Scott Wilkinson1, Huihui Ye2, Fatima Karzai3, Stephanie A Harmon4, Nicholas T Terrigino1, David J VanderWeele5, John R Bright1, Rayann Atway1, Shana Y Trostel1, Nicole V Carrabba1, Nichelle C Whitlock1, Stephanie M Walker6, Rosina T Lis1, Houssein Abdul Sater3, Brian J Capaldo1, Ravi A Madan3, James L Gulley3, Guinevere Chun3, Maria J Merino7, Peter A Pinto8, Daniela C Salles9, Harsimar B Kaur9, Tamara L Lotan9, David J Venzon10, Peter L Choyke6, Baris Turkbey6, William L Dahut3, Adam G Sowalsky11. 1. Laboratory of Genitourinary Cancer Pathogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Pathology and Department of Urology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Genitourinary Malignancies Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA; Clinical Research Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD, USA. 5. Laboratory of Genitourinary Cancer Pathogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA; Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 7. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 8. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 9. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 10. Biostatistics and Data Management Section, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. 11. Laboratory of Genitourinary Cancer Pathogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: adam.sowalsky@nih.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with high risk localized prostate cancer have variable outcomes following surgery. Trials of intense neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) have shown lower rates of recurrence among patients with minimal residual disease after treatment. The molecular features that distinguish exceptional responders from poor responders are not known. OBJECTIVE: To identify genomic and histologic features associated with treatment resistance at baseline. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Targeted biopsies were obtained from 37 men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer before receiving 6 mo of ADT plus enzalutamide. Biopsy tissues were used for whole-exome sequencing and immunohistochemistry (IHC). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We assessed the relationship of molecular features with final pathologic response using a cutpoint of 0.05 cm3 for residual cancer burden to compare exceptional responders to incomplete and nonresponders. We assessed intratumoral heterogeneity at the tissue and genomic level, and compared the volume of residual disease to the Shannon diversity index for each tumor. We generated multivariate models of resistance based on three molecular features and one histologic feature, with and without multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging estimates of baseline tumor volume. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Loss of chromosome 10q (containing PTEN) and alterations to TP53 were predictive of poor response, as were the expression of nuclear ERG on IHC and the presence of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Patients with incompletely and nonresponding tumors harbored greater tumor diversity as estimated via phylogenetic tree reconstruction from DNA sequencing and analysis of IHC staining. Our four-factor binary model (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.89) to predict poor response correlated with greater diversity in our cohort and a validation cohort of 57 Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancers from The Cancer Genome Atlas. When baseline tumor volume was added to the model, it distinguished poor response to NADT with an AUC of 0.98. Prospective use of this model requires further retrospective validation with biopsies from additional trials. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of prostate cancers exhibit greater histologic and genomic diversity at the time of diagnosis, and these localized tumors have greater fitness to resist therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Some prostate cancer tumors do not respond well to a hormonal treatment called androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We used tumor volume and four other parameters to develop a model to identify tumors that will not respond well to ADT. Treatments other than ADT should be considered for these patients. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with high risk localized prostate cancer have variable outcomes following surgery. Trials of intense neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) have shown lower rates of recurrence among patients with minimal residual disease after treatment. The molecular features that distinguish exceptional responders from poor responders are not known. OBJECTIVE: To identify genomic and histologic features associated with treatment resistance at baseline. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Targeted biopsies were obtained from 37 men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer before receiving 6 mo of ADT plus enzalutamide. Biopsy tissues were used for whole-exome sequencing and immunohistochemistry (IHC). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We assessed the relationship of molecular features with final pathologic response using a cutpoint of 0.05 cm3 for residual cancer burden to compare exceptional responders to incomplete and nonresponders. We assessed intratumoral heterogeneity at the tissue and genomic level, and compared the volume of residual disease to the Shannon diversity index for each tumor. We generated multivariate models of resistance based on three molecular features and one histologic feature, with and without multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging estimates of baseline tumor volume. