DNA mismatch repair and the transition to hormone independence in breast and prostate cancer

The molecular basis for the progression of breast and prostate cancer from hormone dependent to hormone independent disease remains a critical issue in the management of these two cancers. The DNA mismatch repair system is integral to the maintenance of genomic stability and suppression of tumorigenesis. No firm consensus exists regarding the implications of mismatch repair (MMR) deficiencies in the development of breast or prostate cancer. However, recent studies have reported an association between mismatch repair deficiency and loss of specific hormone receptors, inferring a potential role for mismatch repair deficiency in this transition. An updated review of the experimental data supporting or contradicting the involvement of MMR defects in the development and progression of breast and prostate cancer will be provided with particular emphasis on their implications in the transition to hormone independence.

Pathogenesis of prostate cancer and hormone refractory prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy in males and the leading cause of cancer death. Prostate cancer is initially androgen dependent and relies upon the androgen receptor (AR) to mediate the effects of androgens. The AR is also the target for therapy using antiandrogens and LHRH analogues. However, all cancers eventually become androgen independent, often referred to as hormone refractory prostate cancer. The processes involved in this transformation are yet to be fully understood but research in this area has discovered numerous potential mechanisms including AR amplification, over-expression or mutation and alterations in the AR signaling pathway. This review of the recent literature examines the current knowledge and developments in the understanding of the molecular biology of prostate cancer and hormone refractory prostate cancer, summarizing the well characterized pathways involved as well as introducing new concepts that may offer future solutions to this difficult problem.

Huntingtin interacting protein 1 modulates the transcriptional activity of nuclear hormone receptors

Internalization of activated receptors regulates signaling, and endocytic adaptor proteins are well-characterized in clathrin-mediated uptake. One of these adaptor proteins, huntingtin interacting protein 1 (HIP1), induces cellular transformation and is overexpressed in some prostate cancers. We have discovered that HIP1 associates with the androgen receptor through a central coiled coil domain and is recruited to DNA response elements upon androgen stimulation. HIP1 is a novel androgen receptor regulator, significantly repressing transcription when knocked down using a silencing RNA approach and activating transcription when overexpressed. We have also identified a functional nuclear localization signal at the COOH terminus of HIP1, which contributes to the nuclear translocation of the protein. In conclusion, we have discovered that HIP1 is a nucleocytoplasmic protein capable of associating with membranes and DNA response elements and regulating transcription.

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone.

METHODS: Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544).

FINDINGS: 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc.

INTERPRETATION: Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

Risk factors (excluding hormone therapy) for endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of risk factors associated with the development of Endometrial Hyperplasia (EH).

Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 30 June 2015.

Study eligibility: Fifteen observational studies that reported on EH risk in relation to lifestyle factors (n=14), medical history (n=11), reproductive and menstrual history (n=9) and measures of socio-economic status (n=2) were identified. Pooled relative risk estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were able to be derived for EH and Body Mass Index (BMI), smoking, diabetes and hypertension, using random effects models comparing high versus low categories.

Results: The pooled relative risk for EH when comparing women with the highest versus lowest BMI was 1.82 (95% CI 1.22–2.71; n=7 studies, I2=90.4%). No significant associations were observed for EH risk for smokers compared with non-smokers (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.17; n=3, I2=0.0%), hypertensive versus normotensive women (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.72–3.15; n=5 studies, I2=79.1%), or diabetic versus non-diabetic women (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.79–3.96; n=5 studies, I2=31.8%) respectively although the number of included studies was limited. There were mixed reports on the relationship between age and risk of EH. Too few studies reported on other factors to reach any conclusions in relation to EH risk.

Conclusions: A high BMI was associated with an increased risk of EH, providing additional rationale for women to maintain a normal body weight. No significant associations were detected for other factors and EH risk, however relatively few studies have been conducted and few of the available studies adequately adjusted for relevant confounders. Therefore, further aetiological studies of endometrial hyperplasia are warranted.

Attenuation of monocyte chemotaxis--a novel anti-inflammatory mechanism of action for the cardio-protective hormone B-type natriuretic peptide

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is a prognostic and diagnostic marker for heart failure (HF). An anti-inflammatory, cardio-protective role for BNP was proposed. In cardiovascular diseases including pressure overload-induced HF, perivascular inflammation and cardiac fibrosis are, in part, mediated by monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)1-driven monocyte migration. We aimed to determine the role of BNP in monocyte motility to MCP1. A functional BNP receptor, natriuretic peptide receptor-A (NPRA) was identified in human monocytes. BNP treatment inhibited MCP1-induced THP1 (monocytic leukemia cells) and primary monocyte chemotaxis (70 and 50 %, respectively). BNP did not interfere with MCP1 receptor expression or with calcium. BNP inhibited activation of the cytoskeletal protein RhoA in MCP1-stimulated THP1 (70 %). Finally, BNP failed to inhibit MCP1-directed motility of monocytes from patients with hypertension (n = 10) and HF (n = 6) suggesting attenuation of this anti-inflammatory mechanism in chronic heart disease. We provide novel evidence for a direct role of BNP/NPRA in opposing human monocyte migration and support a role for BNP as a cardio-protective hormone up-regulated as part of an adaptive compensatory response to combat excess inflammation.

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.

Gut hormone GPCRs: structure, function, drug discovery

Crystallization and determination of the high resolution three-dimensional structure of the β2-adrenergic receptor in 2007 was followed by structure elucidation of a number of other receptors, including those for neurotensin and glucagon. These major advances foster the understanding of structure-activity relationship of these receptors and structure-based rational design of new ligands having more predictable activity. At present, structure determination of gut hormone receptors in complex with their ligands (natural, synthetic) and interacting signalling proteins, for example, G-proteins, arrestins, represents a challenge which promises to revolutionize gut hormone endocrinonology.

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.