Comparative genomics of primary prostate cancer and paired metastases: insights from 12 molecular case studies

CXCL1 and CXCL8: Reliable and feasible biomarkers differentiating intrapulmonary metastasis from multiple primary neoplasms in non-small cell lung cancers

ObjectiveIn NSCLC, the main approach to differentiate between intrapulmonary metastases (IPM) and multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC) is to integrate histopathological and genomic information. Here, we identified viable biomarkers that can distinguish IPM from MPLC by integrating comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and targeted RNA sequencing.MethodsWe retrospectively collected tissues from at least two lesions in 34 patients. 29 and 5 out of 34 patients determined as pathologic MPLC (pMPLC) and pathologic IPM, respectively, according to Martini-Melamed criteria (M-M criteria). A comprehensive investigation at genomic and transcriptomic level was conducted.ResultsNine of the 29 pMPLCs shared trunk mutations in their lesions and were consequently reclassified as IPM. Survival analyses revealed that classification integrated M-M criteria and mutational profiling could distinguish IPM/MPLC more accurately. Further exploration at the transcriptomic level revealed elevated expression levels of genes related to epithelial-mesenchymal transition and immunomodulatory pathways in IPM. Notably, the expression of CXCL1 and CXCL8 was significantly upregulated in IPM.ConclusionsWe found that the expression of CXCL1 and CXCL8 in any tumor lesion within a patient could reliably indicate IPM. Additionally, assessing the transcriptional levels of CXCL1 and CXCL8 also provide a dependable and practical approach to identify IPM from MPLC.

Hot Spots in Urogenital Basic Cancer Research and Clinics

Urogenital cancer is very common in the male population of Western countries, a problem of major concern for public health systems, and a frequent test subject for oncological research. In this narrative, we identify the main hot topics for clinics and the basic science of urological cancer in the last few years (from 2021 onwards), considering the information given in the abstracts of almost 300 original articles published in outstanding journals of pathology, urology, and basic science. Once defined, for the top ten list of hot topics (the 2022 WHO update on the classification of urinary and male genital tumors, new entities in kidney cancer, urinary cancer-omics, update on the Gleason grading system, targeted therapies and other novel therapies in renal cancer, news on non-muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma, artificial intelligence in urologic cancer, intratumor heterogeneity influence in therapeutic failures in urologic neoplasms, intratumor microbiome and its influence in urologic tumor aggressiveness, and ecological principles and mathematics applied to urogenital cancer study), each issue is independently reviewed in an attempt to put together the most relevant updates and/or useful features accompanied by selected illustrations. This review article addresses some of the most interesting and current hot spots in urogenital basic cancer research and clinics and is mainly aimed toward clinicians, including pathologists, urologists, and oncologists. Readers are invited to explore each topic for further, more detailed information, in addition to the references provided.

How To Report the Minor Component of a High-grade Pattern in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Time To Abandon the "Tertiary" Terminology?

The International Society of Urological Pathology and Genitourinary Pathology Society differ in their recommendations for reporting of minor components of high-grade pattern in prostatectomy specimens. This can affect the grade group assigned, particularly when there are only two Gleason patterns in a cancer nodule. We therefore argue that the term "tertiary" should be changed to "minor" component.

Changes in immunophenotypes after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for prostate cancer and their clinical significance

Background

To investigate changes in the immunophenotypes of androgen receptor (AR), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), synaptophysin (Syn), chromogranin A (CgA), p53 and Ki-67 after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) for prostate cancer (PCa) and to analyze their clinical significance.

Methods

Paired paraffin samples were collected from 40 PCa patients before and after NET, and immunohistochemistry were used to detect AR, PSA, Syn, CgA, p53 and Ki-67 expression. Based on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), Kaplan‒Meier survival curves were plotted for analysis of PSA and Ki-67 expression in relation to progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

After NET, the mean scores for PSA and Ki-67 expression in PCa patients were lower than those before NET (P < 0.05), while the mean scores for Syn and CgA expression were higher than those before NET (P < 0.05). The mean Gleason score and WHO/ISUP (World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology) grade after NET were lower than those before NET (P < 0.05). In PCa patients who had not yet received NET, PSA expression correlated positively with Gleason score and WHO/ISUP grade and negatively with Ki-67 expression (P < 0.05); p53 expression correlated negatively with Gleason score and WHO/ISUP grade (P < 0.05). TCGA showed that PFS was lower in PCa patients with high PSA and Ki-67 expression (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

PSA and Ki-67 protein expressions decreased significantly in PCa patients after NET and can be used as biological markers for prognostic assessment of PCa patients. NETs may induce a neuroendocrine (NE) phenotype in PCa. Monitoring the immunophenotypes of PCa patients after NET may inform assessment of efficacy and prognosis.