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Loss of chromosome 10q (containing PTEN) and alterations to TP53 were predictive of poor response, as were the expression of nuclear ERG on IHC and the presence of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. Patients with incompletely and nonresponding tumors harbored greater tumor diversity as estimated via phylogenetic tree reconstruction from DNA sequencing and analysis of IHC staining. Our four-factor binary model (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.89) to predict poor response correlated with greater diversity in our cohort and a validation cohort of 57 Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancers from The Cancer Genome Atlas. When baseline tumor volume was added to the model, it distinguished poor response to NADT with an AUC of 0.98. Prospective use of this model requires further retrospective validation with biopsies from additional trials. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of prostate cancers exhibit greater histologic and genomic diversity at the time of diagnosis, and these localized tumors have greater fitness to resist therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Some prostate cancer tumors do not respond well to a hormonal treatment called androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We used tumor volume and four other parameters to develop a model to identify tumors that will not respond well to ADT. Treatments other than ADT should be considered for these patients. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Barry S Taylor; Nikolaus Schultz; Haley Hieronymus; Anuradha Gopalan; Yonghong Xiao; Brett S Carver; Vivek K Arora; Poorvi Kaushik; Ethan Cerami; Boris Reva; Yevgeniy Antipin; Nicholas Mitsiades; Thomas Landers; Igor Dolgalev; John E Major; Manda Wilson; Nicholas D Socci; Alex E Lash; Adriana Heguy; James A Eastham; Howard I Scher; Victor E Reuter; Peter T Scardino; Chris Sander; Charles L Sawyers; William L Gerald Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Michael C Haffner; Wilbert Zwart; Martine P Roudier; Lawrence D True; William G Nelson; Jonathan I Epstein; Angelo M De Marzo; Peter S Nelson; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Rana R McKay; Huihui Ye; Wanling Xie; Rosina Lis; Carla Calagua; Zhenwei Zhang; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Steven L Chang; Lauren C Harshman; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Daniel W Lin; William J Ellis; Bruce Montgomery; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; Glenn J Bubley; Adam S Kibel; Mary-Ellen Taplin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Adam G Sowalsky; Huihui Ye; Manoj Bhasin; Eliezer M Van Allen; Massimo Loda; Rosina T Lis; Laleh Montaser-Kouhsari; Carla Calagua; Fen Ma; Joshua W Russo; Rachel J Schaefer; Olga S Voznesensky; Zhenwei Zhang; Glenn J Bubley; Bruce Montgomery; Elahe A Mostaghel; Peter S Nelson; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Steven P Balk Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Sylvan C Baca; Davide Prandi; Michael S Lawrence; Juan Miguel Mosquera; Alessandro Romanel; Yotam Drier; Kyung Park; Naoki Kitabayashi; Theresa Y MacDonald; Mahmoud Ghandi; Eliezer Van Allen; Gregory V Kryukov; Andrea Sboner; Jean-Philippe Theurillat; T David Soong; Elizabeth Nickerson; Daniel Auclair; Ashutosh Tewari; Himisha Beltran; Robert C Onofrio; Gunther Boysen; Candace Guiducci; Christopher E Barbieri; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrey Sivachenko; Scott L Carter; Gordon Saksena; Douglas Voet; Alex H Ramos; Wendy Winckler; Michelle Cipicchio; Kristin Ardlie; Philip W Kantoff; Michael F Berger; Stacey B Gabriel; Todd R Golub; Matthew Meyerson; Eric S Lander; Olivier Elemento; Gad Getz; Francesca Demichelis; Mark A Rubin; Levi A Garraway Journal: Cell Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Karim Fizazi; NamPhuong Tran; Luis Fein; Nobuaki Matsubara; Alfredo Rodriguez-Antolin; Boris Y Alekseev; Mustafa Özgüroğlu; Dingwei Ye; Susan Feyerabend; Andrew Protheroe; Giri Sulur; Yesenia Luna; Susan Li; Suneel Mundle; Kim N Chi Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Rana R McKay; Jacob Berchuck; Lucia Kwak; Wanling Xie; Rebecca Silver; Glenn J Bubley; Peter K Chang; Andrew Wagner; Zhenwei Zhang; Adam S Kibel; Mary-Ellen Taplin Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Raisa S Abrams-Pompe; Stefano Fanti; Ivo G Schoots; Caroline M Moore; Baris Turkbey; Andrew J Vickers; Jochen Walz; Thomas Steuber; James A Eastham Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-12-04
Authors: Christopher Foster; Douglas Easton; Ultan McDermott; David C Wedge; G Steven Bova; Gunes Gundem; Peter Van Loo; Barbara Kremeyer; Ludmil B Alexandrov; Jose M C Tubio; Elli Papaemmanuil; Daniel S Brewer; Heini M L Kallio; Gunilla Högnäs; Matti Annala; Kati Kivinummi; Victoria Goody; Calli Latimer; Sarah O'Meara; Kevin J Dawson; William Isaacs; Michael R Emmert-Buck; Matti Nykter; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Hayley C Whitaker; David E Neal; Colin S Cooper; Rosalind A Eeles; Tapio Visakorpi; Peter J Campbell Journal: Nature Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Alex P Hoyle; Adnan Ali; Nicholas D James; Adrian Cook; Christopher C Parker; Johann S de Bono; Gerhardt Attard; Simon Chowdhury; William R Cross; David P Dearnaley; Christopher D Brawley; Clare Gilson; Fiona Ingleby; Silke Gillessen; Daniel M Aebersold; Rob J Jones; David Matheson; Robin Millman; Malcolm D Mason; Alastair W S Ritchie; Martin Russell; Hassan Douis; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes; Noel W Clarke Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: John R Bright; Rosina T Lis; Anson T Ku; Nicholas T Terrigino; Nichelle C Whitlock; Shana Y Trostel; Nicole V Carrabba; Stephanie A Harmon; Baris Turkbey; Scott Wilkinson; Adam G Sowalsky Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Xin Dong; Hui Xue; Fan Mo; Yen-Yi Lin; Dong Lin; Nelson K Y Wong; Yingqiang Sun; Scott Wilkinson; Anson T Ku; Jun Hao; Xinpei Ci; Rebecca Wu; Anne Haegert; Rebecca Silver; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Steven P Balk; Joshi J Alumkal; Adam G Sowalsky; Martin Gleave; Colin Collins; Yuzhuo Wang Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 6.333