Mismatch repair deficiency may be common in ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate

A new histone deacetylase inhibitor remodels the tumor microenvironment by deletion of polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells and sensitizes prostate cancer to immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common malignancy diagnosed in men. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) alone showed disappointing results in PCa. It is partly due to the formation of immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) could not be reversed effectively by ICB alone.

METHODS

We used PCa cell lines to evaluate the combined effects of CN133 and anti-PD-1 in the subcutaneous and osseous PCa mice models, as well as the underlying mechanisms.

RESULTS

We found that CN133 could reduce the infiltration of polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells (PMN-MDSCs), and CN133 combination with anti-PD-1 could augment antitumor effects in the subcutaneous PCa of allograft models. However, anti-PD-1 combination with CN133 failed to elicit an anti-tumor response to the bone metastatic PCa mice. Mechanistically, CN133 could inhibit the infiltration of PMN-MDSCs in the TME of soft tissues by downregulation gene expression of PMN-MDSC recruitment but not change the gene expression involved in PMN-MDSC activation in the CN133 and anti-PD-1 co-treatment group relative to the anti-PD-1 alone in the bone metastatic mice model.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, our work firstly demonstrated that combination of CN133 with anti-PD-1 therapy may increase the therapeutic efficacy to PCa by reactivation of the positive immune microenvironment in the TME of soft tissue PCa.

Clinicopathological and molecular analysis of microsatellite instability in prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study in China

Background

Microsatellite instability (MSI), or mismatch repair-deficiency (dMMR), is rare in prostate cancers (PCas). The histological and molecular features of PCas with MSI/dMMR are incompletely described. Thus, we sought to identify the characteristics of PCas with MSI/dMMR.

Methods and results

We analyzed 1,141 primary treatment-naive PCas by MMR-related protein immunohistochemistry (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6). We identified eight cases exhibiting MSI/dMMR (0.7%, 8/1141). Of these, six tumors had both MSH2 and MSH6 protein loss, one had both MLH1 and PMS2 protein loss, and one had only MSH6 loss. Histologically, MSI/dMMR-PCas frequently demonstrated high histological grade (Grade Group 4 or 5), ductal/intraductal histology (6/8 cases), pleomorphic giant-cell features (4/8 cases), and conspicuous tumor lymphocytic infiltration (8/8 cases). Polymerase chain reaction-based analysis of seven MSI/dMMR tumors revealed two MSI-H tumors with loss of both MSH2 and MSH6 proteins. Subsequently, the seven cases underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis with a highly validated targeted panel; four were MSI. All cases had a high tumor mutation burden (median: 45.3 mutations/Mb). Overall, the MSI/dMMR-PCas showed a high frequency of DNA damage-repair pathway gene changes, including five with pathogenic somatic or germline MMR gene mutations. Activating mutations in the MAPK pathway, PI3K pathway, and WNT/β-catenin pathway were common. TMPRSS2::ERG rearrangement was identified in one case (1/7, 14.3%).

Conclusions

Several pathological features are associated with MSI/dMMR in PCas. Identification of these features may help to select patients for genetic screening. As MSI/dMMR-PCas are enriched for actionable mutations, patients should be offered NGS to guide standard-of-care treatment.

DNA repair deficiency as circulating biomarker in prostate cancer

Deleterious aberrations in DNA repair genes are actionable in approximately 25% of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPC) patients. Homology recombination repair (HRR) is the DNA damage repair (DDR) mechanism most frequently altered in prostate cancer; of note BRCA2 is the most frequently altered DDR gene in this tumor. Poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors showed antitumor activity with a improvement in overall survival in mCRPC carrying somatic and/or germline alterations of HHR. Germline mutations are tested on peripheral blood samples using DNA extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes, while the somatic alterations are assessed by extracting DNA from a tumor tissue sample. However, each of these genetic tests have some limitations: the somatic tests are related to the sample availability and tumor heterogeneity, while the germline testing are mainly related to the inability to detect somatic HRR mutations. Therefore, the liquid biopsy, a non-invasive and easily repeatable test compared to tissue test, could identified somatic mutation detected on the circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) extracted from a plasma. This approach should better represent the heterogeneity of the tumor compared to the primary biopsy and maybe helpful in monitoring the onset of potential mutations involved in treatment resistance. Furthermore, ctDNA may inform about timing and potential cooperation of multiple driver genes aberration guiding the treatment options in patients with mCRPC. However, the clinical use of ctDNA test in prostate cancer compared to blood and tissue testing are currently very limited. In this review, we summarize the current therapeutic indications in prostate cancer patients with DDR deficiency, the recommendation for germline and somatic-genomic testing in advanced PC and the advantages of the use liquid biopsy in clinical routine for mCRPC.

The Somatic Mutational Landscape of Mismatch Repair Deficient Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancers with mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-d) have aggressive clinical and histological features, and they are potentially responsive to immunotherapy. However, its rarity prevents the analysis of the underlying biology. Here, we collected the genomic data of 2664 primary prostate tumors and 1409 metastatic prostate tumors from the GENIE and TCGA databases. A total of 69 (2.59%) primary and 60 (4.26%) metastatic MMR-d tumors were identified among these tumors. Single nucleotide variant (SNV) frequencies of 34 candidate genes (including KMT2D (46.4%), ZFHX3 (33.3%), JAK1 (31.9%), and RNF43 (27.5%)) and 16 candidate genes (including KMT2D (33.3%) and JAK1 (28.3%)) were higher in MMR-d primary tumors and MMR-d metastatic tumors, respectively. The tumor mutation burden (TMB) was higher in primary MMR-d tumors. Homozygous deletions of EPCAM and EPAS1 were enriched in MMR-d primary tumors, while EPCAM deletions were enriched in metastatic MMR-d tumors. For genomic rearrangement events, TMPRSS2-ETS fusions were less frequent in primary MMR-d tumors. Our study indicates MMR-d prostate cancers have unique genomic features. These may play an important role in providing therapeutic targets for the treatment of this subset of prostate cancer patients.