Morphologic patterns observed in prostate biopsy cases with discrepant grade group and molecular risk classification

BACKGROUND

Molecular-based risk classifier tests are increasingly being utilized by urologists and radiation oncologists to guide clinical decision making. The Decipher prostate biopsy test is a 22-gene RNA biomarker assay designed to predict likelihood of high-grade disease at radical prostatectomy and risk of metastasis and mortality. The test provides a risk category of low, intermediate, or high. We investigated histologic features of biopsies in which the Grade Group (GG) and Decipher risk category (molecular risk) were discrepant.

METHODS

Our institutional urologic outcomes database was searched for men who underwent prostate biopsies with subsequent Decipher testing from 2016 to 2020. We defined discrepant GG and molecular risk as either GG1-2 with high Decipher risk category or GG ≥ 3 with low Decipher risk category. The biopsy slide on which Decipher testing was performed was re-reviewed for GG and various histologic features, including % Gleason pattern 4, types of Gleason pattern 4 and 5, other "high risk" features (e.g., complex papillary, ductal carcinoma, intraductal carcinoma [IDC]), and other unusual and often "difficult to grade" patterns (e.g., atrophic carcinoma, mucin rupture, pseudohyperplastic carcinoma, collagenous fibroplasia, foamy gland carcinoma, carcinoma with basal cell marker expression, carcinoma with prominent vacuoles, and stromal reaction). Follow-up data was also obtained from the electronic medical record.

RESULTS

Of 178 men who underwent prostate biopsies and had Decipher testing performed, 41 (23%) had discrepant GG and molecular risk. Slides were available for review for 33/41 (80%). Of these 33 patients, 23 (70%) had GG1-2 (GG1 n = 5, GG2 n = 18) with high Decipher risk, and 10 (30%) had GG ≥ 3 with low Decipher risk. Of the 5 GG1 cases, one case was considered GG2 on re-review; no other high risk features were identified but each case showed at least one of the following "difficult to grade" patterns: 3 atrophic carcinoma, 1 collagenous fibroplasia, 1 carcinoma with mucin rupture, and 1 carcinoma with basal cell marker expression. Of the 18 GG2 high Decipher risk cases, 2 showed GG3 on re-review, 5 showed large cribriform and/or other high risk features, and 10 showed a "difficult to grade" pattern. Of the 10 GG ≥ 3 low Decipher risk cases, 5 had known high risk features including 2 with large cribriform, 1 with IDC, and 1 with Gleason pattern 5.

CONCLUSIONS

In GG1-2 high Decipher risk cases, difficult to grade patterns were frequently seen in the absence of other known high risk morphologic features; whether these constitute true high risk cases requires further study. In the GG ≥ 3 low Decipher risk cases, aggressive histologic patterns such as large cribriform and IDC were observed in half (50%) of cases; therefore, the molecular classifier may not capture all high risk histologic patterns.

Integrative multi-region molecular profiling of primary prostate cancer in men with synchronous lymph node metastasis

Localized prostate cancer is frequently composed of multiple spatially distinct tumors with significant inter- and intra-tumoral molecular heterogeneity. This genomic diversity gives rise to many competing clones that may drive the biological trajectory of the disease. Previous large-scale sequencing efforts have focused on the evolutionary process in metastatic prostate cancer, revealing a potential clonal progression to castration resistance. However, the clonal origin of synchronous lymph node (LN) metastases in primary disease is still unknown. Here, we perform multi-region, targeted next generation sequencing and construct phylogenetic trees in men with prostate cancer with synchronous LN metastasis to better define the pathologic and molecular features of primary disease most likely to spread to the LNs. Collectively, we demonstrate that a combination of histopathologic and molecular factors, including tumor grade, presence of extra-prostatic extension, cellular morphology, and oncogenic genomic alterations are associated with synchronous LN metastasis.

