Emmanuel S Antonarakis1,2, Jun Luo1,2, Andrew J Armstrong3, Landon C Brown4, Changxue Lu1. 1. Department of Urology, James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Departments of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Departments of Medicine, Surgery, and Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Divisions of Medical Oncology and Urology, Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. andrew.armstrong@duke.edu. 4. Departments of Medicine, Surgery, and Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Divisions of Medical Oncology and Urology, Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 10-30% of men with mCRPC will test positive for AR-V7 using one of two analytically and clinically validated circulating tumor cell (CTC)-based assays. These men have poor outcomes with approved AR-targeting therapies but may retain sensitivity to chemotherapy. Here, we discuss the clinical implications of testing and strategies that may benefit AR splice variant (AR-V)-positive men and discuss whether such variants are passengers or drivers of aggressive clinical behavior. METHODS: We conducted a systemic review of the literature, covering updates since our 2016 review on androgen receptor variants in mCRPC, outcomes, and existing and novel approaches to therapy. We provide an expert opinion about management strategies for AR-V7-positive men and key unanswered research questions. RESULTS: AR-V7-positive men, defined by Epic nuclear protein detection or the modified AdnaTest mRNA detection in CTCs, identify a subset of men with mCRPC that have a low probability of response to AR-targeting therapy with short progression-free and overall survival in multivariable analyses. AR-variants do not exist in isolation, but rather in the context of a complex, heterogeneous, and evolving mCRPC genome and phenotype as well as patient-specific clinical heterogeneity, and multiple mechanisms of resistance likely exist in patients regardless of AR-V7 detection. Efforts to develop broader resistance assays are needed, and effective treatment strategies beyond taxanes are needed to address the causal driver role of AR-variants and to benefit patients with AR-V-expressing prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: CTC AR-V7 detection using the AdnaTest mRNA or Epic nuclear protein assays represents the first analytically and prospective clinically validated liquid biopsy assays that may inform treatment decisions in men with mCRPC, particularly after failure of first-line AR-therapy. The importance of AR-variants is likely to increase with the earlier use of AR-targeting strategies in other settings, and novel interventions for these men are needed.
BACKGROUND: Approximately 10-30% of men with mCRPC will test positive for AR-V7 using one of two analytically and clinically validated circulating tumor cell (CTC)-based assays. These men have poor outcomes with approved AR-targeting therapies but may retain sensitivity to chemotherapy. Here, we discuss the clinical implications of testing and strategies that may benefit AR splice variant (AR-V)-positive men and discuss whether such variants are passengers or drivers of aggressive clinical behavior. METHODS: We conducted a systemic review of the literature, covering updates since our 2016 review on androgen receptor variants in mCRPC, outcomes, and existing and novel approaches to therapy. We provide an expert opinion about management strategies for AR-V7-positive men and key unanswered research questions. RESULTS: AR-V7-positive men, defined by Epic nuclear protein detection or the modified AdnaTest mRNA detection in CTCs, identify a subset of men with mCRPC that have a low probability of response to AR-targeting therapy with short progression-free and overall survival in multivariable analyses. AR-variants do not exist in isolation, but rather in the context of a complex, heterogeneous, and evolving mCRPC genome and phenotype as well as patient-specific clinical heterogeneity, and multiple mechanisms of resistance likely exist in patients regardless of AR-V7 detection. Efforts to develop broader resistance assays are needed, and effective treatment strategies beyond taxanes are needed to address the causal driver role of AR-variants and to benefit patients with AR-V-expressing prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: CTC AR-V7 detection using the AdnaTest mRNA or Epic nuclear protein assays represents the first analytically and prospective clinically validated liquid biopsy assays that may inform treatment decisions in men with mCRPC, particularly after failure of first-line AR-therapy. The importance of AR-variants is likely to increase with the earlier use of AR-targeting strategies in other settings, and novel interventions for these men are needed.
Authors: Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Changxue Lu; Hao Wang; Brandon Luber; Mary Nakazawa; Jeffrey C Roeser; Yan Chen; Tabrez A Mohammad; Yidong Chen; Helen L Fedor; Tamara L Lotan; Qizhi Zheng; Angelo M De Marzo; John T Isaacs; William B Isaacs; Rosa Nadal; Channing J Paller; Samuel R Denmeade; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Jun Luo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jason Gandhi; Adil Afridi; Sohrab Vatsia; Gargi Joshi; Gunjan Joshi; Steven A Kaplan; Noel L Smith; Sardar Ali Khan Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Changxue Lu; Brandon Luber; Hao Wang; Yan Chen; Yezi Zhu; John L Silberstein; Maritza N Taylor; Benjamin L Maughan; Samuel R Denmeade; Kenneth J Pienta; Channing J Paller; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Jun Luo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rong Hu; Thomas A Dunn; Shuanzeng Wei; Sumit Isharwal; Robert W Veltri; Elizabeth Humphreys; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Robert L Vessella; William B Isaacs; G Steven Bova; Jun Luo Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Bram De Laere; Steffi Oeyen; Markus Mayrhofer; Tom Whitington; Pieter-Jan van Dam; Peter Van Oyen; Christophe Ghysel; Jozef Ampe; Piet Ost; Wim Demey; Lucien Hoekx; Dirk Schrijvers; Barbara Brouwers; Willem Lybaert; Els G Everaert; Daan De Maeseneer; Michiel Strijbos; Alain Bols; Karen Fransis; Nick Beije; Inge E de Kruijff; Valerie van Dam; Anja Brouwer; Dirk Goossens; Lien Heyrman; Gert G Van den Eynden; Annemie Rutten; Jurgen Del Favero; Mattias Rantalainen; Prabhakar Rajan; Stefan Sleijfer; Anders Ullén; Jeffrey Yachnin; Henrik Grönberg; Steven J Van Laere; Johan Lindberg; Luc Y Dirix Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Markus Mayrhofer; Bram De Laere; Tom Whitington; Peter Van Oyen; Christophe Ghysel; Jozef Ampe; Piet Ost; Wim Demey; Lucien Hoekx; Dirk Schrijvers; Barbara Brouwers; Willem Lybaert; Els Everaert; Daan De Maeseneer; Michiel Strijbos; Alain Bols; Karen Fransis; Steffi Oeyen; Pieter-Jan van Dam; Gert Van den Eynden; Annemie Rutten; Markus Aly; Tobias Nordström; Steven Van Laere; Mattias Rantalainen; Prabhakar Rajan; Lars Egevad; Anders Ullén; Jeffrey Yachnin; Luc Dirix; Henrik Grönberg; Johan Lindberg Journal: Genome Med Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Eugene Shenderov; Karim Boudadi; Wei Fu; Hao Wang; Rana Sullivan; Alice Jordan; Donna Dowling; Rana Harb; Joseph Schonhoft; Adam Jendrisak; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; James R Eshleman; Jun Luo; Charles G Drake; Drew M Pardoll; Emmanuel S Antonarakis Journal: Prostate Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Irfan Asangani; Ian A Blair; Gregory Van Duyne; Vincent J Hilser; Vera Moiseenkova-Bell; Stephen Plymate; Cynthia Sprenger; A Joshua Wand; Trevor M Penning Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2021-01-09 Impact factor: 5.157