Comprehensive validation of published immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer-what has gone wrong? A blueprint for the way forward in biomarker studies

BACKGROUND Treatment planning of localised prostate cancer remains challenging. Besides conventional parameters, a wealth of prognostic biomarkers has been proposed so far. None of which, however, have successfully been implemented in a routine setting so far. The aim of our study was to systematically verify a set of published prognostic markers for prostate cancer. METHODS Following an in-depth PubMed search, 28 markers were selected that have been proposed as multivariate prognostic markers for primary prostate cancer. Their prognostic validity was examined in a radical prostatectomy cohort of 238 patients with a median follow-up of 60 months and biochemical progression as endpoint of the analysis. Immunohistochemical evaluation was performed using previously published cut-off values, but allowing for optimisation if necessary. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to determine the prognostic value of biomarkers included in this study. RESULTS Despite the application of various cut-offs in the analysis, only four (14%) markers were verified as independently prognostic (AKT1, stromal AR, EZH2, and PSMA) for PSA relapse following radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS Apparently, many immunohistochemistry-based studies on prognostic markers seem to be over-optimistic. Codes of best practice, such as the REMARK guidelines, may facilitate the performance of conclusive and transparent future studies.

An arranged marriage for precision medicine: hypoxia and genomic assays in localized prostate cancer radiotherapy

Prostate cancer (CaP) is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in males in the Western world with one in six males diagnosed in their lifetime. Current clinical prognostication groupings use pathologic Gleason score, pre-treatment prostatic-specific antigen and Union for International Cancer Control-TNM staging to place patients with localized CaP into low-, intermediate- and high-risk categories. These categories represent an increasing risk of biochemical failure and CaP-specific mortality rates, they also reflect the need for increasing treatment intensity and justification for increased side effects. In this article, we point out that 30-50% of patients will still fail image-guided radiotherapy or surgery despite the judicious use of clinical risk categories owing to interpatient heterogeneity in treatment response. To improve treatment individualization, better predictors of prognosis and radiotherapy treatment response are needed to triage patients to bespoke and intensified CaP treatment protocols. These should include the use of pre-treatment genomic tests based on DNA or RNA indices and/or assays that reflect cancer metabolism, such as hypoxia assays, to define patient-specific CaP progression and aggression. More importantly, it is argued that these novel prognostic assays could be even more useful if combined together to drive forward precision cancer medicine for localized CaP.

18F-RB390: innovative ligand for imaging the T877A androgen receptor mutant in prostate cancer via positron emission tomography (PET).

BACKGROUND Detecting prostate cancer before spreading or predicting a favorable therapy are challenging issues for impacting patient's survival. Presently, 2-[(18) F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ((18) F-FDG) and/or (18) F-fluorocholine ((18) F-FCH) are the generally used PET-tracers in oncology yet do not emphasize the T877A androgen receptor (AR) mutation being exclusively present in cancerous tissue and escaping androgen deprivation treatment. METHODS We designed and synthesized fluorinated 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) derivatives to target T877A-AR. We performed binding assays to select suitable candidates using COS-7 cells transfected with wild-type or T877A AR (WT-AR, T877A-AR) expressing plasmids and investigated cellular uptake of candidate (18) F-RB390. Stability, biodistribution analyses and PET-Imaging were assessed by injecting (18) F-RB390 (10MBq), with and without co-injection of an excess of unlabeled DHT in C4-2 and PC-3 tumor bearing male SCID mice (n = 12). RESULTS RB390 presented a higher relative binding affinity (RBA) (28.1%, IC50  = 32 nM) for T877A-AR than for WT-AR (1.7%, IC50  = 357 nM) related to DHT (RBA = 100%). A small fraction of (18) F-RB390 was metabolized when incubated with murine liver homogenate or human blood for 3 hr. The metabolite of RB390, 3-hydroxysteroid RB448, presented similar binding characteristics as RB390. (18) F-RB390 but not (18) F-FDG or (18) F-FCH accumulated 2.5× more in COS-7 cells transfected with pSG5AR-T877A than with control plasmid. Accumulation was reduced with an excess of DHT. PET/CT imaging and biodistribution studies revealed a significantly higher uptake of (18) F-RB390 in T877A mutation positive xenografts compared to PC-3 control tumors. This effect was blunted with DHT. CONCLUSION Given the differential binding capacity and the favorable radioactivity pattern, (18) F-RB390 represents the portrayal of the first imaging ligand with predictive potential for mutant T877A-AR in prostate cancer for guiding therapy. Prostate 75:348-359, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of prostate cancer with a gastrin releasing peptide receptor antagonist - from mice to men

