Search

The treatment of advanced prostate cancer has evolved due to recent advances in molecular research and new drug development. Dynamic aberrations in the androgen receptor, DNA repair genes, PTEN-PI3K, and other pathways drive the behavior of advanced prostate cancer allowing a better selection of therapies in each patient. Tumor testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is recommended for patients with metastatic prostate cancer, also considering a broad panel to guide decisions and genetic counseling. In symptomatic metastatic patients, castration should be stared to palliate symptoms and prolong survival. In high-risk or high-volume metastatic hormone-naive patients, castration should be combined with docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide or apalutamide. Radiotherapy to the primary tumor combined with systemic therapy is recommended in low-volume mHNPC patients. In patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant tumors, risk stratification can define the frequency of imaging. Adding enzalutamide, darolutamide or apalutamide to these patients prolongs metastasis-free and overall survival, but potential adverse events need to be taken into consideration. The choice of docetaxel, abiraterone or enzalutamide for treating metastatic castration-resistant patients depends on previous therapies, with cabazitaxel being also recommended after docetaxel. Olaparib is recommended in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutated castration-resistant patients after progression on at least one new hormonal therapy. Aggressive variants of prostate cancer respond to platinum-based chemotherapy. To optimize treatment efficiency, oncologists should incorporate all of these advances into an overall therapeutic strategy.

Plasma androgen receptor (AR) gain identifies metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with worse outcome on abiraterone/enzalutamide, but its relevance in the context of taxane chemotherapy is unknown. We aimed to evaluate whether docetaxel is active regardless of plasma AR and to perform an exploratory analysis to compare docetaxel with abiraterone/enzalutamide. This multi-institutional study was a pooled analysis of AR status, determined by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction, on pretreatment plasma samples. We evaluated associations between plasma AR and overall/progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate in 163 docetaxel-treated patients. OS was significantly shorter in case of AR gain (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08-2.39, p = 0.018), but not PFS (HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.74-1.46, p = 0.8) or PSA response (odds ratio = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.65-1.99, p = 0.7). We investigated the interaction between plasma AR and treatment type after incorporating updated data from our prior study of 73 chemotherapy-naive, abiraterone/enzalutamide-treated patients, with data from 115 first-line docetaxel patients. In an exploratory analysis of mCRPC patients receiving first-line therapies, a significant interaction was observed between plasma AR and docetaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide for OS (HR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.06-0.46, p < 0.001) and PFS (HR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.12-0.80, p = 0.02). Specifically, we reported a significant difference for OS favoring abiraterone/enzalutamide for AR-normal patients (HR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.19-3.12, p = 0.008) and a suggestion favoring docetaxel for AR-gained patients (HR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.24-1.16, p = 0.11). These data suggest that AR-normal patients should receive abiraterone/enzalutamide and AR-gained could benefit from docetaxel. This treatment selection merits prospective evaluation in a randomized trial. Patient summary: We investigated whether plasma androgen receptor (AR) predicted outcome in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients treated with docetaxel, and we performed an exploratory analysis in patients treated with docetaxel or AR-directed drugs as first-line mCRPC therapy. We showed that plasma AR normal favored hormonal treatment, whilst plasma AR-gained patients may have had a longer response to docetaxel, suggesting that plasma AR status could be a useful treatment selection biomarker., V. Conteduca was funded by a European Society of Medical Oncology Translational Clinical Research Fellowship. A. Jayaram is supported by a grant from the Medical Research Council (MR/P002072/1). G. Attard is supported by a Cancer Research UK Advanced Clinician Scientist Grant (A22744). This work was funded in part by Prostate Cancer UK (PG12-49), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCII) PI16/01565 grant E. Gonzalez-Billalabeitia was funded by a grant from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) PI15/01499. N. Romero-Laorden was funded by a grant from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CM14-00200). E. Castro is supported by a Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award (2017). E. Castro and D. Olmos are supported by grants from the Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad (JCI-2014-19129 to E.C., RYC-2015-18625 to D.O.). B. Mellado and M. Marin-Aguilera work were supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Subdireccion General de Evaluacion y Fomento de la Investigacion (PI12/01226 and PI15/676) and co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund. Funding from CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya is gratefully acknowledged. During the conduct of the study, E. Castro was supported by a grant from the Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deportes (CAS17/00182). The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding authors had full access to all data and had the final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Background: There is an urgent need to identify biomarkers to guide personalized therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We aimed to clinically qualify androgen receptor (AR) gene status measurement in plasma DNA using multiplex droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in pre- and post-chemotherapy CRPC. Methods: We optimized ddPCR assays for AR copy number and mutations and retrospectively analyzed plasma DNA from patients recruited to one of the three biomarker protocols with prospectively collected clinical data. We evaluated associations between plasma AR and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 73 chemotherapy-naive and 98 postdocetaxel CRPC patients treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone (Primary cohort) and 94 chemotherapy-naive patients treated with enzalutamide (Secondary cohort; PREMIERE trial). Results: In the primary cohort, AR gain was observed in 10 (14%) chemotherapy-naive and 33 (34%) post-docetaxel patients and associated with worse OS [hazard ratio (HR), 3.98; 95% CI 1.74-9.10; P= 50% [odds ratio (OR), 4.7; 95% CI 1.17-19.17; P = 0.035 and OR, 5.0; 95% CI 1.70-14.91; P = 0.003, respectively]. ARmutations [2105T>A (p.L702H) and 2632A>G (p.T878A)] were observed in eight (11%) post-docetaxel but no chemotherapy-naive abiraterone-treated patients and were also associated with worse OS (HR 3.26; 95% CI 1.47-not reached; P = 0.004). There was no interaction between AR and docetaxel status (P = 0.83 for OS, P = 0.99 for PFS). In the PREMIERE trial, 11 patients (12%) with AR gain had worse PSA-PFS (sPFS) (HR 4.33; 95% CI 1.94-9.68; P, This work was funded by Prostate Cancer UK (PG12-49) and Cancer Research UK (A13239) and was supported by the NIHR Royal Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) Biomedical Research Centre. VC was funded by a European Society of Medical Oncology Translational Clinical Research Fellowship, AJ by an Irish Health Research Board Clinical Research Fellowship and a Medical Research Council Clinical Research Fellowship, DGT by a European Union Marie Curie Intra-European Postdoctoral Fellowship, EG by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM)/Chris Foundation (no grant numbers apply) and GA by a Cancer Research UK Advanced Clinician Scientist Fellowship. The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The PREMIERE trial was sponsored by Spanish Genito-Urinary oncology Group that received a grant from Astellas to support the conduct of the trial.