Progression in immunotherapy for advanced prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignant cancers of the male genitourinary system and has high morbidity and mortality. Currently, treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer focus mainly on radical prostatectomy or radical radiation therapy. Some patients still experience disease recurrence or progression after these treatments, while others are already at an advanced stage or have metastases at the time of diagnosis. With the continuous development and progress of medicine in recent years, immunotherapy has become a revolutionary cancer treatment, and has achieved remarkable accomplishments in the treatment of hematologic malignancies. A variety of immunotherapies have also appeared in the field of advanced prostate cancer treatment, including therapeutic vaccines and immune checkpoint therapies. Despite the discrepancy between the results of some immunotherapy studies, immunotherapy for prostate cancer has shown some initial success, especially in combination immunotherapies. Currently, immunotherapy is mainly used in advanced prostate cancer, especially in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. However, with the development of more clinical trials of immunotherapy, more evidence will be provided supporting the rational application of immunotherapy in the future.

Prognostic Role of DNA Damage Response Genes Mutations and their Association With the Sensitivity of Olaparib in Prostate Cancer Patients

Objective

Evidence shows that gene mutation is a significant proportion of genetic factors associated with prostate cancer. The DNA damage response (DDR) is a signal cascade network that aims to maintain genomic integrity in cells. This comprehensive study was performed to determine the link between different DNA damage response gene mutations and prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Papers published up to February 1, 2022 were retrieved. The DDR gene mutations associated with prostate cancer were identified by referring to relevant research and review articles. Data of prostate cancer patients from multiple PCa cohorts were obtained from cBioPortal. The OR or HR and 95% CIs were calculated using both fixed-effects models (FEMs) and random-effects models (REMs).

Results

Seventy-four studies were included in this research, and the frequency of 13 DDR genes was examined. Through the analysis of 33 articles that focused on the risk estimates of DDR genes between normal people and PCa patients, DDR genes were found to be more common in prostate cancer patients (OR = 3.6293 95% CI [2.4992; 5.2705]). Also, patients in the mutated group had a worse OS and DFS outcome than those in the unmutated group (P < .05). Of the 13 DDR genes, the frequency of 9 DDR genes in prostate cancer was less than 1%, and despite differences in race, BRCA2 was the potential gene with the highest frequency (REM Frequency = .0400, 95% CI .0324 - .0541). The findings suggest that mutations in genes such as ATR, BLM, and MLH1 in PCa patients may increase the sensitivity of Olaparib, a PARP inhibitor.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that mutation in any DDR pathway results in a poor prognosis for PCa patients. Furthermore, mutations in ATR, BLM, and MLH1 or the expression of POLR2L, PMS1, FANCE, and other genes significantly influence Olaparib sensitivity, which may be underlying therapeutic targets in the future.

WHO Classification of Tumours fifth edition: evolving issues in the classification, diagnosis, and prognostication of prostate cancer

The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary and Male Genital Systems encompasses several updates to the classification and diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma as well as incorporating advancements in the assessment of its prognosis, including recent grading modifications. Some of the salient aspects include: (1) recognition that prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like carcinoma is not synonymous with a pattern of ductal carcinoma, but better classified as a subtype of acinar adenocarcinoma; (2) a specific section on treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma in view of the tight correlation between androgen deprivation therapy and the development of prostatic carcinoma with neuroendocrine morphology, and the emerging data on lineage plasticity; (3) a terminology change of basal cell carcinoma to "adenoid cystic (basal cell) cell carcinoma" given the presence of an underlying MYB::NFIB gene fusion in many cases; (4) discussion of the current issues in the grading of acinar adenocarcinoma and the prognostic significance of cribriform growth patterns; and (5) more detailed coverage of intraductal carcinoma of prostate (IDC-P) reflecting our increased knowledge of this entity, while recommending the descriptive term atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP) for lesions falling short of IDC-P but containing more atypia than typically seen in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN). Lesions previously regarded as cribriform patterns of HGPIN are now included in the AIP category. This review discusses these developments, summarising the existing literature, as well as the emerging morphological and molecular data that underpins the classification and prognostication of prostatic carcinoma.

Histological patterns, subtypes and aspects of prostate cancer: different aspects, different outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The most common prostatic cancers (PCa) are acinary adenocarcinomas. Histological subtypes have been variably defined. The purpose of this review is to discuss unusual histological patterns and subtypes of acinar adenocarcinoma, as well as other types of PCa and their prognostic and therapeutic relevance.

RECENT FINDINGS

The new term 'subtype' for morphologically defined tumor entities replaced the term 'variant' in the new 2022 classification of the WHO to allow for clear terminological distinction from genetic variants. The 2022 WHO classification mentions prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like carcinoma, signet-cell-like adenocarcinoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma and pleomorphic-giant-cell adenocarcinoma of the prostate as true subtypes of acinary PCa. Other forms of acinary PCa are termed unusual histological patterns and include atrophic, foamy-cell, microcystic, pseudohyperplastic and mucinous patterns. Nonacinar forms of prostate cancer include other glandular PCa, the ductal adenocarcinoma and the treatment-associated neuroendocrine carcinoma, and nonglandular PCa, the adenosquamous carcinoma, the squamous cell carcinoma and the adenoid cystic (basal cell) carcinoma of the prostate.

SUMMARY

True subtypes of acinary PCa and other forms of glandular and nonglandular PCa show relevant differences in prognosis and treatment approach compared with classic acinary PCa. The relevance of unusual histological patterns mainly lies in their deceptive benign appearance and the need for pathologists to know about these entities for accurate and timely diagnosis.

Mismatch repair deficiency and clinical implications in prostate cancer

Despite recent therapeutic advances, castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) remains a lethal disease and novel therapies are needed. Precision oncology provides an avenue for developing effective tailored approaches for treating malignancies based on a tumor's molecular profile. Indeed, the presence of mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) has proven to be an important predictive biomarker for response to immune checkpoint blockade across multiple tumor types, including prostate cancer, and represents a major precision oncology success story. The mismatch repair (MMR) system is integral to maintaining genomic fidelity during cellular replication. Cancers with deficiencies in this system accumulate high numbers of mutations and express many neoantigens that may be recognized by the immune system. The checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab has recently been approved for all cancers that are MMR deficient, and several retrospective series have specifically shown that pembrolizumab is effective in MMRd prostate cancer. Although the prevalence of MMRd in CRPC is low (approximately 3%-5% of cases), this is an important subset of men that require a unique therapeutic approach. This review will focus on MMRd in prostate cancer, highlighting the clinical implications, role of immunotherapy, and areas of future research.