Molecular panorama of therapy resistance in prostate cancer: a pre-clinical and bioinformatics analysis for clinical translation

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a malignant disorder of prostate gland being asymptomatic in early stages and high metastatic potential in advanced stages. The chemotherapy and surgical resection have provided favourable prognosis of PCa patients, but advanced and aggressive forms of PCa including CRPC and AVPC lack response to therapy properly, and therefore, prognosis of patients is deteriorated. At the advanced stages, PCa cells do not respond to chemotherapy and radiotherapy in a satisfactory level, and therefore, therapy resistance is emerged. Molecular profile analysis of PCa cells reveals the apoptosis suppression, pro-survival autophagy induction, and EMT induction as factors in escalating malignant of cancer cells and development of therapy resistance. The dysregulation in molecular profile of PCa including upregulation of STAT3 and PI3K/Akt, downregulation of STAT3, and aberrant expression of non-coding RNAs are determining factor for response of cancer cells to chemotherapy. Because of prevalence of drug resistance in PCa, combination therapy including co-utilization of anti-cancer drugs and nanotherapeutic approaches has been suggested in PCa therapy. As a result of increase in DNA damage repair, PCa cells induce radioresistance and RelB overexpression prevents irradiation-mediated cell death. Similar to chemotherapy, nanomaterials are promising for promoting radiosensitivity through delivery of cargo, improving accumulation in PCa cells, and targeting survival-related pathways. In respect to emergence of immunotherapy as a new tool in PCa suppression, tumour cells are able to increase PD-L1 expression and inactivate NK cells in mediating immune evasion. The bioinformatics analysis for evaluation of drug resistance-related genes has been performed.

Prostate cancer: Molecular aspects, consequences, and opportunities of the multifocal nature

Prostate cancer is unique compared to other major cancers due to the presence of multiple primary malignant foci in the majority of patients at the time of diagnosis. Each malignant focus has distinct somatic mutations and gene expression patterns, which represents a challenge for the development of prognostic tests for localized prostate cancer. Additionally, the molecular heterogeneity of advanced prostate cancer has important implications for management, particularly for patients with metastatic and locally recurrent cancer. Studies have shown that prostate cancers with mutations in DNA damage response genes are more sensitive to drugs inhibiting the poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) enzyme. However, testing for such mutations should consider both spatial and temporal heterogeneity. Here, we summarize studies where multiregional genomics and transcriptomics analyses have been performed for primary prostate cancer. We further discuss the vast interfocal heterogeneity and how prognostic biomarkers and a molecular definition of the index tumor should be developed. The concept of focal treatments in prostate cancer has been evolving as a demand from patients and clinicians and is one example where there is a need for defining an index tumor. Here, biomarkers must have proven value for individual malignant foci. The potential discovery and implementation of biomarkers that are agnostic to heterogeneity are also explored as an alternative to multisample testing. Thus, deciding upon whole-organ treatment, such as radical prostatectomy, should depend on information from biomarkers which are informative for the whole organ.

Aligning germline and somatic mutations in prostate cancer. Are genetics changing practice?

OBJECTIVE

To review the current status of germline and somatic (tumour) genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCa), and its relevance for clinical practice.

METHODS

A narrative synthesis of various molecular profiles related to their clinical context was carried out. Current guidelines for genetic testing and its feasibility in clinical practice were analysed. We report the main identified genetic sequencing results or functional genomic scores for PCa published in the literature or obtained from the French PROGENE study.

RESULTS

The molecular alterations observed in PCa are mostly linked to disruption of the androgen receptor (AR) pathway or DNA repair deficiency. The main known germline mutations affect the BReast CAncer gene 2 (BRCA2) and homeobox B13 (HOXB13) genes, whereas AR and tumour protein p53 (TP53) are the genes with most frequent somatic alterations in tumours from men with metastatic PCa. Molecular tests are now available for detecting some of these germline or somatic alterations and sometimes recommended by guidelines, but their utilisation must combine rationality and feasibility. They can guide specific therapies, notably for the management of metastatic disease. Indeed, following androgen deprivation, targeted therapies for PCa currently include poly-(ADP-ribose)-polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-guided radiotherapy. The genetic tests currently approved for targeted therapies remain limited to the detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation and DNA mismatch repair deficiency, while large panels are recommended for germline analyses, not only for inherited cancer predisposing syndrome, but also for metastatic PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Further consensus aligning germline with somatic molecular analysis in metastatic PCa is required, including genomics scars, emergent immunohistochemistry, or functional pre-screen imaging. With rapid advances in knowledge and technology in the field, continuous updating of guidelines to help the clinical management of these individuals, and well-conducted studies to evaluate the benefits of genetic testing are needed.