UNLABELLED Ex vivo studies have shown that the gastrin releasing peptide receptor (GRPr) is overexpressed on almost all primary prostate cancers, making it a promising target for prostate cancer imaging and targeted radiotherapy. METHODS Biodistribution, dosimetry and tumor uptake of the GRPr antagonist ⁶⁴Cu-CB-TE2A-AR06 [(⁶⁴Cu-4,11-bis(carboxymethyl)-1,4,8,11-tetraazabicyclo(6.6.2)hexadecane)-PEG₄-D-Phe-Gln-Trp-Ala-Val-Gly-His-Sta-LeuNH₂] were studied by PET/CT in four patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (T1c-T2b, Gleason 6-7). RESULTS No adverse events were observed after injection of ⁶⁴Cu-CB-TE2A-AR06. Three of four tumors were visualized with high contrast [tumor-to-prostate ratio > 4 at 4 hours (h) post injection (p.i.)], one small tumor (T1c, < 5% tumor on biopsy specimens) showed moderate contrast (tumor-to-prostate ratio at 4 h: 1.9). Radioactivity was cleared by the kidneys and only the pancreas demonstrated significant accumulation of radioactivity, which rapidly decreased over time. CONCLUSION ⁶⁴Cu-CB-TE2A-AR06 shows very favorable characteristics for imaging prostate cancer. Future studies evaluating ⁶⁴Cu-CB-TE2A-AR06 PET/CT for prostate cancer detection, staging, active surveillance, and radiation treatment planning are necessary.

Acute Toxicity and Quality of Life After Dose-Intensified Salvage Radiation Therapy for Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Prostatectomy: First Results of the Randomized Trial SAKK 09/10

PURPOSE Patients with biochemical failure (BF) after radical prostatectomy may benefit from dose-intensified salvage radiation therapy (SRT) of the prostate bed. We performed a randomized phase III trial assessing dose intensification. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with BF but without evidence of macroscopic disease were randomly assigned to either 64 or 70 Gy. Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy/rotational techniques were used. The primary end point was freedom from BF. Secondary end points were acute toxicity according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) and quality of life (QoL) according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and PR25. RESULTS Three hundred fifty patients were enrolled between February 2011 and April 2014. Three patients withdrew informed consent, and three patients were not eligible, resulting in 344 patients age 48 to 75 years in the safety population. Thirty patients (8.7%) had grade 2 and two patients (0.6%) had grade 3 genitourinary (GU) baseline symptoms. Acute grade 2 and 3 GU toxicity was observed in 22 patients (13.0%) and one patient (0.6%), respectively, with 64 Gy and in 29 patients (16.6%) and three patients (1.7%), respectively, with 70 Gy (P = .2). Baseline grade 2 GI toxicity was observed in one patient (0.6%). Acute grade 2 and 3 GI toxicity was observed in 27 patients (16.0%) and one patient (0.6%), respectively, with 64 Gy, and in 27 patients (15.4%) and four patients (2.3%), respectively, with 70 Gy (P = .8). Changes in early QoL were minor. Patients receiving 70 Gy reported a more pronounced and clinically relevant worsening in urinary symptoms (mean difference in change score between arms, 3.6; P = .02). CONCLUSION Dose-intensified SRT was associated with low rates of acute grade 2 and 3 GU and GI toxicity. The impact of dose-intensified SRT on QoL was minor, except for a significantly greater worsening in urinary symptoms.