An Evaluation of the Immunohistochemical Expression of Mismatch Repair Proteins (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2) in Prostate Adenocarcinoma

Background and objective

Mismatch repair (MMR) proteins are an integral part of the cell cycle, and they play an important role in the genomic stability of the microsatellite complex. Microsatellite instability (MSI) is associated with Lynch and multi-tumor syndromes. Identifying patients with Lynch syndrome is essential for screening, early detection, and surveillance of other Lynch syndrome-associated tumors. The role of MMR deficiency is well known in colorectal and endometrial adenocarcinoma. However, the role of MMR deficiency in prostatic adenocarcinoma is a matter of controversy. A few studies have been published to analyze the association between MMR deficiency and prostatic adenocarcinoma. In this study, we used immunohistochemistry to look into the expression of four MMR proteins in prostatic adenocarcinoma: MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2.

Methodology

This was a cross-sectional descriptive study involving 74 cases of acinar prostatic adenocarcinoma, diagnosed with hematoxylin & eosin (H&E), over a period of six months between December 2021 and May 2022 at the Chughtai Institute of Pathology in Lahore, Pakistan. We performed the immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis and interpretation of four antibodies, i.e., MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2.

Results

In our study, the age of the patients ranged from 50 to 98 years, with a mean age of 67.99 ± 9.59 years. The specimens were collected through transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TVP), core biopsy, and radical prostatectomy. Isolated loss of each MSH2 and PMS2 was noted in nine cases (12.20%) and MSH6 in two cases (2.70%). There was no loss noted for MLH1. Furthermore, simultaneous loss of MSH2/MSH6 was observed in one case (1.35%).

Conclusion

Our study findings revealed a low frequency of IHC expression of MMR proteins, especially the concurrent loss of paired MMR proteins. However, prostatic adenocarcinoma is associated with the isolated loss of MMR proteins. Thus, the present study does not warrant reflex testing/screening in every case of prostatic adenocarcinoma, because of its low frequency, which is probably suggestive of its sporadic pattern.

Histopathologic and Genetic Features of Mismatch Repair-Deficient High-Grade Prostate Cancer

AIMS

Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency is commonly caused by functional inactivation of MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 or MSH6. The morphologic and molecular correlates of MMR deficiency have been extensively characterized in certain tumor types such as colorectal and endometrial adenocarcinoma. In contrast, the histologic and molecular features of MMR-deficient prostate cancer remain incompletely described. In this study, we evaluated 19 MMR-deficient prostate cancers, including 11 cases without prior systemic treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All treatment-naïve cases (11/11, 100%) were Grade Group 4-5 and had predominant cribriform and/or solid growth patterns. Solid components (any amount) and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes were seen in 7/11 (64%) of these cases each. In 68 MMR-proficient Grade Group 5 prostate cancers, predominant cribriform or solid growth patterns, solid components (any amount) and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes were seen at significantly lower frequencies (31/68, 46%; 9/68, 13% and 6/62, 9%, respectively; p<0.001 for all comparisons). Molecular evaluation of 19 cases demonstrated that MMR-deficiency was secondary to functional loss of MSH2/MSH6 and MLH1/PMS2 in 15 cases (79%) and 4 cases (21%), respectively. Definite or likely germline mutations were present in 4 cases (4/19, 21%). TMPRSS2::ERG rearrangements were identified in 2 cases (2/19, 11%). Recurrent cancer-relevant somatic mutations included (but were not limited to) ATM, TP53, FOXA1, RB1, BRCA2 and PTEN.

CONCLUSIONS

MMR deficiency was most commonly secondary to inactivation of MSH2/MSH6 in this study. Importantly, MMR-deficient high-grade prostatic adenocarcinomas had morphologic features that might be useful to identify selected cases for MMR IHC.

Ductal and acinar components of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma frequently have a common clonal origin

BACKGROUND

Ductal adenocarcinoma (DA) is an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer. It is most commonly seen in mixed tumors together with conventional acinar adenocarcinoma (AA). The genetic profile of DA and its clonal origin is not fully characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether DA represents a distinct genetic subtype and to investigate the somatic relationship between the ductal and acinar components of mixed cancers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In 17 radical prostatectomy specimens ductal and acinar tumor components from the same tumor foci were dissected. DNA was extracted and genomic sequencing performed. After exclusion of two cases with low cell yield, 15 paired samples remained for analysis.

RESULTS

In 12 of 15 cases a common somatic denominator was identified, while three cases had clonally separate components. In DA, TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions were detected in 47% (7/15), clonal FOXA1 alterations in 33% (5/15) and SPOP alterations in 27% (4/15) of cases. In one case KIAA1549-BRAF fusion was identified. Genome doubling events, resulting in an increased ploidy, were identified in the DA in 53% (8/15) of cases, but not seen in any AA. PTEN and CTNNB1 alterations were enriched in DA (6/15) but not seen in any AA. No cancers showed microsatellite instability or high tumor mutation burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Ductal and acinar prostate adenocarcinoma components of mixed tumors most often share the same origin and are clonally related. DA components in mixed tumor often exhibit genome doubling events resulting in aneuploidy, consistent with the aggressive nature of high grade prostate cancer.

A non-coding RNA balancing act: miR-346-induced DNA damage is limited by the long non-coding RNA NORAD in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

miR-346 was identified as an activator of Androgen Receptor (AR) signalling that associates with DNA damage response (DDR)-linked transcripts in prostate cancer (PC). We sought to delineate the impact of miR-346 on DNA damage, and its potential as a therapeutic agent.

METHODS

RNA-IP, RNA-seq, RNA-ISH, DNA fibre assays, in vivo xenograft studies and bioinformatics approaches were used alongside a novel method for amplification-free, single nucleotide-resolution genome-wide mapping of DNA breaks (INDUCE-seq).

RESULTS

miR-346 induces rapid and extensive DNA damage in PC cells - the first report of microRNA-induced DNA damage. Mechanistically, this is achieved through transcriptional hyperactivation, R-loop formation and replication stress, leading to checkpoint activation and cell cycle arrest. miR-346 also interacts with genome-protective lncRNA NORAD to disrupt its interaction with PUM2, leading to PUM2 stabilisation and its increased turnover of DNA damage response (DDR) transcripts. Confirming clinical relevance, NORAD expression and activity strongly correlate with poor PC clinical outcomes and increased DDR in biopsy RNA-seq studies. In contrast, miR-346 is associated with improved PC survival. INDUCE-seq reveals that miR-346-induced DSBs occur preferentially at binding sites of the most highly-transcriptionally active transcription factors in PC cells, including c-Myc, FOXA1, HOXB13, NKX3.1, and importantly, AR, resulting in target transcript downregulation. Further, RNA-seq reveals widespread miR-346 and shNORAD dysregulation of DNA damage, replication and cell cycle processes. NORAD drives target-directed miR decay (TDMD) of miR-346 as a novel genome protection mechanism: NORAD silencing increases mature miR-346 levels by several thousand-fold, and WT but not TDMD-mutant NORAD rescues miR-346-induced DNA damage. Importantly, miR-346 sensitises PC cells to DNA-damaging drugs including PARP inhibitor and chemotherapy, and induces tumour regression as a monotherapy in vivo, indicating that targeting miR-346:NORAD balance is a valid therapeutic strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

A balancing act between miR-346 and NORAD regulates DNA damage and repair in PC. miR-346 may be particularly effective as a therapeutic in the context of decreased NORAD observed in advanced PC, and in transcriptionally-hyperactive cancer cells.

