| Literature DB >> 35331214 |
Blossom Mak1,2,3, Hui-Ming Lin2,4, Edmond M Kwan5, Heidi Fettke6, Ben Tran6,7, Ian D Davis8,9, Kate Mahon1,2,3,10, Martin R Stockler3,11, Karen Briscoe12, Gavin Marx13, Alison Zhang1, Megan Crumbaker2,14, Winston Tan15, Kevin Huynh16, Thomas G Meikle16, Natalie A Mellett16, Andrew J Hoy17, Pan Du18, Jianjun Yu18, Shidong Jia18, Anthony M Joshua2,4,14, David J Waugh19, Lisa M Butler20,21, Manish Kohli22, Peter J Meikle16, Arun A Azad6,7,23, Lisa G Horvath24,25,26,27,28.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both changes in circulating lipids represented by a validated poor prognostic 3-lipid signature (3LS) and somatic tumour genetic aberrations are individually associated with worse clinical outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). A key question is how the lipid environment and the cancer genome are interrelated in order to exploit this therapeutically. We assessed the association between the poor prognostic 3-lipid signature (3LS), somatic genetic aberrations and clinical outcomes in mCRPC.Entities:
Keywords: Androgen receptor; Biomarker; Castration-resistant prostate cancer; Genomics; Lipid; PI3K; RB1; TP53
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35331214 PMCID: PMC8953070 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02298-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 8.775
Cox proportional hazards analysis of overall survival based on biomarker combination in the discovery cohort
| Variable | Univariable Cox regression | Multivariable Cox regression using | Multivariable Cox regression using | Multivariable Cox regression using | Multivariable Cox regression using PI3K aberration and 3-lipid signature | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||||||
| 4.55 (2.27–9.12) | 2.89 (1.39–6.00) | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| 5.22 (2.62–10.41) | – | – | 3.26 (1.57–6.77) | – | – | – | – | ||||
| 3.05 (1.79–5.20) | – | – | – | – | 1.98 (1.12–3.50) | – | – | ||||
| PI3K aberration and 3-lipid signature (Group 2 vs 0 and 1) | 3.02 (1.75–5.21) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2.15 (1.21–3.82) | |||
| Albumin, g/La | 0.86 (0.82–0.91) | 0.89 (0.84–0.95) | 0.89 (0.84–0.95) | 0.89 (0.84–0.95) | 0.88 (0.83–0.94) | ||||||
| ECOG performance status (≥ 2 vs 0–1) | 3.94 (1.75–8.87) | 1.74 (0.73–4.13) | 0.212 | 1.64 (0.69–3.91) | 0.263 | 1.72 (0.72–4.11) | 0.222 | 2.36 (0.98–5.67) | 0.054 | ||
| Pain at baseline (present vs absent) | 1.89 (1.12–3.19) | 1.73 (0.99–3.04) | 0.056 | 1.50 (0.86–2.63) | 0.152 | 1.77 (1.01–3.09) | 1.64 (0.93–2.90) | 0.089 | |||
| Haemoglobin (<90 g/L vs ≥ 90 g/L) | 2.70 (0.84–8.73) | 0.096 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| PSA, ng/mLa | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 0.081 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| ALP, IU/La | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 0.197 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Treatment type (taxane vs ARSI) | 1.05 (0.62–1.79) | 0.844 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Treatment line (second line vs first line) | 0.87 (0.51–1.48) | 0.597 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Visceral metastases (present vs absent) | 1.59 (0.75–3.37) | 0.225 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| ctDNA fraction > 2% | 1.97 (1.06–3.66) | 1.74 (0.91–3.35) | 0.097 | 1.76 (0.93–3.33) | 0.083 | 2.22 (1.17–4.18) | 2.24 (1.18–4.24) | ||||
Univariable and multivariable Cox regression based on biomarker combination, clinicopathologic factors and ctDNA fraction. Only variables with p < 0.05 in univariable analysis were included in multivariable analysis
Group 0 = absence of both 3LS and the genetic aberration; Group 1 = presence of one abnormality (either 3LS or the genetic aberration); Group 2 = presence of both 3LS and the genetic aberration
ALP alkaline phosphatase, ARSI androgen receptor signalling inhibitor, CI confidence interval, ctDNA circulating tumour DNA, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, HR hazard ratio, PI3K phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase, PSA prostate-specific antigen
All p-values < 0.05 are highlighted in bold
aContinuous variable
Cox proportional hazards analysis of overall survival based on biomarker combination in the validation cohort
