Prostate cancer markers and uses thereof

The present invention relates to composition and methods of cancer diagnosis, research and therapy including, but not limited to, cancer markers. In particular, the present invention relates to LRG1 protein markers for use in the diagnosis, prognosis and determination of treatment of prostate cancer.

Ethnicity and the prostate cancer experience: a qualitative metasynthesis

Objectives: To summarise black and minority ethnic (BME) patients' and partners
experiences of prostate cancer (PCa) by examining the findings of existing qualitative studies
Methods:
We undertook a systematic metasynthesis of qualitative studies using a modified version of
Noblit and Hare's 'meta-ethnography' approach, with a 2000-2015 search of seven databases.
Results: Thirteen studies of men from US and UK BME groups were included. We explored
constructs with BME-specific features. Healthcare provider relationships, formation of a
spiritual alliance with God (which enhanced the participants’ feeling of empowerment and
ability to cope with the cancer) and living on for others (generally to increase cancer
awareness), often connected to spiritual regrowth, were the three constructs most commonly
reported. A magnified effect from erectile dysfunction was also common. Initially this
affected men’s disclosure to others about their cancer and their sexual problems, but
eventually men responded by shifting their conceptualisations of masculinity to sustain self
and social identities. There was also evidence of inequality resulting from financial
constraints and adversity that necessitated resilience in coping.
Conclusions: The prostate cancer experience of BME men and their partners is affected by a
complex intersection of ethnicity with other factors. Healthcare services should acknowledge
this. If providers recognise the men’s felt masculinities, social identities and spiritual beliefs
and their shifting nature, services could be improved, with community as well as individual
benefits. More studies are needed in diverse ethnic groups

HNF1B variants associate with promoter methylation and regulate gene networks activated in prostate and ovarian cancer

Two independent regions within HNF1B are consistently identified in prostate and ovarian cancer genome-wide association studies (GWAS); their functional roles are unclear. We link prostate cancer (PC) risk SNPs rs11649743 and rs3760511 with elevated HNF1B gene expression and allele-specific epigenetic silencing, and outline a mechanism by which common risk variants could effect functional changes that increase disease risk: functional assays suggest that HNF1B is a pro-differentiation factor that suppresses epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in unmethylated, healthy tissues. This tumor-suppressor activity is lost when HNF1B is silenced by promoter methylation in the progression to PC. Epigenetic inactivation of HNF1B in ovarian cancer also associates with known risk SNPs, with a similar impact on EMT. This represents one of the first comprehensive studies into the pleiotropic role of a GWAS-associated transcription factor across distinct cancer types, and is the first to describe a conserved role for a multi-cancer genetic risk factor.

Calcium Channel Blocker Use and Risk of Prostate Cancer by TMPRSS2:ERG Gene Fusion Status

BACKGROUND: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) may affect prostate cancer (PCa) growth by various mechanisms including those related to androgens. The fusion of the androgen-regulated gene TMPRSS2 and the oncogene ERG (TMPRSS2:ERG or T2E) is common in PCa, and prostate tumors that harbor the gene fusion are believed to represent a distinct disease subtype. We studied the association of CCB use with the risk of PCa, and molecular subtypes of PCa defined by T2E status.

METHODS: Participants were residents of King County, Washington, recruited for population-based case-control studies (1993-1996 or 2002-2005). Tumor T2E status was determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization using tumor tissue specimens from radical prostatectomy. Detailed information on use of CCBs and other variables was obtained through in-person interviews. Binomial and polytomous logistic regression were used to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS: The study included 1,747 PCa patients and 1,635 age-matched controls. A subset of 563 patients treated with radical prostatectomy had T2E status determined, of which 295 were T2E positive (52%). Use of CCBs (ever vs. never) was not associated with overall PCa risk. However, among European-American men, users had a reduced risk of higher-grade PCa (Gleason scores ≥7: adjusted OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.95). Further, use of CCBs was associated with a reduced risk of T2E positive PCa (adjusted OR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.19-0.78), but was not associated with T2E negative PCa.

CONCLUSIONS: This study found suggestive evidence that use of CCBs is associated with reduced relative risks for higher Gleason score and T2E positive PCa. Future studies of PCa etiology should consider etiologic heterogeneity as PCa subtypes may develop through different causal pathways. 

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.