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.

What is the Need for Prostatic Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Management?

Discriminating patients with a low risk of progression from those with lethal prostate cancer is one of the main challenges in prostate cancer management. Indeed, such discrimination is essential if we aim to avoid overtreatment in men with indolent disease and to improve survival in those men with lethal disease. We are reporting on the current literature on such prognostic tools that are now available, their clinical role and their limitations in individualizing care. There is an urgent need to incorporate such genomic tools into new platform-based clinical trial structures to further develop and validate prognostic and predictive biomarkers and provide prostate cancer patients with an effective and cost-efficient access to new drugs in the setting of personalized treatment.

Consensus and differences in primary radiotherapy for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer in Switzerland: A survey on patterns of practice

INTRODUCTION External beam radiotherapy (EBRT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), is an established treatment option for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Despite high-level evidence from several randomized trials, risk group stratification and treatment recommendations vary due to contradictory or inconclusive data, particularly with regard to EBRT dose prescription and ADT duration. Our aim was to investigate current patterns of practice in primary EBRT for prostate cancer in Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS Treatment recommendations on EBRT and ADT for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer were collected from 23 Swiss radiation oncology centers. Written recommendations were converted into center-specific decision trees, and analyzed for consensus and differences using a dedicated software tool. Additionally, specific radiotherapy planning and delivery techniques from the participating centers were assessed. RESULTS The most commonly prescribed radiation dose was 78 Gy (range 70-80 Gy) across all risk groups. ADT was recommended for intermediate-risk patients for 6 months in over 80 % of the centers, and for high-risk patients for 2 or 3 years in over 90 % of centers. For recommendations on combined EBRT and ADT treatment, consensus levels did not exceed 39 % in any clinical scenario. Arc-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is implemented for routine prostate cancer radiotherapy by 96 % of the centers. CONCLUSION Among Swiss radiation oncology centers, considerable ranges of radiotherapy dose and ADT duration are routinely offered for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. In the vast majority of cases, doses and durations are within the range of those described in current evidence-based guidelines.

Clinical Perspectives from Randomized Phase 3 Trials on Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov Database

AbstractBackground It is not easy to overview pending phase 3 trials on prostate cancer (PCa), and awareness of these trials would benefit clinicians. Objective To identify all phase 3 trials on {PCa} registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Design and setting On September 29, 2014, a database was established from the records for 175 538 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A search of this database for the substring “prostat” identified 2951 prostate trials. Phase 3 trials accounted for 441 studies, of which 333 concerned only PCa. We selected only ongoing or completed trials with pending results, that is, for which the primary endpoint had not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Results and limitations We identified 123 phase 3 trials with pending results. Trials were conducted predominantly in North America (n = 63; 51) and Europe (n = 47; 38). The majority were on nonmetastatic disease (n = 82; 67), with 37 (30) on metastatic disease and four trials (3) including both. In terms of intervention, systemic treatment was most commonly tested (n = 71; 58), followed by local treatment 34 (28), and both systemic and local treatment (n = 11; 9), with seven (6) trials not classifiable. The 71 trials on systemic treatment included androgen deprivation therapy (n = 34; 48), chemotherapy (n = 15; 21), immunotherapy (n = 9; 13), other systemic drugs (n = 9; 13), radiopharmaceuticals (n = 2; 3), and combinations (n = 2; 3). Local treatments tested included radiation therapy (n = 27; 79), surgery (n = 5; 15), and both (n = 2; 2). A limitation is that not every clinical trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusion There are many {PCa} phase 3 trials with pending results, most of which address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively. Patient summary This report describes all phase 3 trials on prostate cancer registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Most of these trials address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively.

Non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: a call for improved guidance on clinical management.