Prostate Pathology: What is New in the 2022 WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors?

In 2022, after a six-year interval, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has published the 5th edition of the WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, which provides a comprehensive update on tumor classification of the genitourinary system. This review article focuses on prostate carcinoma and underscores changes in the prostate chapter as well as those made across the entire series of the 5th edition of WHO Blue Books. Although no major alterations were made to this chapter, some of the most notable updates include restructure of contents and introduction of a new format; standardization of mitotic counts, genomic nomenclatures, and units of length; refined definition for the terms "variant", "subtype", and "histologic pattern"; reclassification of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like adenocarcinoma as a subtype of prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma; and recognition of treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma as a distinct tumor type. Evolving and unsettled issues related to grading of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate and reporting of tertiary Gleason pattern, the definition and prognostic significance of cribriform growth pattern, and molecular pathology of prostate cancer will also be covered in this review.

What Do We Have to Know about PD-L1 Expression in Prostate Cancer? A Systematic Literature Review (Part 6): Correlation of PD-L1 Expression with the Status of Mismatch Repair System, BRCA, PTEN, and Other Genes

Pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) is allowed in selected metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PC) patients showing microsatellite instability/mismatch repair system deficiency (MSI-H/dMMR). BRCA1/2 loss-of-function is linked to hereditary PCs and homologous recombination DNA-repair system deficiency: poly-ADP-ribose-polymerase inhibitors can be administered to BRCA-mutated PC patients. Recently, docetaxel-refractory metastatic castration-resistant PC patients with BRCA1/2 or ATM somatic mutations had higher response rates to pembrolizumab. PTEN regulates cell cycle/proliferation/apoptosis through pathways including the AKT/mTOR, which upregulates PD-L1 expression in PC. Our systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines) investigated the potential correlations between PD-L1 and MMR/MSI/BRCA/PTEN statuses in PC, discussing few other relevant genes. Excluding selection biases, 74/677 (11%) PCs showed dMMR/MSI; 8/67 (12%) of dMMR/MSI cases were PD-L1+. dMMR-PCs included ductal (3%) and acinar (14%) PCs (all cases tested for MSI were acinar-PCs). In total, 15/39 (39%) PCs harbored BRCA1/2 aberrations: limited data are available for PD-L1 expression in these patients. 13/137 (10%) PTEN- PCs were PD-L1+; 10/29 (35%) PD-L1+ PCs showed PTEN negativity. SPOP mutations may increase PD-L1 levels, while the potential correlation between PD-L1 and ERG expression in PC should be clarified. Further research should verify how the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors in metastatic castration-resistant PCs is related to dMMR/MSI, DNA-damage repair genes defects, or PD-L1 expression.

An Insight on Novel Molecular Pathways in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Focus on DDR, MSI and AKT

Prostate cancer is still one of the main causes of cancer-related death in the male population, regardless of the advancements in the treatment scenario. The genetic knowledge on prostate cancer is widely increasing, allowing researchers to identify novel promising molecular targets and treatment approaches. Genomic profiling has evidenced that DNA damage repair genes’ alterations are quite frequent in metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer and specific therapies can interfere with this pathway, showing promising activity in this setting. Microsatellite instability is gaining attention as it seems to represent a predictive factor of the response to immunotherapy. Furthermore, the PTEN-PI3K-AKT pathway is another possible treatment target being investigated. In this review, we explore the current knowledge on these frequent genomic alterations of metastatic prostate cancer, their possible therapeutic repercussions and the promising future treatments under evaluation.

Racial disparity in prostate cancer in the African American population with actionable ideas and novel immunotherapies

BACKGROUND

African Americans (AAs) in the United States are known to have a higher incidence and mortality for Prostate Cancer (PCa). The drivers of this epidemiological disparity are multifactorial, including socioeconomic factors leading to lifestyle and dietary issues, healthcare access problems, and potentially tumor biology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although recent evidence suggests once access is equal, AA men have equal outcomes to Caucasian American (CA) men, differences in PCa incidence remain, and there is much to do to reverse disparities in mortality across the USA. A deeper understanding of these issues, both at the clinical and molecular level, can facilitate improved outcomes in the AA population. This review first discusses PCa oncogenesis in the context of its diverse hallmarks before benchmarking key molecular and genomic differences for PCa in AA men that have emerged in the recent literature. Studies have emphasized the importance of tumor microenvironment that contributes to both the unequal cancer burden and differences in clinical outcome between the races. Management of comorbidities like obesity, hypertension, and diabetes will provide an essential means of reducing prostate cancer incidence in AA men. Although requiring further AA specific research, several new treatment strategies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors used in combination PARP inhibitors and other emerging vaccines, including Sipuleucel-T, have demonstrated some proven efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Genomic profiling to integrate clinical and genomic data for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment will allow physicians to plan a "Precision Medicine" approach to AA men. There is a pressing need for further research for risk stratification, which may allow early identification of AA men with higher risk disease based on their unique clinical, genomic, and immunological profiles, which can then be mapped to appropriate clinical trials. Treatment options are outlined, with a concise description of recent work in AA specific populations, detailing several targeted therapies, including immunotherapy. Also, a summary of current clinical trials involving AA men is presented, and it is important that policies are adopted to ensure that AA men are actively recruited. Although it is encouraging that many of these explore the lifestyle and educational initiatives and therapeutic interventions, there is much still work to be done to reduce incidence and mortality in AA men and equalize current racial disparities.

