Explore the vast range of titles available.

Enzalutamide and abiraterone target the androgen receptor and androgen synthesis and are used to treat castration-resistant prostate cancer. A splice variant of the androgen receptor is associated with resistance to both drugs. It is now accepted that castration-resistant prostate cancer is not androgen-independent and continues to rely on androgen signaling. 1 Owing to this new understanding, several drugs have recently emerged for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer; these agents either suppress the synthesis of extragonadal androgens or target the androgen receptor directly. 2 Enzalutamide is an inhibitor of androgen-receptor signaling that exerts its activity by binding avidly to the ligand-binding domain of the androgen receptor, competing with and displacing the natural ligands of this receptor (testosterone and dihydrotestosterone) while also inhibiting translocation of the androgen receptor into the nucleus and impairing transcriptional activation . . .

Prostate cancer that progresses after enzalutamide treatment is poorly responsive to further antiandrogen therapy, and paradoxically, rapid cycling between high and low serum testosterone concentrations (bipolar androgen therapy [BAT]) in this setting might induce tumour responses. We aimed to evaluate BAT in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after enzalutamide. We did this single-centre, open-label, phase 2, multicohort study in the USA. We included patients aged 18 years or older who had histologically confirmed and radiographically documented metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, with no more than two previous second-line hormonal therapies, and a castrate concentration of testosterone. Patients were asymptomatic, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and did not have high-risk lesions for tumour flare (eg, >5 sites of visceral disease or bone lesions with impending fracture). For the cohort reported here, we required patients to have had progression on enzalutamide with a continued prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise after enzalutamide treatment discontinuation. Patients received BAT, which consisted of intramuscular testosterone cipionate 400 mg every 28 days until progression and continued luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy. Upon progression after BAT, men were rechallenged with oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed 50% decline in PSA concentration from baseline (PSA50) for BAT (for all patients who received at least one dose) and for enzalutamide rechallenge (based on intention-to-treat analysis). These data represent the final analysis for the post-enzalutamide cohort, while two additional cohorts (post-abiraterone and newly castration-resistant prostate cancer) are ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02090114. Between Aug 28, 2014, and May 18, 2016, we accrued 30 eligible patients and treated them with BAT. Nine (30%; 95% CI 15–49; p<0·0001) of 30 patients achieved a PSA50 to BAT. 29 patients completed BAT and 21 proceeded to enzalutamide rechallenge, of whom 15 (52%; 95% CI 33–71; p<0·0001) achieved a PSA50 response. During BAT, the only grade 3–4 adverse event occurring in more than one patient was hypertension (three [10%] patients). Other grade 3 or worse adverse events occurring during BAT in one [3%] patient each were pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, urinary obstruction, gallstone, and sepsis. During enzalutamide retreatment, no grade 3–4 toxicities occurred in more than one patient. No treatment-related deaths were reported during either BAT or enzalutamide retreatment. BAT is a safe therapy that resulted in responses in asymptomatic men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and also resensitisation to enzalutamide in most patients undergoing rechallenge. Further studies with BAT are needed to define the potential clinical role for BAT in the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and the optimal strategy for sequencing between androgen and antiandrogen therapies in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to maximise therapeutic benefit to patients. National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.

Primary prostate cancer is genomically highly heterogeneous and is thought to derive from multiple independent clones of cancer cells. Using high-resolution genomic analyses, Bova et al . now show that, in contrast to primary tumors, metastases are monoclonal, originating from a single cancer cell. These findings call into question current views of the origins of primary prostate cancer and suggest that the genomic profile of prostate cancer metastases should inform therapeutic decisions. Many studies have shown that primary prostate cancers are multifocal 1 , 2 , 3 and are composed of multiple genetically distinct cancer cell clones 4 , 5 , 6 . Whether or not multiclonal primary prostate cancers typically give rise to multiclonal or monoclonal prostate cancer metastases is largely unknown, although studies at single chromosomal loci are consistent with the latter case. Here we show through a high-resolution genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism and copy number survey that most, if not all, metastatic prostate cancers have monoclonal origins and maintain a unique signature copy number pattern of the parent cancer cell while also accumulating a variable number of separate subclonally sustained changes. We find no relationship between anatomic site of metastasis and genomic copy number change pattern. Taken together with past animal and cytogenetic studies of metastasis 7 and recent single-locus genetic data in prostate and other metastatic cancers 8 , 9 , 10 , these data indicate that despite common genomic heterogeneity in primary cancers, most metastatic cancers arise from a single precursor cancer cell. This study establishes that genomic archeology of multiple anatomically separate metastatic cancers in individuals can be used to define the salient genomic features of a parent cancer clone of proven lethal metastatic phenotype.

