Anis A Hamid1, Kathryn P Gray2, Grace Shaw1, Laura E MacConaill3, Carolyn Evan1, Brandon Bernard4, Massimo Loda5, Niall M Corcoran6, Eliezer M Van Allen1, Atish D Choudhury1, Christopher J Sweeney7. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Center for Cancer Genome Discovery, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 5. Center for Molecular Oncologic Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boson, MA, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: Christopher_Sweeney@dfci.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: TP53, PTEN, and RB1 tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) are recurrently altered in treatment-resistant prostate cancer. Cooperative loss of two or more TSGs may drive more aggressive disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical outcomes of single and compound TSG alterations across the spectrum of prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Massively parallel targeted sequencing using castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC; localized [L] and metastatic [M1]) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) specimens (n=285). TSG altered (TSG-alt) was any copy number loss or deleterious mutation of one or more TSGs (TP53, PTEN, and RB1). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: For L-CSPC, event-free survival (EFS) and time to CRPC were estimated. For M1-CSPC and M1-CRPC, overall survival (OS) was estimated. Cox regression models assessed the association between cumulative TSG hits (zero hits vs one hit vs two to three hits) and outcomes with multivariable analyses adjusted for clinicopathological factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: TSG variants increased with advanced disease (L-CSPC: 39%; M1-CSPC: 63%, M1-CRPC: 92%). TSG-alt L-CSPC had shorter EFS (median 2.6yr, hazard ratio [HR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-3.13) and time to CRPC (median 9.5mo, HR 3.36, 95% CI 1.01-11.16). Cumulative gene hits led to an incremental risk of relapse (EFS: one gene, HR 1.69, 95% CI 0.99-2.87; two to three genes, HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.43-5.08; both versus zero genes, p=0.004). There was evidence of inferior OS with increasing TSG hits in the metastatic cohorts. Only four (8%) patients in the M1-CRPC cohort were TSG-neg, one of whom died after 5.2yr. Multivariable analyses adjusting for mutational and copy number burden did not demonstrate a significant independent association of increasing gene hits and poorer outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Deleterious TSG variants are associated with an increased risk of relapse (L) and death (M1) in CSPC. Poorer outcomes are seen with compound gene hits in both early and advanced disease, and this may in part reflect increasing global genomic instability. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men with prostate tumors with compound tumor suppressor gene mutations have poorer outcomes. These findings help identify patients with aggressive features who may benefit from intensified treatment.
BACKGROUND:TP53, PTEN, and RB1tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) are recurrently altered in treatment-resistant prostate cancer. Cooperative loss of two or more TSGs may drive more aggressive disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical outcomes of single and compound TSG alterations across the spectrum of prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Massively parallel targeted sequencing using castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC; localized [L] and metastatic [M1]) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) specimens (n=285). TSG altered (TSG-alt) was any copy number loss or deleterious mutation of one or more TSGs (TP53, PTEN, and RB1). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: For L-CSPC, event-free survival (EFS) and time to CRPC were estimated. For M1-CSPC and M1-CRPC, overall survival (OS) was estimated. Cox regression models assessed the association between cumulative TSG hits (zero hits vs one hit vs two to three hits) and outcomes with multivariable analyses adjusted for clinicopathological factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: TSG variants increased with advanced disease (L-CSPC: 39%; M1-CSPC: 63%, M1-CRPC: 92%). TSG-alt L-CSPC had shorter EFS (median 2.6yr, hazard ratio [HR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-3.13) and time to CRPC (median 9.5mo, HR 3.36, 95% CI 1.01-11.16). Cumulative gene hits led to an incremental risk of relapse (EFS: one gene, HR 1.69, 95% CI 0.99-2.87; two to three genes, HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.43-5.08; both versus zero genes, p=0.004). There was evidence of inferior OS with increasing TSG hits in the metastatic cohorts. Only four (8%) patients in the M1-CRPC cohort were TSG-neg, one of whom died after 5.2yr. Multivariable analyses adjusting for mutational and copy number burden did not demonstrate a significant independent association of increasing gene hits and poorer outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Deleterious TSG variants are associated with an increased risk of relapse (L) and death (M1) in CSPC. Poorer outcomes are seen with compound gene hits in both early and advanced disease, and this may in part reflect increasing global genomic instability. PATIENT SUMMARY:Men with prostate tumors with compound tumor suppressor gene mutations have poorer outcomes. These findings help identify patients with aggressive features who may benefit from intensified treatment.
Authors: Myrto Boukovala; Nicholas Spetsieris; Justin A Weldon; Alexandros Tsikkinis; Anh Hoang; Ana Aparicio; Shi-Ming Tu; John C Araujo; Amado J Zurita; Paul G Corn; Lance Pagliaro; Jeri Kim; Jennifer Wang; Sumit K Subudhi; Nizar M Tannir; Christopher J Logothetis; Patricia Troncoso; Sijin Wen; Eleni Efstathiou Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Melissa A Reimers; Steven M Yip; Li Zhang; Marcin Cieslik; Mallika Dhawan; Bruce Montgomery; Alexander W Wyatt; Kim N Chi; Eric J Small; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Ajjai S Alva; Felix Y Feng; Jonathan Chou Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-10-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Paymaneh D Malihi; Ryon P Graf; Angel Rodriguez; Naveen Ramesh; Jerry Lee; Ramsay Sutton; Rhett Jiles; Carmen Ruiz Velasco; Emi Sei; Anand Kolatkar; Christopher Logothetis; Nicholas E Navin; Paul Corn; Ana M Aparicio; Ryan Dittamore; James Hicks; Peter Kuhn; Amado J Zurita Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daniel E Spratt; Mohammed Alshalalfa; Nick Fishbane; Adam B Weiner; Rohit Mehra; Brandon A Mahal; Jonathan Lehrer; Yang Liu; Shuang G Zhao; Corey Speers; Todd M Morgan; Adam P Dicker; Stephen J Freedland; R Jeffery Karnes; Sheila Weinmann; Elai Davicioni; Ashley E Ross; Robert B Den; Paul L Nguyen; Felix Y Feng; Tamara L Lotan; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Michael D Nyquist; Alexandra Corella; Ilsa Coleman; Navonil De Sarkar; Arja Kaipainen; Gavin Ha; Roman Gulati; Lisa Ang; Payel Chatterjee; Jared Lucas; Colin Pritchard; Gail Risbridger; John Isaacs; Bruce Montgomery; Colm Morrissey; Eva Corey; Peter S Nelson Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 9.423