| Variable | Univariable Cox regression | Multivariable Cox regression using | Multivariable Cox regression using | Multivariable Cox regression using | Multivariable Cox regression using PI3K aberration and 3-lipid signature | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||||||
| 2.92 (1.79–4.75) | 2.45 (1.42–4.20) | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| 2.77 (1.67–4.61) | – | – | 2.82 (1.64–4.83) | – | – | – | – | ||||
| 2.53 (1.58–4.07) | – | – | – | – | 1.95 (0.98–3.86) | – | – | ||||
| PI3K aberration and 3-lipid signature (Group 2 vs 0 and 1) | 1.78 (1.03–3.10) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1.32 (0.70–2.50) | 0.396 | ||
| PSA, ng/mLa | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | ||||||
| ALP, IU/La | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 0.069 | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | |||||
| ctDNA fraction > 2% | 1.91 (1.18–3.08) | 1.29 (0.76–2.17) | 0.347 | 1.37 (0.81–2.30) | 0.238 | 1.74 (1.05–2.87) | 0.062 | 1.67 (1.01–2.78) | |||
Univariable and multivariable Cox regression based on biomarker combination, clinicopathologic factors and ctDNA fraction. Only variables with p < 0.05 in univariable analysis were included in multivariable analysis
Group 0 = absence of both 3LS and the genetic aberration; Group 1 = presence of one abnormality (either 3LS or the genetic aberration); Group 2 = presence of both 3LS and the genetic aberration
ALP alkaline phosphatase, CI confidence interval, ctDNA circulating tumour DNA, HR hazard ratio, PI3K phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase, PSA prostate-specific antigen
All p-values < 0.05 are highlighted in bold
aContinuous variable
Fig. 1Kaplan-Meier analysis according to 3-lipid signature status in the discovery and validation cohorts. Using A radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in the discovery cohort, B overall survival (OS) in the discovery cohort, C OS in the taxane subset of the discovery cohort, D OS in the androgen receptor signalling inhibitor (ARSI) subset of the discovery cohort and E OS in the validation cohort
Fig. 2Landscape of somatic aberrations in the A discovery cohort and B validation cohort
Univariable Cox proportional hazards analysis of survival based on genetic aberration in the two cohorts
| Genetic aberration | Overall survival in discovery cohort | Overall survival in validation cohort | Radiographic progression-free survival in discovery cohort | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||||
| 3.87 (2.21–6.77) | 2.26 (1.43–3.58) | 1.86 (1.07–3.24) | ||||
| 3.55 (2.07–6.08) | 2.18 (1.37–3.47) | 1.80 (1.01–3.13) | ||||
| 4.10 (2.33–7.22) | 1.79 (1.09–2.94) | 3.08 (1.64–5.79) | ||||
| PI3K aberration | 2.66 (1.55–4.58) | 2.11 (1.33–3.34) | 2.53 (1.42–4.49) | |||
All p-values < 0.05 are highlighted in bold
Data regarding radiographic progression-free survival was not available for the validation cohort
CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, PI3K phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase
Fig. 3Significantly elevated sphingolipids in men with genetic aberrations in the discovery cohort. Heatmaps show elevated sphingolipids in men with A AR aberration, B TP53 aberration, C RB1 deletion, and D PI3K aberration; compared to men without the aberration. Sphingolipids which are also elevated in the validation cohort are asterisked. Cer(d18:1/24:1), which is a component of the 3-lipid signature, is bolded
Fig. 4Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival (OS) by genetic aberration and 3-lipid signature. OS by AR aberration and 3-lipid signature in the A discovery and B validation cohorts. OS by TP53 aberration and 3-lipid signature in the C discovery and D validation cohorts. OS by RB1 deletion and 3-lipid signature in the E discovery and F validation cohorts. OS by PI3K aberration and 3-lipid signature in the G discovery and H validation cohorts
Fig. 5Association between elevated sphingolipids and aggressive-variant prostate cancer (AVPC), and their combined impact on clinical outcomes. A Heatmap of sphingolipids with significantly elevated levels in men with the AVPC signature, compared to men without. Sphingolipids which are also elevated in the validation cohort are asterisked. Cer(d18:1/24:1), which is a component of the 3-lipid signature, is bolded. Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival by molecular AVPC signature and 3-lipid signature in B the discovery cohort and C the validation cohort