Search

Background: Tissue-based genomic classifiers (GCs) have been developed to improve prostate cancer (PCa) risk assessment and treatment recommendations., Purpose: To summarize the impact of the Decipher, Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score (GPS), and Prolaris GCs on risk stratification and patient-clinician decisions on treatment choice among patients with localized PCa considering first-line treatment., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science published from January 2010 to August 2024., Study Selection: Two investigators independently identified studies on risk classification and treatment choice after GC testing for patients with localized PCa considering first-line treatment., Data Extraction: Relevant data extracted by 1 researcher and overread by a second. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed in duplicate., Data Synthesis: Ten studies reported risk reclassification after GC testing. In low ROB observational studies, very low- or low-risk patients with PCa were more likely to have their risk levels classified as the same or lower (GPS, 100% to 88.1%; Decipher, 87.2% to 82.9%; Prolaris, 76.9%). However, 1 randomized trial found that GC testing with GPS reclassified 34.5% of very low-risk and 29.4% of low-risk patients to a higher risk category. Twelve observational studies indicated that treatment decisions after GC testing either remained unchanged or slightly favored active surveillance. In contrast, analyses from a single randomized trial found fewer choices for active surveillance after GPS testing., Limitations: Heterogeneity in screening patterns, risk-determination cutoffs, pathology, and clinical practices. Studies on treatment choice were moderate to high ROB., Conclusion: Although GC tests do not consistently influence risk classification or treatment decisions, the differences observed between observational and randomized studies highlight a need for well-designed trials to explore the role of GC tests in patients with newly diagnosed PCa considering first-line treatment., Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42022347950)., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

Despite incredible progress in describing the molecular underpinnings of prostate cancer over the last decades, pathologic examination remains indispensable for predicting aggressive behavior in the localized setting. Beyond pathologic grade, specific histologic findings have emerged as critical prognostic or predictive indicators. Here, the authors review molecular correlates of aggressive histologic subtypes of prostate cancer in the localized setting, demonstrating that many of the signature molecular alterations found in metastatic disease-such as tumor suppressor gene loss and DNA repair defects-are enriched in primary disease with adverse histologic features, presaging aggressive behavior, and presenting opportunities for earlier germline screening or targeted therapies., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr C-K.C. Ding reports research funding from Intuitive Surgical and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr T.L. Lotan reports research funding from ARTERA AI, AIRA Matrix, MDx Health, Roche and Myriad Genetics., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Somatic or germline homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway gene mutations are commonly detected in prostate cancer, especially in advanced disease, and are associated with response to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. In this study, we evaluated whether histological patterns are predictive of HRR pathway gene mutations. The study population comprised 130 patients with advanced prostate carcinoma who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of tumor tissue at a CLIA-certified laboratory. HRR genes in the study included BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, BARD1, BRIP, CHEK2, MRE11A, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, EMSY, ATR, CHEK1, and FAM175A. Overall, 38 patients had mutations in BRCA1/2, 36 in other HRR genes, and 56 were negative for HRR mutations. All cases were re-reviewed and quantified by two genitourinary pathologists blinded to mutational status for the following histological patterns of prostate carcinoma: cribriform, ductal, intraductal carcinoma (IDC), small cell carcinoma, signet ring-like pattern, and lobular carcinoma-like pattern. Discordances were resolved by consensus review. Histologic patterns were analyzed for any correlation with mutations in HRR pathway genes (grouped as BRCA1/2 mutated or non-BRCA1/2 mutated) compared to tumors without mutations in HRR genes by Chi-square testing. Patterns with >20 % and >30 % of tumor volume were additionally evaluated for correlation with mutational status. We found no significant association between HRR pathway mutations and cribriform pattern, IDC, ductal carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, signet ring-like pattern, or lobular carcinoma-like patterns. Tumors with >20 % or >30 % histologic patterns by volume also demonstrated no significant association with mutational status. This study suggests that histopathologic examination alone is insufficient to distinguish prostate cancer with germline or somatic mutations in HRR pathway genes, highlighting the continuing importance of ancillary molecular diagnostics in guiding therapy selection for prostate cancer patients who may benefit from PARP inhibitors., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest N. A. (lifetime disclosures): Consultancy to Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics. Research funding to Neeraj Agarwal's institution: Arnivas, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calithera, Celldex, Clovis, Crispr, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Immunomedics, Janssen, Lava, Medivation, Merck, Nektar, Neoleukin, New Link Genetics, Novartis, Oric, Pfizer, Prometheus, Rexahn, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Tracon.U.S. reports consultancy to Astellas, Exelixis, Seattle Genetics, Imvax, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Gilead. Reports research funding to institute from Janssen, Exelixis, and Astellas/Seattle Genetics. Other authors have not conflicts to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background. Neuroendocrine differentiation in the prostate gland ranges from clinically insignificant neuroendocrine differentiation detected with markers in an otherwise conventional prostatic adenocarcinoma to a lethal high-grade small/large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The concept of neuroendocrine differentiation in prostatic adenocarcinoma has gained considerable importance due to its prognostic and therapeutic ramifications and pathologists play a pivotal role in its recognition. However, its awareness, reporting, and resource utilization practice patterns among pathologists are largely unknown. Methods. Representative examples of different spectrums of neuroendocrine differentiation along with a detailed questionnaire were shared among 39 urologic pathologists using the survey monkey software. Participants were specifically questioned about the use and awareness of the 2016 WHO classification of neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate, understanding of the clinical significance of each entity, and use of different immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. De-identified respondent data were analyzed. Results. A vast majority (90%) of the participants utilize IHC markers to confirm the diagnosis of small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. A majority (87%) of the respondents were in agreement regarding the utilization of type of IHC markers for small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma for which 85% of the pathologists agreed that determination of the site of origin of a high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma is not critical, as these are treated similarly. In the setting of mixed carcinomas, 62% of respondents indicated that they provide quantification and grading of the acinar component. There were varied responses regarding the prognostic implication of focal neuroendocrine cells in an otherwise conventional acinar adenocarcinoma and for Paneth cell-like differentiation. The classification of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma was highly varied, with only 38% agreement in the illustrated case. Finally, despite the recommendation not to perform neuroendocrine markers in the absence of morphologic evidence of neuroendocrine differentiation, 62% would routinely utilize IHC in the work-up of a Gleason score 5 + 5 = 10 acinar adenocarcinoma and its differentiation from high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma. Conclusion. There is a disparity in the practice utilization patterns among the urologic pathologists with regard to diagnosing high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma and in understanding the clinical significance of focal neuroendocrine cells in an otherwise conventional acinar adenocarcinoma and Paneth cell-like neuroendocrine differentiation. There seems to have a trend towards overutilization of IHC to determine neuroendocrine differentiation in the absence of neuroendocrine features on morphology. The survey results suggest a need for further refinement and development of standardized guidelines for the classification and reporting of neuroendocrine differentiation in the prostate gland.