Cancer origin tracing and timing in two high-risk prostate cancers using multisample whole genome analysis: prospects for personalized medicine

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PrCa) genomic heterogeneity causes resistance to therapies such as androgen deprivation. Such heterogeneity can be deciphered in the context of evolutionary principles, but current clinical trials do not include evolution as an essential feature. Whether or not analysis of genomic data in an evolutionary context in primary prostate cancer can provide unique added value in the research and clinical domains remains an open question.

METHODS

We used novel processing techniques to obtain whole genome data together with 3D anatomic and histomorphologic analysis in two men (GP5 and GP12) with high-risk PrCa undergoing radical prostatectomy. A total of 22 whole genome-sequenced sites (16 primary cancer foci and 6 lymph node metastatic) were analyzed using evolutionary reconstruction tools and spatio-evolutionary models. Probability models were used to trace spatial and chronological origins of the primary tumor and metastases, chart their genetic drivers, and distinguish metastatic and non-metastatic subclones.

RESULTS

In patient GP5, CDK12 inactivation was among the first mutations, leading to a PrCa tandem duplicator phenotype and initiating the cancer around age 50, followed by rapid cancer evolution after age 57, and metastasis around age 59, 5 years prior to prostatectomy. In patient GP12, accelerated cancer progression was detected after age 54, and metastasis occurred around age 56, 3 years prior to prostatectomy. Multiple metastasis-originating events were identified in each patient and tracked anatomically. Metastasis from prostate to lymph nodes occurred strictly ipsilaterally in all 12 detected events. In this pilot, metastatic subclone content analysis appears to substantially enhance the identification of key drivers. Evolutionary analysis' potential impact on therapy selection appears positive in these pilot cases.

CONCLUSIONS

PrCa evolutionary analysis allows tracking of anatomic site of origin, timing of cancer origin and spread, and distinction of metastatic-capable from non-metastatic subclones. This enables better identification of actionable targets for therapy. If extended to larger cohorts, it appears likely that similar analyses could add substantial biological insight and clinically relevant value.

The roles of proteases in prostate cancer

Since the proposition of the pro-invasive activity of proteolytic enzymes over 70 years ago, several roles for proteases in cancer progression have been established. About half of the 473 active human proteases are expressed in the prostate and many of the most well-characterized members of this enzyme family are regulated by androgens, hormones essential for development of prostate cancer. Most notably, several kallikrein-related peptidases, including KLK3 (prostate-specific antigen, PSA), the most well-known prostate cancer marker, and type II transmembrane serine proteases, such as TMPRSS2 and matriptase, have been extensively studied and found to promote prostate cancer progression. Recent findings also suggest a critical role for proteases in the development of advanced and aggressive castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Perhaps the most intriguing evidence for this role comes from studies showing that the protease-activated transmembrane proteins, Notch and CDCP1, are associated with the development of CRPC. Here, we review the roles of proteases in prostate cancer, with a special focus on their regulation by androgens.

Somatic mutations reveal complex metastatic seeding from multifocal primary prostate cancer