Cyclic high-dose testosterone administration, known as bipolar androgen therapy (BAT), is a treatment strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we report the results of a multicenter, single arm Phase 2 study (NCT03554317) enrolling 45 patients with heavily pretreated mCRPC who received BAT (testosterone cypionate, 400 mg intramuscularly every 28 days) with the addition of nivolumab (480 mg intravenously every 28 days) following three cycles of BAT monotherapy. The primary endpoint of a confirmed PSA 50 response rate was met and estimated at 40% ( N  = 18/45, 95% CI: 25.7–55.7%, P  = 0.02 one-sided against the 25% null hypothesis). Sixteen of the PSA 50 responses were achieved before the addition of nivolumab. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), median PSA progression-free survival, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety/tolerability. The ORR was 24% ( N  = 10/42). Three of the objective responses occurred following the addition of nivolumab. After a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the median rPFS was 5.6 (95% CI: 5.4–6.8) months, and median OS was 24.4 (95% CI: 17.6–31.1) months. BAT/nivolumab was well tolerated, resulting in only five (11%) drug related, grade-3 adverse events. In a predefined exploratory analysis, clinical response rates correlated with increased baseline levels of intratumoral PD-1 + T cells. In paired metastatic tumor biopsies, BAT induced pro-inflammatory gene expression changes that were restricted to patients achieving a clinical response. These data suggest that BAT may augment antitumor immune responses that are further potentiated by immune checkpoint blockade. Bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) is a treatment option for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here the authors report the results of a phase 2 trial of BAT plus nivolumab (anti-PD1) in patients with advanced mCRPC.

The endothelin pathway has a role in bone metastases, which are characteristic of advanced prostate cancer. Atrasentan, an endothelin receptor antagonist, has shown activity in prostate cancer. We therefore assessed its effect on survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases. In a double-blind phase 3 trial, men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, stratified for progression type (prostate-specific antigen or radiological), baseline pain, extraskeletal metastases, and bisphosphonate use, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 21 days, intravenously) with atrasentan (10 mg/day, orally) or placebo for up to 12 cycles and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients who did not progress on treatment were permitted to continue atrasentan or placebo for up to 52 weeks. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00134056. 498 patients were randomly assigned to the atrasentan group and 496 to the placebo group. The trial was halted early for futility in April, 2011, after a planned interim analysis. Median PFS was 9·2 months (95% CI 8·5–9·9) in the atrasentan group and 9·1 months (8·4–10·2) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·02, 0·89–1·16; p=0·81). Median overall survival was 17·8 months (16·4–19·8) in the atrasentan group versus 17·6 months (16·4–20·1) in the placebo group (1·04, 0·90–1·19; p=0·64). 278 (57%) of 492 patients in the atrasentan group had grade 3 and greater toxicity compared with 294 (60%) of 486 in the placebo group (p=0·22). Three deaths in the atrasentan group and seven in the placebo group were judged to be possibly or probably due to protocol treatment. Atrasentan, when added to docetaxel, does not improve overall survival or PFS in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases; therefore, single-agent docetaxel should remain as one of the standard treatments. National Cancer Institute, Sanofi-Aventis, and Abbott Laboratories.

Purpose Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used increasingly for individual patient management. Identifying which PRO scores require a clinician's attention is an ongoing challenge. Previous research used a needs assessment to identify EORTC-QLQ-C30 cutoff scores representing unmet needs. This analysis attempted to replicate the previous findings in a new and larger sample. Methods This analysis used data from 408 Japanese ambulatory breast cancer patients who completed the QLQ-C30 and Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form-34 (SCNS-SF34). Applying the methods used previously, SCNS-SF34 item/domain scores were dichotomized as no versus some unmet need. We calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to evaluate QLQ-C30 scores' ability to discriminate between patients with no versus some unmet need based on SCNS-SF34 items/domains. For QLQ-C30 domains with AUC ≥ 0.70, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of various cutoffs for identifying unmet needs. We hypothesized that compared to our original analysis, (1) the same six QLQ-C30 domains would have AUC ≥ 0.70, (2) the same SCNS-SF34 items would be best discriminated by QLQ-C30 scores, and (3) the sensitivity and specificity of our original cutoff scores would be supported. Results The findings from our original analysis were supported. The same six domains with AUC ≥ 0.70 in the original analysis had AUC ≥ 0.70 in this new sample, and the same SCNS-SF34 item was best discriminated by QLQ-C30 scores. Cutoff scores were identified with sensitivity ≥0.84 and specificity ≥0.54. Conclusion Given these findings' concordance with our previous analysis, these QLQ-C30 cutoffs could be implemented in clinical practice and their usefulness evaluated.

BackgroundThere are limited treatment options for patients with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody bevacizumab remains the mainstay of advanced treatment. Pembrolizumab is Food and Drug Agency approved for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive cervical cancer with a modest response rate. This is the first study to report the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer.MethodsWe report the results from a phase II, open-label, multicenter study (NCT02921269). Patients with advanced cervical cancer were treated with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenous every 3 weeks and atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenous every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to measure the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsIn the total evaluable population (n=10), zero patients achieved an objective response as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1, resulting in a confirmed ORR of 0%. Of note, there were two patients who achieved an unconfirmed PR. The DCR by RECIST V.1.1 was 60% (0% complete response, 0% partial response, 60% stable disease). Median PFS was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 6) and median OS was 8.9 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 21.9). Safety results were generally consistent with the known safety profile of both drugs, notably with two high-grade neurologic events.ConclusionsThe combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab did not meet the predefined efficacy endpoint, as addition of bevacizumab to PD-L1 blockade did not appear to enhance the ORR in cervical cancer.

Background Metastasis directed therapy (MDT) for patients with oligometastatic disease is associated with improvements in progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to systemic therapy alone. Additionally, within a prostate-cancer-specific cohort, MDT is able to forestall initiation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with hormone-sensitive, oligometastatic prostate cancer (HSOPCa) compared to observation. While MDT appears to be safe and effective in HSOPCa, a large percentage of men will eventually have disease recurrence. Patterns of failure in HSOPCa demonstrate patients tend to have recurrence in the bone following MDT, raising the question of sub-clinically-apparent osseous disease. Radium-223 dichloride is a radiopharmaceutical with structural similarity to calcium, allowing it to be taken up by bone where it emits alpha particles, and therefore might have utility in the treatment of micrometastatic osseous disease. Therefore, the primary goal of the phase II RAVENS trial is to evaluate the efficacy of MDT + radium-223 dichloride in prolonging progression free survival in men with HSOPCa. Methods Patients with HSOPCa and 3 or less metastases with at least 1 bone metastasis will be randomized 1:1 to stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR, also known as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)) alone vs SABR + radium-223 dichloride with a minimization algorithm to balance assignment by institution, primary intervention, prior hormonal therapy, and PSA doubling time. SABR is delivered in one to five fractions and patients in the SABR + radium-223 dichloride arm will receive six infusions of radium-223 dichloride at four-week intervals. The primary end point is progression free survival. The secondary clinical endpoints include toxicity and quality of life assessments, local control at 12 months, locoregional progression, time to distant progression, time to new metastasis, and duration of response. Discussion The RAVENS trial will be the first described phase II, non-blinded, randomized study to compare SABR +/− radium-223 dichloride in patients with HSOPCa and 3 or less metastases with at least one bone metastasis. The primary hypothesis is that SABR + radium-223 dichloride will increase median progression-free survival from 10 months in the SABR arm to 20 months in the SABR + radium-223 dichloride arm. Trial registrations Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04037358 . Date of Registration: July 30, 2019. Date of First Participant Enrolled: August 9, 2019. Date of Last Approved Amendment: October 16, 2019. Protocol Version: Version 5.

Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) re-express silenced tumor suppressor genes and are currently undergoing clinical trials. Although HDACis have been known to induce gene expression, an equal number of genes are downregulated upon HDAC inhibition. The mechanism behind this downregulation remains unclear. Here we provide evidence that several DNA repair genes are downregulated by HDAC inhibition and provide a mechanism involving the E2F1 transcription factor in the process. Applying Analysis of Functional Annotation (AFA) on microarray data of prostate cancer cells treated with HDACis, we found a number of genes of the DNA damage response and repair pathways are downregulated by HDACis. AFA revealed enrichment of homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair genes of the BRCA1 pathway, as well as genes regulated by the E2F1 transcription factor. Prostate cancer cells demonstrated a decreased DNA repair capacity and an increased sensitization to chemical- and radio-DNA damaging agents upon HDAC inhibition. Recruitment of key HR repair proteins to the site of DNA damage, as well as HR repair capacity was compromised upon HDACi treatment. Based on our AFA data, we hypothesized that the E2F transcription factors may play a role in the downregulation of key repair genes upon HDAC inhibition in prostate cancer cells. ChIP analysis and luciferase assays reveal that the downregulation of key repair genes is mediated through decreased recruitment of the E2F1 transcription factor and not through active repression by repressive E2Fs. Our study indicates that several genes in the DNA repair pathway are affected upon HDAC inhibition. Downregulation of the repair genes is on account of a decrease in amount and promoter recruitment of the E2F1 transcription factor. Since HDAC inhibition affects several pathways that could potentially have an impact on DNA repair, compromised DNA repair upon HDAC inhibition could also be attributed to several other pathways besides the ones investigated in this study. However, our study does provide insights into the mechanism that governs downregulation of HR DNA repair genes upon HDAC inhibition, which can lead to rationale usage of HDACis in the clinics.

BackgroundSeveral definitions have attempted to stratify metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) into low and high-volume states. However, at this time, comparison of these definitions is limited. Here we aim to compare definitions of metastatic volume in mCSPC with respect to clinical outcomes and mutational profiles.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients with biochemically recurrent or mCSPC whose tumors underwent somatic targeted sequencing. 294 patients were included with median follow-up of 58.3 months. Patients were classified into low and high-volume disease per CHAARTED, STAMPEDE, and two numeric (≤3 and ≤5) definitions. Endpoints including radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), time to development of castration resistance (tdCRPC), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated with Kaplan–Meier survival curves and log-rank test. The incidence of driver mutations between definitions were compared.ResultsMedian OS and tdCRPC were shorter for high-volume than low-volume disease for all four definitions. In the majority of patients (84.7%) metastatic volume classification did not change across all four definitions. High volume disease was significantly associated with worse OS for all four definitions (CHAARTED: HR 2.89; p < 0.01, STAMPEDE: HR 3.82; p < 0.01, numeric ≤3: HR 4.67; p < 0.01, numeric ≤5: HR 3.76; p < 0.01) however, were similar for high (p = 0.95) and low volume (p = 0.79) disease across all four definitions. Those with discordant classification tended to have more aggressive clinical behavior and mutational profiles. Patients with low-volume disease and TP53 mutation experienced a more aggressive course with rPFS more closely mirroring high-volume disease.ConclusionsThe spectrum of mCSPC was confirmed across four different metastatic definitions for clinical endpoints and genetics. All definitions were generally similar in classification of patients, outcomes, and genetic makeup. Given these findings, the simplicity of numerical definitions might be preferred, especially when integrating metastasis directed therapy. Incorporation of tumor genetics may allow further refinement of current metastatic definitions.