Lessons Learned: Long-term safety of radium-223 with enzalutamide was confirmed in this clinical trial. PSA-PFS2 was prolonged with the combination compared with enzalutamide alone., Background: Previously, we showed the combination of radium-223 and enzalutamide to be safe and associated with improved efficacy based on a concomitant decline in serum bone metabolism markers compared with enzalutamide alone in a phase II trial of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) [1]., Methods: Secondary endpoints were not included in our initial report, and we include them herein, after a median follow-up of 22 months. These objectives included long-term safety, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-progression-free survival (PFS), and radiographic progression-free survival; PSA-PFS2 (time from start of protocol therapy to PSA progression on subsequent therapy); time to next therapy (TTNT); and overall survival (OS). Survival analysis and log-rank tests were performed using the R statistical package v.4.0.2 (https://www.r-project.org). Statistical significance was defined as p < .05., Results: Of 47 patients (median age, 68 years), 35 received the combination and 12 enzalutamide alone. After a median follow-up of 22 months, final safety results did not show any increase in fractures or other adverse events in the combination arm. PSA-PFS2 was significantly improved, and other efficacy parameters were numerically improved in the combination over the enzalutamide arm., Conclusion: The combination of enzalutamide and radium-223 was found to be safe and associated with promising efficacy in men with mCRPC. These hypothesis-generating results portend well for the ongoing phase III PEACE III trial in this setting., (© AlphaMed Press; the data published online to support this summary are the property of the authors.)

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) has been recently recognized by the World Health Organization classification of prostatic tumors as a distinct entity, most often occurring concurrently with invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa). Whether documented admixed with PCa or in its rare pure form, numerous studies associate this entity with clinical aggressiveness. Despite increasing clinical experience and requirement of IDC-P documentation in protocols for synoptic reporting, the specifics of its potential contribution to assessment of grade group (GG) and cancer quantitation of PCa in both needle biopsies (NBx) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens remain unclear. Moreover, there are no standard guidelines for incorporating basal cell marker immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the diagnosis of IDC-P, either alone or as part of a cocktail with AMACR/racemase. An online survey containing 26 questions regarding diagnosis, reporting practices, and IHC resource utilization, focusing on IDC-P, was undertaken by 42 genitourinary subspecialists from 9 countries. The degree of agreement or disagreement regarding approaches to individual questions was classified as significant majority (>75%), majority (51% to 75%), minority (26% to 50%) and significant minority (≤25%). IDC-P with or without invasive cancer is considered a contraindication for active surveillance by the significant majority (95%) of respondents, although a majority (66%) also agreed that the clinical significance/behavior of IDC-P on NBx or RP with PCa required further study. The majority do not upgrade PCa based on comedonecrosis seen only in the intraductal component in NBx (62%) or RP (69%) specimens. Similarly, recognizable IDC-P with GG1 PCa was not a factor in upgrading in NBx (78%) or RP (71%) specimens. The majority (60%) of respondents include readily recognizable IDC-P in assessment of linear extent of PCa at NBx. A significant majority (78%) would use IHC to confirm or exclude intraductal carcinoma if other biopsies showed no PCa, while 60% would use it to confirm IDC-P with invasive PCa in NBx if it would change the overall GG assignment. Nearly half (48%, a minority) would use IHC to confirm IDC-P for accurate Gleason pattern 4 quantitation. A majority (57%) report the percentage of IDC-P when present, in RP specimens. When obvious Gleason pattern 4 or 5 PCa is present in RP or NBx, IHC is rarely to almost never used to confirm the presence of IDC-P by the significant majority (88% and 90%, respectively). Most genitourinary pathologists consider IDC-P to be an adverse prognostic feature independent of the PCa grade, although recommendations for standardization are needed to guide reporting of IDC-P vis a vis tumor quantitation and final GG assessment. The use of IHC varies widely and is performed for a multitude of indications, although it is used most frequently in scenarios where confirmation of IDC-P would impact the GG assigned. Further study and best practices recommendations are needed to provide guidance with regards to the most appropriate indications for IHC use in scenarios regarding IDC-P.