Background There is an urgent need to identify biomarkers to guide personalized therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We aimed to clinically qualify androgen receptor (AR) gene status measurement in plasma DNA using multiplex droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in pre- and post-chemotherapy CRPC. Methods We optimized ddPCR assays for AR copy number and mutations and retrospectively analyzed plasma DNA from patients recruited to one of the three biomarker protocols with prospectively collected clinical data. We evaluated associations between plasma AR and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 73 chemotherapy-naïve and 98 post-docetaxel CRPC patients treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone (Primary cohort) and 94 chemotherapy-naïve patients treated with enzalutamide (Secondary cohort; PREMIERE trial). Results In the primary cohort, AR gain was observed in 10 (14%) chemotherapy-naïve and 33 (34%) post-docetaxel patients and associated with worse OS [hazard ratio (HR), 3.98; 95% CI 1.74–9.10; P A (p.L702H) and 2632A>G (p.T878A)] were observed in eight (11%) post-docetaxel but no chemotherapy-naïve abiraterone-treated patients and were also associated with worse OS (HR 3.26; 95% CI 1.47–not reached; P = 0.004). There was no interaction between AR and docetaxel status (P = 0.83 for OS, P = 0.99 for PFS). In the PREMIERE trial, 11 patients (12%) with AR gain had worse PSA-PFS (sPFS) (HR 4.33; 95% CI 1.94–9.68; P