Knowing what's growing: Why ductal and intraductal prostate cancer matter

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy, but only some tumors are lethal. Accurately identifying these tumors will improve clinical practice and instruct research. Aggressive cancers often have distinctive pathologies, including intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) and ductal adenocarcinoma. Here, we review the importance of these pathologies because they are often overlooked, especially in genomics and preclinical testing. Pathology, genomics, and patient-derived models show that IDC-P and ductal adenocarcinoma accompany multiple markers of poor prognosis. Consequently, "knowing what is growing" will help translate preclinical research to pinpoint and treat high-risk prostate cancer in the clinic.

Beyond the Androgen Receptor: The Sequence, the Mutants, and New Avengers in the Treatment of Castrate-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Targeting the androgen receptor by depriving testosterone with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists or antagonists, or surgical castration, has been the backbone of metastatic prostate cancer treatment. Although most prostate cancers initially respond to androgen deprivation, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer evolves into a heterogeneous disease with diverse drivers of progression and mechanisms of therapeutic resistance. Development of castrate resistance phenotype is associated with lethality despite the recent noteworthy strides gained via increase in therapeutic options. Identification of novel therapeutics to further improve survival and achieve durable responses in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a clinical necessity. In this review, we outline the existing avengers for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer by clinical presentation, placing into context the clinical state of the patient, such as burden of disease and symptoms. Doing so might aid in the ability to optimize the sequence of agents and allow for maximal exposure to life-prolonging therapeutics. Realizing the limitations of the androgen signaling inhibition, we explore the androgen-indifferent prostate cancer: the mutants. Classically, these subtypes have been associated with variant histology, but androgen-indifferent prostate cancer features are now frequently observed in association with heterogeneous morphologies, including double-negative prostate cancers, lacking both androgen receptor and neuroendocrine features, or clinicopathologic criteria, such as the aggressive variant prostate cancer criteria. The framework of new avengers against metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer based on mechanism, including DNA repair, immune checkpoint inhibition, PTEN/PI3K/AKT pathway, prostate-specific membrane antigen targets, bispecific T-cell engagers, and radionuclide therapies, is summarized in this review.

The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) White Paper on Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT.—

Controversies and uncertainty persist in prostate cancer grading.

OBJECTIVE.—

To update grading recommendations.

DATA SOURCES.—

Critical review of the literature along with pathology and clinician surveys.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Percent Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) is as follows: (1) report %GP4 in needle biopsy with Grade Groups (GrGp) 2 and 3, and in needle biopsy on other parts (jars) of lower grade in cases with at least 1 part showing Gleason score (GS) 4 + 4 = 8; and (2) report %GP4: less than 5% or less than 10% and 10% increments thereafter. Tertiary grade patterns are as follows: (1) replace "tertiary grade pattern" in radical prostatectomy (RP) with "minor tertiary pattern 5 (TP5)," and only use in RP with GrGp 2 or 3 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 5; and (2) minor TP5 is noted along with the GS, with the GrGp based on the GS. Global score and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies are as follows: (1) when multiple undesignated cores are taken from a single MRI-targeted lesion, an overall grade for that lesion is given as if all the involved cores were one long core; and (2) if providing a global score, when different scores are found in the standard and the MRI-targeted biopsy, give a single global score (factoring both the systematic standard and the MRI-targeted positive cores). Grade Groups are as follows: (1) Grade Groups (GrGp) is the terminology adopted by major world organizations; and (2) retain GS 3 + 5 = 8 in GrGp 4. Cribriform carcinoma is as follows: (1) report the presence or absence of cribriform glands in biopsy and RP with Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma. Intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P) is as follows: (1) report IDC-P in biopsy and RP; (2) use criteria based on dense cribriform glands (>50% of the gland is composed of epithelium relative to luminal spaces) and/or solid nests and/or marked pleomorphism/necrosis; (3) it is not necessary to perform basal cell immunostains on biopsy and RP to identify IDC-P if the results would not change the overall (highest) GS/GrGp part per case; (4) do not include IDC-P in determining the final GS/GrGp on biopsy and/or RP; and (5) "atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP)" is preferred for an intraductal proliferation of prostatic secretory cells which shows a greater degree of architectural complexity and/or cytological atypia than typical high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, yet falling short of the strict diagnostic threshold for IDC-P. Molecular testing is as follows: (1) Ki67 is not ready for routine clinical use; (2) additional studies of active surveillance cohorts are needed to establish the utility of PTEN in this setting; and (3) dedicated studies of RNA-based assays in active surveillance populations are needed to substantiate the utility of these expensive tests in this setting. Artificial intelligence and novel grading schema are as follows: (1) incorporating reactive stromal grade, percent GP4, minor tertiary GP5, and cribriform/intraductal carcinoma are not ready for adoption in current practice.

Refining Immuno-Oncology Approaches in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Transcending Current Limitations

OPINION STATEMENT

Due to its immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, prostate cancer has historically been difficult to treat with immuno-oncology approaches. Other than pembrolizumab, which is now regulatory-approved for all microsatellite instability (MSI)-high and tumor mutational burden (TMB)-high advanced solid tumors, sipuleucel-T is the only immunotherapeutic agent approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prostate cancer. However, sipuleucel-T efficacy is optimal for select patients with indolent metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Although manipulation of immune regulation by blocking immune checkpoints has led to substantial benefit in many cancers, experience with single-agent CTLA-4 and PD-1 or PD-L1 antibodies has shown limited effect for the majority of patients with prostate cancer, especially when administered as monotherapy. Combination therapies are now being attempted, in addition to enrichment strategies employing patient clinicopathologic and biologic characteristics that may heighten responses to immuno-oncology treatment, such as PD-L1 expression, TMB, MSI status, and alterations in CDK12. More work is needed to overcome the immune-exclusive barriers in prostate cancer, such as relatively low TMB, increased activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and regulatory T cells, and defects in major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I expression and interferon (IFN)-1 signaling. A promising approach and the likely next step in immuno-oncology for prostate cancer involves forced direction to markers expressed by prostate cancer tumor cells, such as prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), that bypass the typical requirements for MHC class I interaction. The future will incorporate bispecific antibodies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells, potentially targeted towards phenotypic markers identified by next-generation PET imaging as part of the next wave of "precision medicine" in prostate cancer. Ultimately, we believe that the immune-exclusive prostate cancer tumor microenvironment can be overcome, and that patient outcomes can be enhanced through these more refined immuno-oncology approaches.

Meeting report from the Prostate Cancer Foundation PSMA theranostics state of the science meeting

INTRODUCTION

The Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) convened a PCF prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) Theranostics State of the Science Meeting on 18 November 2019, at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.