Primary prostate cancer shows a striking intraorgan molecular heterogeneity, with multiple spatially separated malignant foci in the majority of patients. Metastatic prostate cancer, however, typically reveals more homogenous molecular profiles, suggesting a monoclonal origin of the metastatic lesions. Longitudinal mutational spectra, comparing multiple primary lesions with metastases from the same patients remain poorly defined. We have here analyzed somatic mutations in multisampled, spatio-temporal biobanked lesions (38 samples from primary foci and 1 sample from each of 8 metastases from seven prostate cancer patients) applying a custom-designed panel targeting 68 prostate cancer relevant genes. The metastatic samples were taken at time of primary surgery and up to 7 years later, and sampling included circulating tumor DNA in plasma or solid metastatic tissue samples. A total of 282 somatic mutations were detected, with a range of 0 to 25 mutations per sample. Although seven samples had solely private mutations, the remaining 39 samples had both private and shared mutations. Seventy-four percent of mutations in metastases were not found in any primary samples, and vice versa, 96% of mutations in primary cancers were not found in any metastatic samples. However, for three patients, shared mutations were found suggesting the focus of origin, including mutations in AKT1, FOXA1, HOXB13, RB1 and TP53. In conclusion, the spatio-temporal heterogeneous nature of multifocal disease is emphasized in our study, and underlines the importance of testing a recent sample in genomics-based precision medicine for metastatic prostate cancer.

Determination of ERG(+), EZH2, NKX3.1, and SPINK-1 subtypes to evaluate their association with clonal origin and disease progression in multifocal prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The prognostic relevance of prostate cancer (PCa) molecular subtypes remains controversial, given the presence of multiple foci with the possibility of different subtypes in the same patient.

AIM

To determine the clonal origin of heterogeneity in PCa and its association with disease progression, SPOP, ERG(+), EZH2, NKX3.1, and SPINK-1 subtypes were analyzed.

METHODS

A total of 103 samples from 20 PCa patients were analyzed; foci of adjacent non-tumor prostate tissue, HGPIN, GL3, GL4, GL5, and LN were examined to determine the presence of the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion and ERG, EZH2, NKX3.1, and SPINK-1 expression levels, using RT-PCR. Mutations in exons 6 and 7 of the SPOP gene were determined by sequencing. The presence of subtypes and molecular patterns were identified by combining all subtypes analyzed. To establish the clonal origin of multifocal PCa, molecular concordance between different foci of the same patient was determined. Association of these subtypes with histopathological groups and time to biochemical recurrence (BCR) was assessed.

RESULTS

No mutation was found in SPOP in any sample. The ERG(+) subtype was the most frequent. The molecular pattern containing all four PCa subtypes was only detected in 3 samples (4%), all LN, but it was the most frequent (40%) in patients. Molecular discordance was the predominant status (55%) when all analyzed molecular characteristics were considered. It was possible to find all subtypes, starting as a preneoplastic lesion, and all but one LN molecular subtype were ERG(+) and NKX3.1 subtypes. Only the expression of the NKX3.1 gene was significantly different among the histopathological groups. No association was found between BCR time in patients and molecular subtypes or molecular concordance or between clinicopathological characteristics and molecular subtypes of ERG, EZH2, and SPINK-1.

CONCLUSION

The predominance of molecular discordance in prostatic foci per patient, which reflects the multifocal origin of PCa foci, highlights the importance of analyzing multiple samples to establish the prognostic and therapeutic relevance of molecular subtypes in a patient. All the subtypes analyzed here are of early onset, starting from preneoplastic lesions. NKX3.1 gene expression is the only molecular characteristic that shows a progression pattern by sample.

Towards clinical implementation of circulating tumor DNA in metastatic prostate cancer: Opportunities for integration and pitfalls to interpretation

Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) represents short fragments of tumor-derived DNA released into the bloodstream primarily from cancer cells undergoing apoptosis. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), characterizing genomic alterations in ctDNA identifies mutations, copy number alterations, and structural rearrangements with predictive and prognostic biomarker utility. These associations with clinical outcomes have resulted in ctDNA increasingly incorporated into routine clinical care. In this review, we summarize current and emerging applications for ctDNA analysis in metastatic prostate cancer, including outcome prediction, treatment selection, and characterization of treatment resistance. We also discuss potential pitfalls with interpreting ctDNA findings, namely false negatives arising from low tumor content and optimal assay design, including correction for clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential and germline variants. Understanding the influence of these limitations on interpretation of ctDNA results is necessary to overcome barriers to clinical implementation. Nevertheless, as assay availability and technology continue to improve, recognizing both opportunities and shortcomings of ctDNA analysis will retain relevance with informing the implementation of precision-oncology initiatives for metastatic prostate cancer.