Sequencing data have been instrumental in identifying oncogenic drivers in prostatic carcinoma and highlighting biomarkers that define aggressive disease. A review of a series of 30 primary and metastatic prostatic carcinomas clinically sequenced at our cancer genomics laboratory utilizing a targeted gene panel identified recurrent structural variants in the TP53 gene. These structural variants were found in 27% of all sequenced cases and represented 36% of the cases with metastatic disease. TP53 structural rearrangements have been previously reported in a significant subset of osteosarcomas, where they result in loss of p53 protein expression by immunohistochemistry. Similarly, in our prostate cases with TP53 structural rearrangements for which tissue was available for testing, we find loss of p53 protein expression by immunohistochemistry. In the eight TP53-rearranged cases, concurrent PTEN loss was identified in 4 cases, TMPRSS2-ERG fusion in 5 cases, and AR and FOXA1 amplification in 1 case each. Our results from this small case series suggest that TP53 rearrangements with loss of expression represent a frequent alternative mechanism of inactivation of this key tumor suppressor gene with potential utility as a marker of aggressive disease. Recognition of this TP53 rearrangement pathway is essential to accurately identify prostatic carcinomas with loss of TP53 function., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

MRI is used to image prostate cancer and target tumors for biopsy or therapeutic ablation. The objective was to understand the biology of tumors not visible on MRI that may go undiagnosed and untreated. Methods: Prostate cancers visible or invisible on multiparametric MRI were macrodissected and examined by RNAseq. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) based on MRI visibility status were cross-referenced with publicly available gene expression databases to identify genes associated with disease progression. Genes with potential roles in determining MRI visibility and disease progression were knocked down in murine prostate cancer xenografts, and imaged by MRI. Results: RNAseq identified 1,654 DEGs based on MRI visibility status. Comparison of DEGs based on MRI visibility and tumor characteristics revealed that Gleason score (dissimilarity test, p<0.0001) and tumor size (dissimilarity test, p<0.039) did not completely determine MRI visibility. Genes in previously reported prognostic signatures significantly correlated with MRI visibility suggesting that MRI visibility was prognostic. Cross-referencing DEGs with external datasets identified four genes (PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, GDF15) that predict MRI visibility, progression free survival and metastatic deposits. Genetic modification of a human prostate cancer cell line to induce miR-101 and suppress CENPF decreased cell migration and invasion. As prostate cancer xenografts in mice, these cells had decreased visibility on diffusion weighted MRI and decreased perfusion, which correlated with immunostaining showing decreased cell density and proliferation. Conclusions: Genes involved in prostate cancer prognosis and metastasis determine MRI visibility, indicating that MRI visibility has prognostic significance. MRI visibility was associated with genetic features linked to poor prognosis., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

Purpose: To describe and test a quantitative system for designating prostate tumor location on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostatectomy. A system for describing tumor location will facilitate research correlating MRI and pathology., Materials and Methods: The prostate cylindrical coordinate (PCC) system was developed for locating prostate tumors using 3 coordinate values. The 3 coordinate values include the angular location centered on the urethra, the radial distance to the periphery and the long axis from apex to base. To evaluate this system, 26 tumors were identified where the prostate cancer was noted by both the radiologist and the pathologist. PCC values were assigned independently to MRI lesions and corresponding tumors. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess agreement between PCC assigned using MRI and pathology. The coordinates were used to calculate the average distance between the centers of the same lesion measured by MRI and pathology., Results: Each of the cylindrical coordinates assigned by MRI and pathology were compared and there was no significant difference. The agreement was excellent, and the ICC was 0.70 (P<0.001) for the angular coordinate, 0.81 (P<0.001) for the radial distance, and 0.94 (P<0.001) for the long axis. Compared to pathology, lesions on MRI were significantly larger (1.17 vs. 0.86cm 2 , P<0.001) but there was strong agreement between the measurements on MRI and pathology (ICC = 0.89, P<0.001). The distance between the centers of the lesions measured on MRI and pathology was small (10.13mm, s.d. = 8.70)., Conclusions: The PCC system quantitatively characterizes lesions seen on MRI and prostatectomy pathology with good agreement., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)