METHODS

The meeting was attended by 22 basic, translational, and clinical researchers from around the globe, with expertise in PSMA biology, development and use of PSMA theranostics agents, and clinical trials. The goal of this meeting was to discuss the current state of knowledge, the most important biological and clinical questions, and critical next steps for the clinical development of PSMA positron emission tomography (PET) imaging agents and PSMA-targeted radionuclide agents for patients with prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Several major topic areas were discussed including the biology of PSMA, the role of PSMA-targeted PET imaging in prostate cancer, the physics and performance of different PSMA-targeted PET imaging agents, the current state of clinical development of PSMA-targeted radionuclide therapy (RNT) agents, the role of dosimetry in PSMA RNT treatment planning, barriers and challenges in PSMA RNT clinical development, optimization of patient selection for PSMA RNT trials, and promising combination treatment approaches with PSMA RNT.

DISCUSSION

This article summarizes the presentations from the meeting for the purpose of globally disseminating this knowledge to advance the use of PSMA-targeted theranostic agents for imaging and treatment of patients with prostate cancer.

Report From the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers. I. Molecular Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer

The combined clinical and molecular heterogeneity of prostate cancer necessitates the use of prognostic, predictive, and diagnostic biomarkers to assist the clinician with treatment selection. The pathologist plays a critical role in guiding molecular biomarker testing in prostate cancer and requires a thorough knowledge of the current testing options. In the setting of clinically localized prostate cancer, prognostic biomarkers such as Ki-67 labeling, PTEN loss or mRNA-based genomic signatures can be useful to help determine whether definitive therapy is required. In the setting of advanced disease, predictive biomarkers, such as the presence of DNA repair deficiency mediated by BRCA2 loss or mismatch repair gene defects, may suggest the utility of poly-ADP ribosylase inhibition or immune checkpoint blockade. Finally, androgen receptor-related biomarkers or diagnostic biomarkers indicating the presence of small cell neuroendocrine prostate cancer may help guide the use of androgen receptor signaling inhibitors and chemotherapy. In this review, we examine the current evidence for several prognostic, predictive and diagnostic tissue-based molecular biomarkers in prostate cancer management. For each assay, we summarize a recent survey of the International Society of Urology Pathology (ISUP) members on current testing practices and include recommendations for testing that emerged from the ISUP Working Group on Molecular Pathology of Prostate Cancer and the 2019 Consultation Conference on Molecular Pathology of Urogenital Cancers.

PIN-like ductal carcinoma of the prostate has frequent activating RAS/RAF mutations

AIMS

Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia-like (PIN-like) ductal carcinoma is a rare tumour characterised by often cystically dilated glands architecturally resembling high-grade PIN, but lacking basal cells. These tumours are frequently accompanied by grade group 1 acinar cancer and behave relatively indolently. In contrast, conventional ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate is an aggressive variant comparable to grade group 4 acinar cancer. Here, we used targeted next-generation sequencing to molecularly profile PIN-like ductal carcinoma cases at radical prostatectomy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Five PIN-like ductal carcinoma samples at radical prostatectomy with sufficient tumour tissue available were analysed for genomic alterations by targeted next-generation sequencing using the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) solid tumour panel. DNA was captured using SureSelect for 640 genes and sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq platform. Three of five (60%) of the PIN-like ductal carcinomas showed activating mutations in the RAS/RAF pathways, which are extraordinarily rare in conventional primary prostate carcinoma (<3% of cases), including an activating hot-spot BRAF mutation (p.K601E), an activating hot-spot mutation in HRAS (p.Q61K) and an in-frame activating deletion in BRAF (p.T488_Q493delinsK). An additional two cases lacked BRAF or HRAS mutations, but harboured in-frame insertions of uncertain significance in MAP2K4 and MAP3K6. One case had sufficient acinar tumour for sequencing, and showed a similar molecular profile as the concurrent PIN-like ductal carcinoma, suggesting a clonal relationship between the two components.

CONCLUSIONS

PIN-like ductal carcinoma represents a molecularly unique tumour, enriched for potentially targetable oncogenic driver mutations in the RAS/RAF/MAPK pathway. This molecular profile contrasts with that of conventional ductal adenocarcinoma, which is typically enriched for pathogenic mutations in the mismatch repair (MMR) and homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair pathways.

Is There a Role for Immunotherapy in Prostate Cancer?

In the last decade, immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape of several hematological and solid malignancies, reporting unprecedented response rates. Unfortunately, this is not the case for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), as several phase I and II trials assessing programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors have shown limited benefits. Moreover, despite sipuleucel-T representing the only cancer vaccine approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for mCRPC following the results of the IMPACT trial, the use of this agent is relatively limited in everyday clinical practice. The identification of specific histological and molecular biomarkers that could predict response to immunotherapy represents one of the current challenges, with an aim to detect subgroups of mCRPC patients who may benefit from immune checkpoint monoclonal antibodies as monotherapy or in combination with other anticancer agents. Several unanswered questions remain, including the following: is there-or will there ever be-a role for immunotherapy in prostate cancer? In this review, we aim at underlining the failures and promises of immunotherapy in prostate cancer, summarizing the current state of art regarding cancer vaccines and immune checkpoint monoclonal antibodies, and discussing future research directions in this immunologically "cold" malignancy.

Dramatic response to combination pembrolizumab and radiation in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 and PD-L1 have demonstrated anti-tumor activity in several advanced solid malignancies. In previously treated metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), a small subset of patients have a therapeutic response to checkpoint inhibition. Those who do respond to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy have a marked, durable response to treatment, suggesting some derive long-term benefit from immune checkpoint blockade. In other cancers, one strategy to increase the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade is to combine it with a pro-immune stimulatory agent, such as radiation. Here we present a case of a patient with heavily treated mCRPC who had a significant tumor response to concurrent pembrolizumab and radiation therapy to the primary prostatic mass. We review the growing evidence supporting the use of this combination therapy in other cancers and its potential benefit and safety in mCRPC. Our report highlights a potential therapeutic approach that should be further investigated in previously treated mCRPC.