The Role of Histology-Agnostic Drugs in the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Precision medicine has opened up a new era in the development of anti-cancer agents that is focused on identifying biomarkers predictive of treatment response regardless of tumor histology. Since 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has approved six drugs with histology-agnostic indications: pembrolizumab (both for tumors with the mismatch-repair deficiency (dMMR)/high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) phenotype and for those with the high tumor mutational burden (TMB-H) phenotype), dostarlimab (for dMMR tumors), larotrectinib and entrectinib (for tumors harboring neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) fusions), and the combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (for BRAF V600E-mutated tumors). The genomic alterations targeted by these antineoplastic agents are rare in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Furthermore, only a small number of mCRPC patients were enrolled in the clinical trials that led to the approval of the above-mentioned drugs. Therefore, we critically reviewed the literature on the efficacy of histology-agnostic drugs in mCRPC patients. Although the available evidence derives from retrospective studies and case reports, our results confirmed the efficacy of pembrolizumab in dMMR/MSI-H mCRPC. In contrast, few data are available for dostarlimab, larotrectinib, entrectinib, and dabrafenib-trametinib in this subset of patients. Large, multi-institutional registries aimed at collecting real-world data are needed to better comprehend the role of tissue-agnostic drugs in mCRPC patients.

The evolving landscape of prostate cancer somatic mutations

BACKGROUND

The landscape of somatic mutations in prostate cancer (PCa) has quickly evolved over the past years.

RESULTS

This evolution was in part due to the improved quality and lower cost of genomic sequencing platforms available to an ever-larger group of clinicians and researchers. The result of these efforts is a better understanding of early and late mutations that are enriched or nearly exclusive to treated PCa. There are, however, some important limitations to the current knowledge. The expanding variety of next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays either capture a wide spectrum of mutations but at low coverage or are focused panels that cover a select number of genes, most often cancer-related, at a deep coverage. Both of these approaches have their advantages, but ultimately miss low-frequency mutations or fail to cover the spectrum of potential mutations. Additionally, some alterations, such as the common ETS gene fusions, require a mixture of DNA and RNA analysis to capture the true frequency. Finally, almost all studies rely on bulk PCa tumor samples, which fail to consider tumor heterogeneity. Given all these caveats, the true picture of the somatic landscape of PCa continues to develop.

SUMMARY

In this review, the focus will be on how the landscape of mutations evolves during disease progression considering therapy. It will focus on a select group of early and late mutations and utilize SPOP mutations to illustrate recurrent alterations that may have clinical implications.

From Omics to Multi-Omics Approaches for In-Depth Analysis of the Molecular Mechanisms of Prostate Cancer

Cancer arises following alterations at different cellular levels, including genetic and epigenetic modifications, transcription and translation dysregulation, as well as metabolic variations. High-throughput omics technologies that allow one to identify and quantify processes involved in these changes are now available and have been instrumental in generating a wealth of steadily increasing data from patient tumors, liquid biopsies, and from tumor models. Extensive investigation and integration of these data have led to new biological insights into the origin and development of multiple cancer types and helped to unravel the molecular networks underlying this complex pathology. The comprehensive and quantitative analysis of a molecule class in a biological sample is named omics and large-scale omics studies addressing different prostate cancer stages have been performed in recent years. Prostate tumors represent the second leading cancer type and a prevalent cause of cancer death in men worldwide. It is a very heterogenous disease so that evaluating inter- and intra-tumor differences will be essential for a precise insight into disease development and plasticity, but also for the development of personalized therapies. There is ample evidence for the key role of the androgen receptor, a steroid hormone-activated transcription factor, in driving early and late stages of the disease, and this led to the development and approval of drugs addressing diverse targets along this pathway. Early genomic and transcriptomic studies have allowed one to determine the genes involved in prostate cancer and regulated by androgen signaling or other tumor-relevant signaling pathways. More recently, they have been supplemented by epigenomic, cistromic, proteomic and metabolomic analyses, thus, increasing our knowledge on the intricate mechanisms involved, the various levels of regulation and their interplay. The comprehensive investigation of these omics approaches and their integration into multi-omics analyses have led to a much deeper understanding of the molecular pathways involved in prostate cancer progression, and in response and resistance to therapies. This brings the hope that novel vulnerabilities will be identified, that existing therapies will be more beneficial by targeting the patient population likely to respond best, and that bespoke treatments with increased efficacy will be available soon.