BACKGROUND Guidelines on the clinical management of non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) generally focus on the need to continue androgen deprivation therapy and enrol patients into clinical trials of investigational agents. This guidance reflects the lack of clinical trial data with established agents in the nmCRPC patient population and the need for trials of new agents. AIM To review the evidence base and consider ways of improving the management of nmCRPC. CONCLUSION Upon the development of castrate resistance, it is essential to rule out the presence of metastases or micrometastases by optimising the use of bone scans and possibly newer procedures and techniques. When nmCRPC is established, management decisions should be individualised according to risk, but risk stratification in this diverse population is poorly defined. Currently, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and PSA doubling time remain the best method of assessing the risk of progression and response to treatment in nmCRPC. However, optimising imaging protocols can also help assess the changing metastatic burden in patients with CRPC. Clinical trials of novel agents in nmCRPC are limited and have problems with enrolment, and therefore, improved risk stratification and imaging may be crucial to the improved management. The statements presented in this paper, reflecting the views of the authors, provide a discussion of the most recent evidence in nmCRPC and provide some advice on how to ensure these patients receive the best management available. However, there is an urgent need for more data on the management of nmCRPC.

Predicting and monitoring cancer treatment response with diffusion-weighted MRI

An imaging biomarker that would provide for an early quantitative metric of clinical treatment response in cancer patients would provide for a paradigm shift in cancer care. Currently, nonimage based clinical outcome metrics include morphology, clinical, and laboratory parameters, however, these are obtained relatively late following treatment. Diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) holds promise for use as a cancer treatment response biomarker as it is sensitive to macromolecular and microstructural changes which can occur at the cellular level earlier than anatomical changes during therapy. Studies have shown that successful treatment of many tumor types can be detected using DW-MRI as an early increase in the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. Additionally, low pretreatment ADC values of various tumors are often predictive of better outcome. These capabilities, once validated, could provide for an important opportunity to individualize therapy thereby minimizing unnecessary systemic toxicity associated with ineffective therapies with the additional advantage of improving overall patient health care and associated costs. In this report, we provide a brief technical overview of DW-MRI acquisition protocols, quantitative image analysis approaches and review studies which have implemented DW-MRI for the purpose of early prediction of cancer treatment response.

Androgen receptors are differentially expressed in Gleason patterns of prostate cancer and down-regulated in matched lymph node metastases

Androgen receptor (AR) expression profile in the different Gleason patterns (GP) of primary prostate cancers and nodal metastases is unknown. More information about AR distribution is needed to optimize evaluation methods and to better understand the role of AR in development and progression of prostate cancer.

Matrix metalloproteinases and angiogenic factors: predictors of survival after radical prostatectomy for clinically organ-confined prostate cancer?

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether biomarkers improve the prediction of recurrence-free, disease-specific, and overall survival in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. A tissue microarray was constructed from prostate specimens of 278 patients who underwent open radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. For immunohistochemical studies, antibodies were used against matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, MMP-3, MMP-7, MMP-9, MMP-13, and MMP-19, as well as against vascular endothelial growth factor, hypoxia-induced factor 1 , basic fibroblast growth factor, and cluster of differentiation 31. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the potential predictors of overall, disease-specific, and recurrence-free survival. In univariate analysis of patients with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer, only higher expression levels of MMP-9 (hazard ratio [0.6], 95% CI 0.45-0.8) had a protective effect in terms of overall survival. This positive effect of high MMP-9 expression was also observed for recurrence-free (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-0.99) and disease-specific survival (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.36-0.73). In multivariable analysis, none of these potential markers was found to be an independent prognostic factor of survival. Of all MMPs and angiogenic factors tested, MMP-9 expression has the potential as a prognostic marker in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically organ-confined cases of prostate cancer.

Urethral toxicity vs. cancer control-Lessons to be learned from high-dose rate brachytherapy combined with intensity-modulated radiation therapy in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer

To describe biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) and late toxicity after combined high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-B) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients.