Differential Tumor Gene Expression Profiling of Patients With Prostate Adenocarcinoma on the Basis of BMI.

PURPOSE: An increased BMI is linked to increased prostate adenocarcinoma incidence and mortality. Baseline tumor gene expression profiling (GEP) can provide a comprehensive picture of the biological processes related to treatment response and disease progression. We interrogate and validate the underlying differences in tumor GEP on the basis of BMI in patients with prostate adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The inclusion criteria consisted of histologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma and the availability of RNA sequencing data obtained from treatment-naïve primary prostate tissue. RNA sequencing was performed by a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratory (Tempus or Caris Life Sciences). The Tempus cohort was used for interrogation and the Caris cohort for validation. Patients were stratified on the basis of BMI at the time of prostate cancer diagnosis: BMI-high (BMIH; BMI ≥30) and BMI-low (BMIL; BMI <30). Differential gene expression analysis between the two cohorts was conducted using the DEseq2 pipeline. The resulting GEPs were further analyzed using Gene Set Enrichment software to identify pathways that exhibited enrichment in each cohort. RESULTS: Overall, 102 patients were eligible, with 60 patients in the Tempus cohort (BMIL = 38, BMIH = 22) and 42 patients in the Caris cohort (BMIL = 24, BMIH = 18). Tumor tissues obtained from patients in the BMIL group exhibited higher expression of genes associated with inflammation pathways. BMIH displayed increased expression of genes involved in pathways such as heme metabolism and androgen response. CONCLUSION: Our study shows the upregulation of distinct genomic pathways in BMIL compared with BMIH patients with prostate cancer. These hypothesis-generating data could explain different survival outcomes in both groups and guide personalized therapy for men with prostate cancer.

Differences in Tumor Gene Expression Profiles Between De Novo Metastatic Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer and Metastatic Relapse After Prior Localized Therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It has been reported that patients with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (dn-mCSPC) have worse prognosis and outcomes than those whose cancer relapses after prior local therapy (PLT-mCSPC). Our aim was to interrogate and validate underlying differences in tumor gene expression profiles between dn-mCSPC and PLT-mCSPC. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were histologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma and the availability of RNA sequencing data for treatment-naïve primary prostate tissue. RNA sequencing was performed by Tempus or Caris Life Sciences, both of which have Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments certification. The Tempus cohort was used for interrogation, while the Caris cohort was used for validation. Differential gene expression analysis between the cohorts was conducted using the DEseq2 pipeline. The resulting gene expression profiles were further analyzed using Gene Set Enrichment software to identify pathways with enrichment in each cohort. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 128 patients were eligible, of whom 78 were in the Tempus cohort (dn-mCSPC 37, PLT-mCSPC 41) and 50 were in the Caris cohort (dn-mCSPC 30, PLT-mCSPC 20). Tumor tissues from patients with dn-mCSPC had higher expression of genes associated with inflammation pathways, while tissues from patients with PLT-mCSPC had higher expression of genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation, fatty acid metabolism, and androgen response pathways. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our study revealed upregulation of distinct genomic pathways in dn-mCSPC in comparison to PLT-mCSPC. These hypothesis-generating data could guide personalized therapy for men with prostate cancer and explain different survival outcomes for dn-mCSPC and PLT-mCSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We measured gene expression levels in tumors from patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. In patients with metastatic disease at first diagnosis, inflammatory pathways were upregulated. In patients whose metastasis occurred on relapse after treatment, androgen response pathways were upregulated. These findings could help in personalizing therapy for prostate cancer and explaining differences in survival.

Cabozantinib with immune checkpoint inhibitor versus cabozantinib monotherapy in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma progressing after prior immune checkpoint inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: Rechallenge with antibodies targeting programmed cell death protein-1 or its ligand (PD-1/L1) after discontinuation or disease progression in solid tumors following a prior PD-1/L1 treatment is often practiced in clinic. This study aimed to investigate if adding PD-1/L1 inhibitors to cabozantinib, the most used second-line treatment in real-world patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC), offers additional benefits. METHODS: Using de-identified patient-level data from a large real-world US-based database, patients diagnosed with mccRCC, who received any PD-1/L1-based combination in first-line (1L) setting, followed by second-line (2L) therapy with either cabozantinib alone or in combination with PD-1/L1 inhibitors were included. Patients given a cabozantinib-containing regimen in 1L were excluded. The study end points were real-world time to next therapy (rwTTNT) and real-world overall survival (rwOS) by 2L. RESULTS: Of 12,285 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the data set, 348 patients met eligibility and were included in the analysis. After propensity score matching weighting, cabozantinib with PD-1/L1 inhibitors versus cabozantinib (ref.) had similar rwTTNT and rwOS in the 2L setting. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) for rwTTNT and rwOS are 0.74 (95% CI, 0.49-1.12) and 1.15 (95% CI, 0.73-1.79), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study, the results align with the phase 3 CONTACT-03 trial results, which showed no additional benefit of adding PD-L1 inhibitor to cabozantinib compared to cabozantinib alone in 2L following PD-1/L1-based therapies in 1L. These results from real-world patients strengthen the evidence regarding the futility of rechallenge with PD-1/L1 inhibitors.

Natural course of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the era of intensified androgen deprivation therapy in the hormone-sensitive setting.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification (ADTi) (i.e., ADT with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor or docetaxel, or both) has significantly improved survival outcomes of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the impact of prior ADTi in the mHSPC setting on the disease presentation and survival outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is not well characterized. In this study, our objective was to compare the disease characteristics and survival outcomes of patients with new mCRPC with respect to receipt of intensified or nonintensified ADT in the mHSPC setting. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective study, eligibility criteria were as follows: patients diagnosed with mCRPC, treated with an approved first-line mCRPC therapy, and who received either intensified or nonintensified ADT in the mHSPC setting. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined from the start of first-line therapy for mCRPC to progression per Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria or death, and overall survival (OS) was defined from the start of first-line therapy for mCRPC to death or censored at the last follow-up. A multivariable analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model was used, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Patients (n = 387) treated between March 20, 2008, and August 18, 2022, were eligible and included: 283 received nonintensified ADT, whereas 104 were treated with ADTi. At mCRPC diagnosis, patients in the ADTi group were significantly younger, had more visceral metastasis, lower baseline prostate-specific antigen (all p < 0.01), and lower hemoglobin (p = 0.027). Furthermore, they had significantly shorter PFS (median 4.8 vs. 8.4 months, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.07-2, p = 0.017) and OS (median 21.3 vs. 33.1 months, adjusted HR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.06-2.21, p = 0.022) compared to patients in the nonintensified ADT group. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with ADTi in the mHSPC setting and experiencing disease progression to mCRPC had more aggressive disease features of mCRPC (characterized by a higher number of poor prognostic factors at mCRPC presentation). They also had shorter PFS on first-line mCRPC treatment and shorter OS after the onset of mCRPC compared to those not receiving ADTi in the mHSPC setting. Upon external validation, these findings may impact patient counseling, prognostication, treatment selection, and design of future clinical trials in the mCRPC setting. There remains an unmet need to develop novel life-prolonging therapies with new mechanisms of action to improve mCRPC prognosis in the current era.

Survival outcomes of real world patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who do not achieve optimal PSA response with intensified androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) undergoing intensified androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), not achieving an optimal PSA response, defined as PSA nadir >0.2 ng/ml (PSAsubOR) has been associated with worse survival outcomes in clinical trials (1)(10)(11). Here, we externally evaluate, the impact of optimal PSA response on survival outcomes in these patients and provide absolute PFS and OS measures in those with PSAsubOR in the context of ADT intensification in real world setting. METHODS: In this retrospective study, all consecutive patients with mHSPC who underwent intensified ADT treated at our institution, and whose outcomes data were available, were included. We classified patients based on their PSA nadir on treatment: those with a on treatment PSAOR (PSA nadir ≤0.2 ng/ml) versus PSAsubOR. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients were eligible: 136 (66.3%) patients achieved PSAOR versus 69 (33.7%) patients had PSAsubOR. Patients who experienced a PSAOR had significantly improved PFS and OS from the start of intensified ADT versus who did not: PFS was not reached (NR) versus 11 months (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, P < 0.001) and OS was NR versus 38.9 months (HR 0.21, P < 0.001). Survival outcomes were poor with PSAsubOR regardless of intensification with docetaxel or an ARPI (absolute PFS and OS measures for each group are provided in the text). CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to explore the negative impact of PSAsubOR in patients with mHSPC undergoing intensified ADT in the real-world setting, and is the first to provide absolute PFS and OS in patients with PSAsubOR receiving ADT intensification with ARPIs or docetaxel outside of clinical trial setting. These data will aid with prognostication, patient counseling, and for designing future clinical trials for patients with PSAsubOR.