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Loss of DNA mismatch repair proteins in prostate cancer

Recent studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer in men with Lynch syndrome driven by germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes. However, the incidence and clinical implication of MMR deficiency in sporadic prostate cancers remain poorly understood. We immunohistochemically stained for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 in a set of tissue microarray consisting of 220 radical prostatectomy specimens and evaluated the relationship between loss of their expression and available clinicopathological features. MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 were lost in 2 (0.9%), 6 (2.7%), 37 (16.8%), and 27 (12.3%) prostate cancers, respectively. Loss of at least 1 MMR protein was identified in 50 (22.7%) cases. There were no statistically significant associations between MMR deficiency and patient age, family history of prostate cancer, Gleason score, or pT/pN stage. Nonetheless, the levels of preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were significantly (P = .015) higher in patients with MMR deficiency (mean ± SD: 9.12 ± 9.01 ng/mL) than in those without abnormal MMR (5.76 ± 3.17 ng/mL). There were 15 (6.8%) cases showing loss of at least 2 MMR proteins, which was not significantly associated with PSA level or tumor grade/stage. Additionally, 5 and 2 cases showed losses of at least 3 MMR proteins and all 4 proteins, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant associations between loss of MLH1 (P = .373), MSH2 (P = .348), MSH6 (P = .946), or PMS2 (P = .681), or at least 1 (P = .477), 2 (P = .486), or 3 (P = .352) MMR proteins and biochemical recurrence. Further analyses of the data on programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression previously stained in the same set of tissue microarray demonstrated associations between loss of ≥2 MMR proteins and a higher rate of PD-L1 expression in cancer cells (17.2% vs 5.2%; P = .033) as well as between cases showing both loss of ≥1 MMR protein(s) and PD-L1 expression in tumor-infiltrating immune cells vs a higher risk of biochemical recurrence (P = .045). MMR protein loss was seen in a subset of prostate cancers. Interestingly, it was associated with significantly higher levels of PSA. Moreover, immunohistochemical detection of MMR proteins together with other proteins, such as PD-L1, might be helpful in predicting tumor recurrence following radical prostatectomy.

Therapeutic targeting of the DNA damage response in prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present article highlights the most common DNA repair gene mutations, using specific examples of individual genes or gene classes, and reviews the epidemiology and treatment implications for each one [with particular emphasis on poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibition and PD-1 blockade].

RECENT FINDINGS

Genetic and genomic testing have an increasingly important role in the oncology clinic. For patients with prostate cancer, germline genetic testing is now recommended for all men with high-risk and metastatic disease, and somatic multigene tumor testing is recommended for men with metastatic castration-resistant disease. The most common mutations that are present in men with advanced prostate cancer are in genes coordinating DNA repair and the DNA damage response.

SUMMARY

Although much of what is discussed currently remains investigational, it is clear that genomically-targeted treatments will become increasingly important for patients with prostate cancer in the near future and beyond.

The impact of TP53BP1 and MLH1 on metastatic capability in cases of locally advanced prostate cancer and their usefulness in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Lymph node (LN) metastases increase the risk of death from prostate cancer (CaP). The dysfunction of factors responsible for DNA injury detection may promote the evolution of localized primary tumors into the metastatic form.

METHODS

In this study, 52 cases of CaP were analyzed. The cases were divided into groups of CaP without metastases (N0), with metastases to the LNs (N+), and metastatic LN tissue. Immunohistochemical examinations were performed with antibodies against MDC1, TP53BP1, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis showed lower nuclear expression of TP53BP1 in N+ cases than in N0 cases (P = 0.026). Nuclear TP53BP1 expression was lower in LN cases than in N+ cases (P = 0.019). Statistical analysis showed lower nuclear expression of MLH1 in N+ cases than in to N0 cases (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Decreased expression of both MLH1 and TP53B1 were demonstrated in N+ cases of CaP. This observation could help to determine the risk of nodal metastasis, and to select appropriate treatment modalities for patients with locally advanced CaP.

Pembrolizumab for a patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with microsatellite instability-high

INTRODUCTION

We report the case of a patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with microsatellite instability-high who was treated with pembrolizumab after cabazitaxel administration.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 58-year-old patient with heavily pretreated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, whose prostate surgical specimen was disclosed as microsatellite instability-high, underwent pembrolizumab therapy. After initiation of pembrolizumab, his prostate-specific antigen level decreased, imaging findings showed good response with lymph node shrinkage, and his walking difficulty decreased dramatically.

CONCLUSION

The rarity of microsatellite instability-high tumor in castration-resistant prostate cancer may hamper pembrolizumab administration. This potentially active agent should be considered as part of a treatment regimen for patients with microsatellite instability-high castration-resistant prostate cancer. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a Japanese castration-resistant prostate cancer patient who demonstrated clinical benefit from pembrolizumab treatment.

Role of the DNA damage response in prostate cancer formation, progression and treatment

BACKGROUND

Clinical and preclinical studies have revealed that alterations in DNA damage response (DDR) pathways may play an important role in prostate cancer (PCa) etiology and progression. These alterations can influence PCa responses to radiotherapy and anti-androgen treatment. The identification of DNA repair gene aberrations in PCa has driven the interest for further evaluation whether these genetic changes may serve as biomarkers for patient stratification.

METHODS

In this review, we summarize the current knowledge on DDR alterations in PCa, their potential impact on clinical interventions and prospects for improved management of PCa. We particularly focus on the influence of DDR gene mutations on PCa initiation and progression and describe the underlying mechanisms.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A better understanding of these mechanisms, will contribute to better disease management as treatment strategies can be chosen based on the specific disease properties, since a growing number of treatments are targeting DDR pathway alterations (such as Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors). Furthermore, the recently discovered crosstalk between the DDR and androgen receptor signaling opens a new array of possible strategies to optimize treatment combinations. We discuss how these recent and ongoing studies will help to improve diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic approaches for PCa management.

