in prostate cancer are often the cause of significant morbidity in patients with castrate-resistant disease, and several studies have shown significant pain palliation with systemic radionuclide treatment. The purpose of this review is to discuss the place of radionuclides in the dynamic treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer in light of new evidence demonstrating benefit beyond palliation.

Alpha emitter radium-223 and survival in metastatic prostate cancer

Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223), an alpha emitter, selectively targets bone metastases with alpha particles. We assessed the efficacy and safety of radium-223 as compared with placebo, in addition to the best standard of care, in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases.

DNA-Repair Defects and Olaparib in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, but current treatments are not based on molecular stratification. We hypothesized that metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancers with DNA-repair defects would respond to poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition with olaparib.

METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 trial in which patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with olaparib tablets at a dose of 400 mg twice a day. The primary end point was the response rate, defined either as an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or as a reduction of at least 50% in the prostate-specific antigen level or a confirmed reduction in the circulating tumor-cell count from 5 or more cells per 7.5 ml of blood to less than 5 cells per 7.5 ml. Targeted next-generation sequencing, exome and transcriptome analysis, and digital polymerase-chain-reaction testing were performed on samples from mandated tumor biopsies.

RESULTS: Overall, 50 patients were enrolled; all had received prior treatment with docetaxel, 49 (98%) had received abiraterone or enzalutamide, and 29 (58%) had received cabazitaxel. Sixteen of 49 patients who could be evaluated had a response (33%; 95% confidence interval, 20 to 48), with 12 patients receiving the study treatment for more than 6 months. Next-generation sequencing identified homozygous deletions, deleterious mutations, or both in DNA-repair genes--including BRCA1/2, ATM, Fanconi's anemia genes, and CHEK2--in 16 of 49 patients who could be evaluated (33%). Of these 16 patients, 14 (88%) had a response to olaparib, including all 7 patients with BRCA2 loss (4 with biallelic somatic loss, and 3 with germline mutations) and 4 of 5 with ATM aberrations. The specificity of the biomarker suite was 94%. Anemia (in 10 of the 50 patients [20%]) and fatigue (in 6 [12%]) were the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events, findings that are consistent with previous studies of olaparib.

CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the PARP inhibitor olaparib in patients whose prostate cancers were no longer responding to standard treatments and who had defects in DNA-repair genes led to a high response rate. (Funded by Cancer Research UK and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682772; Cancer Research UK number, CRUK/11/029.).

Cabazitaxel for hormone-relapsed metastatic prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen (review of TA255)

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer amongst men in the England and currently affects ~40,000 people around 6,000 of whom suffer from metastatic disease. Overall patients with metastatic disease have a life expectancy of less than 24 months and a poor prognosis.

Docetaxel was the first agent to show survival benefit in metastatic Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer (mHRPC) and since approval by NICE in 2006 (TA101) has for many years been the mainstay of treatment.

To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel within its marketing authorisation for treating hormone-relapsed metastatic prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen.

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.

Celecoxib plus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy alone for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: first results from the STAMPEDE multiarm, multistage, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND:
Long-term hormone therapy alone is standard care for metastatic or high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer. STAMPEDE--an international, open-label, randomised controlled trial--uses a novel multiarm, multistage design to assess whether the early additional use of one or two drugs (docetaxel, zoledronic acid, celecoxib, zoledronic acid and docetaxel, or zoledronic acid and celecoxib) improves survival in men starting first-line, long-term hormone therapy. Here, we report the preplanned, second intermediate analysis comparing hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D) with hormone therapy alone (control arm A).
METHODS:
Eligible patients were men with newly diagnosed or rapidly relapsing prostate cancer who were starting long-term hormone therapy for the first time. Hormone therapy was given as standard care in all trial arms, with local radiotherapy encouraged for newly diagnosed patients without distant metastasis. Randomisation was done using minimisation with a random element across seven stratification factors. Patients randomly allocated to arm D received celecoxib 400 mg twice daily, given orally, until 1 year or disease progression (including prostate-specific antigen [PSA] failure). The intermediate outcome was failure-free survival (FFS) in three activity stages; the primary outcome was overall survival in a subsequent efficacy stage. Research arms were compared pairwise against the control arm on an intention-to-treat basis. Accrual of further patients was discontinued in any research arm showing safety concerns or insufficient evidence of activity (lack of benefit) compared with the control arm. The minimum targeted activity at the second intermediate activity stage was a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·92. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476, and with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN78818544.
FINDINGS:
2043 patients were enrolled in the trial from Oct 17, 2005, to Jan 31, 2011, of whom 584 were randomly allocated to receive hormone therapy alone (control group; arm A) and 291 to receive hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D). At the preplanned analysis of the second intermediate activity stage, with 305 FFS events (209 in arm A, 96 in arm D), there was no evidence of an advantage for hormone therapy plus celecoxib over hormone therapy alone: HR 0·94 (95% CI 0·74-1·20). [corrected]. 2-year FFS was 51% (95% CI 46-56) in arm A and 51% (95% CI 43-58) in arm D. There was no evidence of differences in the incidence of adverse events between groups (events of grade 3 or higher were noted at any time in 123 [23%, 95% CI 20-27] patients in arm A and 64 [25%, 19-30] in arm D). The most common grade 3-5 events adverse effects in both groups were endocrine disorders (55 [11%] of patients in arm A vs 19 [7%] in arm D) and musculoskeletal disorders (30 [6%] of patients in arm A vs 15 [6%] in arm D). The independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping accrual to both celecoxib-containing arms on grounds of lack of benefit and discontinuing celecoxib for patients currently on treatment, which was endorsed by the trial steering committee.
INTERPRETATION:
Celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for up to 1 year is insufficiently active in patients starting hormone therapy for high-risk prostate cancer, and we do not recommend its use in this setting. Accrual continues seamlessly to the other research arms and follow-up of all arms will continue to assess effects on overall survival.