R R McKay1, K A Zukotynski2, L Werner1, O Voznesensky3, J S Wu3, S E Smith4, Z Jiang1, K Melnick1, X Yuan5, P W Kantoff1, B Montgomery6, S P Balk3, M-E Taplin1. 1. Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 2. 1] Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [2] Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. 1] Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA [2] Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the mechanisms driving disease progression is fundamental to identifying new therapeutic targets for the treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Owing to the prevalence of bone metastases in mCRPC, obtaining sufficient tumor tissue for analysis has historically been a challenge. In this exploratory analysis, we evaluated imaging, procedural and clinical variables associated with tumor yield on image-guided bone biopsy in men with mCRPC. METHODS: Clinical data were collected prospectively from men with mCRPC enrolled on a phase II trial with serial metastasis biopsies performed according to standard clinical protocol. Imaging was retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated the percent positive biopsy cores (PPC), calculated as the number of positive cores divided by the total number of cores collected per biopsy. RESULTS: Twenty-nine men had 39 bone biopsies. Seventy-seven percent of bone biopsies had at least one positive biopsy core. We determined that lesion size and distance from the skin to the lesion edge correlated with tumor yield on biopsy (median PPC 75% versus 42% for lesions >8.8 cm(3) versus ⩽ 8.8 cm(3), respectively, P=0.05; median PPC 33% versus 71% for distance ⩾ 6.1 versus <6.1 cm, respectively, P = 0.02). There was a trend towards increased tumor yield in patients with increased uptake on radionuclide bone scan, higher calcium levels and shorter duration of osteoclast-targeting therapy, although this was not statistically significant. Ten men had 14 soft tissue biopsies. All soft tissue biopsies had at least one positive biopsy core. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis suggests that there are imaging, procedural and clinical variables that have an impact on image-guided bone biopsy yield. In order to maximize harvest of prostate cancer tissue, we have incorporated a prospective analysis of the metrics described here as part of a multi-institutional project aiming to use the molecular characterization of mCRPC tumors to direct individual therapy.
BACKGROUND: Understanding the mechanisms driving disease progression is fundamental to identifying new therapeutic targets for the treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Owing to the prevalence of bone metastases in mCRPC, obtaining sufficient tumor tissue for analysis has historically been a challenge. In this exploratory analysis, we evaluated imaging, procedural and clinical variables associated with tumor yield on image-guided bone biopsy in men with mCRPC. METHODS: Clinical data were collected prospectively from men with mCRPC enrolled on a phase II trial with serial metastasis biopsies performed according to standard clinical protocol. Imaging was retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated the percent positive biopsy cores (PPC), calculated as the number of positive cores divided by the total number of cores collected per biopsy. RESULTS: Twenty-nine men had 39 bone biopsies. Seventy-seven percent of bone biopsies had at least one positive biopsy core. We determined that lesion size and distance from the skin to the lesion edge correlated with tumor yield on biopsy (median PPC 75% versus 42% for lesions >8.8 cm(3) versus ⩽ 8.8 cm(3), respectively, P=0.05; median PPC 33% versus 71% for distance ⩾ 6.1 versus <6.1 cm, respectively, P = 0.02). There was a trend towards increased tumor yield in patients with increased uptake on radionuclide bone scan, higher calcium levels and shorter duration of osteoclast-targeting therapy, although this was not statistically significant. Ten men had 14 soft tissue biopsies. All soft tissue biopsies had at least one positive biopsy core. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis suggests that there are imaging, procedural and clinical variables that have an impact on image-guided bone biopsy yield. In order to maximize harvest of prostate cancer tissue, we have incorporated a prospective analysis of the metrics described here as part of a multi-institutional project aiming to use the molecular characterization of mCRPC tumors to direct individual therapy.
Authors: Eric Lis; Mark H Bilsky; Leszek Pisinski; Patrick Boland; John H Healey; Bernie O'malley; George Krol Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Charles E Spritzer; P Diana Afonso; Emily N Vinson; James D Turnbull; Karla K Morris; Adam Foye; John F Madden; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Phillip G Febbo; Daniel J George Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Verena Sailer; Marc H Schiffman; Myriam Kossai; Joanna Cyrta; Shaham Beg; Brian Sullivan; Bradley B Pua; Kyungmouk Steve Lee; Adam D Talenfeld; David M Nanus; Scott T Tagawa; Brian D Robinson; Rema A Rao; Chantal Pauli; Rohan Bareja; Luis S Beltran; Alexandros Sigaras; Kenneth Wa Eng; Olivier Elemento; Andrea Sboner; Mark A Rubin; Himisha Beltran; Juan Miguel Mosquera Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrea Loehr; Akash Patnaik; David Campbell; Jeremy Shapiro; Alan H Bryce; Ray McDermott; Brieuc Sautois; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Richard M Bambury; Eric Voog; Jingsong Zhang; Josep M Piulats; Arif Hussain; Charles J Ryan; Axel S Merseburger; Gedske Daugaard; Axel Heidenreich; Karim Fizazi; Celestia S Higano; Laurence E Krieger; Cora N Sternberg; Simon P Watkins; Darrin Despain; Andrew D Simmons; Melanie Dowson; Tony Golsorkhi; Simon Chowdhury; Wassim Abida Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Rana R McKay; Lillian Werner; Elahe A Mostaghel; Rosina Lis; Olga Voznesensky; Zhenwei Zhang; Brett T Marck; Alvin M Matsumoto; Liran Domachevsky; Katherine A Zukotynski; Manoj Bhasin; Glenn J Bubley; Bruce Montgomery; Philip W Kantoff; Steven P Balk; Mary-Ellen Taplin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Derrick L Tao; Shawna Bailey; Tomasz M Beer; Erik Foss; Brooke Beckett; Alice Fung; Bryan R Foster; Alexander Guimaraes; Jeremy P Cetnar; Julie N Graff; Kristine M Eilers; Eric J Small; Christopher L Corless; George V Thomas; Joshi J Alumkal Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2017-06-28
Authors: Alexander W Wyatt; Matti Annala; Rahul Aggarwal; Kevin Beja; Felix Feng; Jack Youngren; Adam Foye; Paul Lloyd; Matti Nykter; Tomasz M Beer; Joshi J Alumkal; George V Thomas; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Christopher P Evans; Allen C Gao; Kim N Chi; Eric J Small; Martin E Gleave Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Joaquin Mateo; Rana McKay; Wassim Abida; Rahul Aggarwal; Joshi Alumkal; Ajjai Alva; Felix Feng; Xin Gao; Julie Graff; Maha Hussain; Fatima Karzai; Bruce Montgomery; William Oh; Vaibhav Patel; Dana Rathkopf; Matthew Rettig; Nikolaus Schultz; Matthew Smith; David Solit; Cora Sternberg; Eliezer Van Allen; David VanderWeele; Jake Vinson; Howard R Soule; Arul Chinnaiyan; Eric Small; Jonathan W Simons; William Dahut; Andrea K Miyahira; Himisha Beltran Journal: Nat Cancer Date: 2020-11-17