The discovery of reliable biomarkers to predict efficacy and toxicity of anticancer drugs remains one of the key challenges in cancer research. Despite its relevance, no efficient study designs to identify promising candidate biomarkers have been established. This has led to the proliferation of a myriad of exploratory studies using dissimilar strategies, most of which fail to identify any promising targets and are seldom validated. The lack of a proper methodology also determines that many anti-cancer drugs are developed below their potential, due to failure to identify predictive biomarkers. While some drugs will be systematically administered to many patients who will not benefit from them, leading to unnecessary toxicities and costs, others will never reach registration due to our inability to identify the specific patient population in which they are active. Despite these drawbacks, a limited number of outstanding predictive biomarkers have been successfully identified and validated, and have changed the standard practice of oncology. In this manuscript, a multidisciplinary panel reviews how those key biomarkers were identified and, based on those experiences, proposes a methodological framework the DESIGN guidelines-to-standardize the clinical design of biomarker identification studies and to develop future research in this pivotal field. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Updated information published up to 2016 regarding major advances in renal cancer, bladder cancer, and prostate cancer is here presented. Based on an ever better understanding of the genetic and molecular alterations that govern the initial pathogenic mechanisms of tumor oncogenesis, an improvement in the characterization and treatment of urologic tumors has been achieved in the past year. According to the Cancer Genome Atlas (ATLAS) project, alterations in the MET pathway are characteristics of type 1 papillary renal cell carcinomas, and activation of NRF2-ARE pathway is associated with the biologically distinct type 2. While sunitinib and pazopanib continue to be the standard first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma of clear cell histology, nivolumab and cabozantinib are now the agents of choice in the second-line setting. In relation to urothelial bladder carcinoma, new potential molecular targets such as FGFR3, P13 K/AKT, RTK/RAS, GDKN2A,ARIDIA, ERBB2 have been identified. Response to adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy appears to be related to basal, luminal, and p53-like intrinsic subtypes. A phase II study with eribulin and a maintenance phase II trial with vinflunine have shown promising results. Similarly, the use of the check point inhibitors in advanced disease is likely to revolutionize the management of patients who have progressed after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In prostate cancer, seven mutually exclusive molecular subtypes have been identified by the TCGA project. Chemotherapy has been consolidated as a key treatment for castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer, and abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, and radium-223 remain standard therapeutic options for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. All this progress will undoubtedly contribute to the development of new treatments and therapeutic strategies that will improve the survival and quality of life of our patients. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Background: Disseminated germ cell cancers are at high risk of developing thromboembolic complications. We evaluated the prognostic value of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in disseminated germ cell cancer. Methods: Patients with germ cell cancer receiving upfront platinum-containing chemotherapy between 2004 and 2014 were pooled from the Spanish Germ Cell Cancer Group (SGCCG) registry and reviewed for the presence of VTE. Results were validated in an independent international group of patients. We used a penalized Cox proportional hazards model including VTE as a time-varying covariate to identify and validate prognostic factors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The SGCCG registry identified 416 patients from 14 referral institutions. With a median follow-up of 49 months, VTEs were observed in 9% of patients (n = 38). Events occurred at diagnosis, during chemotherapy, and after chemotherapy in 2.6%, 5.0%, and 1.4% of patients, respectively. VTE was associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 2.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 4.47, P = .02) and overall survival (OS; HR = 5.14, 95% CI = 2.22 to 11.88, P < .001). In multivariable analysis, the effect was consistent in the intermediate-risk group, both for PFS (HR = 9.52 95% CI = 2.48 to 36.58, P < .001) and OS (HR = 12.84, 95% CI = 2.01 to 82.02, P = .007). VTE at diagnosis is also an adverse prognostic variable for progression-free survival (HR = 4.64, 95% CI = 2.04 to 10.54, P < .001) and for overall survival (HR = 6.28, 95% CI = 1.68 to 17.10, P = .01). These results were validated in an independent international cohort that included 241 patients from four hospitals. Conclusions: VTE is an independent adverse prognostic factor in disseminated germ cell cancers, in particular for the intermediate prognostic group of the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group classification. The presence of VTE at diagnosis has also prognostic significance and should be further explored in future prognostic classifications.

Filiació URV: SI Background: Disseminated germ cell cancers are at high risk of developing thromboembolic complications. We evaluated the prognostic value of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in disseminated germ cell cancer. Methods: Patients with germ cell cancer receiving upfront platinum-containing chemotherapy between 2004 and 2014 were pooled from the Spanish Germ Cell Cancer Group (SGCCG) registry and reviewed for the presence of VTE. Results were validated in an independent international group of patients. We used a penalized Cox proportional hazards model including VTE as a time-varying covariate to identify and validate prognostic factors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The SGCCG registry identified 416 patients from 14 referral institutions. With a median follow-up of 49 months, VTEs were observed in 9% of patients (n=38). Events occurred at diagnosis, during chemotherapy, and after chemotherapy in 2.6%, 5.0%, and 1.4% of patients, respectively. VTE was associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 2.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 4.47, P = .02) and overall survival (OS; HR=5.14, 95% CI=2.22 to 11.88, P < .001). In multivariable analysis, the effect was consistent in the intermediate-risk group, both for PFS (HR=9.52 95% CI=2.48 to 36.58, P < .001) and OS (HR=12.84, 95% CI=2.01 to 82.02, P = .007). VTE at diagnosis is also an adverse prognostic variable for progression-free survival (HR=4.64, 95% CI=2.04 to 10.54, P < .001) and for overall survival (HR=6.28, 95% CI=1.68 to 17.10, P = .01). These results were validated in an independent international cohort that included 241 patients from four hospitals. Conclusions: VTE is an independent adverse prognostic factor in disseminated germ cell cancers, in p