Genomic Alteration Burden in Advanced Prostate Cancer and Therapeutic Implications

The increasing number of patients with sequenced prostate cancer genomes enables us to study not only individual oncogenic mutations, but also capture the global burden of genomic alterations. Here we review the extent of tumor genome mutations and chromosomal structural variants in various clinical states of prostate cancer, and the related prognostic information. Next, we discuss the underlying mutational processes that give rise to these various alterations, and their relationship to the various molecular subtypes of prostate cancer. Finally, we examine the relationships between the tumor mutation burden of castration-resistant prostate cancer, DNA repair defects, and response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

A systematic review of the prevalence of DNA damage response gene mutations in prostate cancer

Several ongoing international prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials are exploring therapies that target the DNA damage response (DDR) pathway. This systematic review summarizes the prevalence of DDR mutation carriers in the unselected (general) PC and familial PC populations. A total of 11 electronic databases, 10 conference proceedings, and grey literature sources were searched from their inception to December 2017. Studies reporting the prevalence of somatic and/or germline DDR mutations were summarized. Metastatic PC (mPC), castration‑resistant PC (CRPC) and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) subgroups were included. A total of 11,648 records were retrieved, and 80 studies (103 records) across all PC populations were included; 59 records were of unselected PC and 13 records of familial PC. Most data were available for DDR panels (n=12 studies), ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM; n=13), breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)1 (n=14) and BRCA2 (n=20). ATM, BRCA2 and partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) had the highest mutation rates (≥4%). Median prevalence rates for DDR germline mutations were 18.6% in PC (range, 17.2‑19%; three studies, n=1,712), 11.6% in mPC (range, 11.4‑11.8%; two studies, n=1,261) and 8.3% in mCRPC (range, 7.5‑9.1%; two studies, n=738). Median prevalence rates for DDR somatic mutations were 10.7% in PC (range, 4.9‑22%; three studies, n=680), 13.2% in mPC (range, 10‑16.4%; two studies, n=105) and not reported (NR) in mCRPC. The prevalence of DDR germline and/or somatic mutations was 27% in PC (one study, n=221), 22.67% in mCRPC (one study, n=150) and NR in mPC. In familial PC, median mutation prevalence was 12.1% (range, 7.3‑16.9%) for germline DDR (two studies, n=315) and 3.7% (range, 1.3‑7.9%) for BRCA2 (six studies, n=945). In total, 88% of studies were at a high risk of bias. The prevalence of DDR gene mutations in PC varied widely within somatic subgroups depending on study size, genetic screening techniques, DDR mutation definition and PC diagnosis; somatic and/or germline DDR mutation prevalence was in the range of 23‑27% in PC. These findings support DDR mutation testing for all patients with PC (including those with mCRPC). With the advent of the latest clinical practice PC guidelines highlighting the importance of DDR mutation screening, and ongoing mCRPC clinical trials evaluating DDR mutation‑targeted drugs, future larger epidemiological studies are warranted to further quantify the international burden of DDR mutations in PC.

Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Prostate Cancer Development: Therapeutic Implications

Prostate cancer is the most frequent nonskin cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in man. Prostate cancer is a clinically heterogeneous disease with many patients exhibiting an aggressive disease with progression, metastasis, and other patients showing an indolent disease with low tendency to progression. Three stages of development of human prostate tumors have been identified: intraepithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma androgen-dependent, and adenocarcinoma androgen-independent or castration-resistant. Advances in molecular technologies have provided a very rapid progress in our understanding of the genomic events responsible for the initial development and progression of prostate cancer. These studies have shown that prostate cancer genome displays a relatively low mutation rate compared with other cancers and few chromosomal loss or gains. The ensemble of these molecular studies has led to suggest the existence of two main molecular groups of prostate cancers: one characterized by the presence of ERG rearrangements (~50% of prostate cancers harbor recurrent gene fusions involving ETS transcription factors, fusing the 5' untranslated region of the androgen-regulated gene TMPRSS2 to nearly the coding sequence of the ETS family transcription factor ERG) and features of chemoplexy (complex gene rearrangements developing from a coordinated and simultaneous molecular event), and a second one characterized by the absence of ERG rearrangements and by the frequent mutations in the E3 ubiquitin ligase adapter SPOP and/or deletion of CDH1, a chromatin remodeling factor, and interchromosomal rearrangements and SPOP mutations are early events during prostate cancer development. During disease progression, genomic and epigenomic abnormalities accrued and converged on prostate cancer pathways, leading to a highly heterogeneous transcriptomic landscape, characterized by a hyperactive androgen receptor signaling axis.

PD-L1 expression and deficient mismatch repair in ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate

This study aimed to investigate the expression of programmed death receptor ligand 1 (PD-L1) and deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) in ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate. A tissue microarray of 32 ductal and 42 grade-matched acinar adenocarcinomas was used. Slides were stained for PD-L1, PD-L2, MMR proteins, CD4 and CD8. PD-L1 expression in tumor cells was only seen in 3% (1/34) of ductal and 5% (2/42) of acinar adenocarcinomas (p = 1.0), while PD-L1 expression in tumor-infiltrating immune cells was seen in 29% (10/34) of ductal and 14% (6/42) of acinar adenocarcinomas (p = 0.16). dMMR, as defined by loss of one or more of the MMR proteins, was identified in 5% (4/73) of cases, including 1 ductal and 3 acinar adenocarcinomas. There was a suggested association between infiltration of CD8+ lymphocytes and ductal subtype (p = 0.04) but not between CD4+ lymphocytes and tumor type (p = 0.28). The study shows that both dMMR and PD-L1 expression is uncommon in tumor cells of both ductal and acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate, while PD-L1 expression in tumor-infiltrating immune cells is a more common finding.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in mCRPC - rationales, challenges and perspectives

The advancement of immune-therapeutics in cancer treatment has proven to be promising in various malignant diseases. However, in castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) major Phase III trials have been unexpectedly disappointing. To contribute to a broader understanding of the role and use of immune-therapeutics in mCRPC, we conducted a systematic review. We searched the websites ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed and ASCO Meeting Library for clinical trials employing immune checkpoint inhibitors in mCRPC. This article not only describes the rationale of individual trials, but it also summarizes the current status of the field and sheds light on strategies for future success.

Clinical implications of mismatch repair deficiency in prostate cancer

Immune checkpoint blockade holds great promise in the treatment of solid tumors but has not yet been approved for use in advanced prostate cancer. This is largely due to the relatively modest response in clinical trials in unselected patients and the lack of available biomarkers to predict clinical benefit. Germline and somatic mismatch repair (MMR) gene deficiencies are more prevalent than previously thought, especially in the metastatic setting, in patients with high-grade Gleason scores and in patients with variant histologies. An early signal suggests that patients with deficiency in MMR may respond well to immunotherapy. Both germline and somatic genetic testing are recommended, yet questions remain on the best modality for testing given lack of standardization and false-negative results in patients with complex genomic structural rearrangements. Expanded panels, such as next generation sequencing may increase the sensitivity without compromising specificity. Future studies are still needed to explore the relationships of hypermutation, tumor mutational burden, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and microsatellite instability-H status as predictors of response to immunotherapy. The drivers of variable response is largely unknown, and a more mature understanding of the mechanisms of resistance in deficiencies in MMR tumors may help to more precisely inform use of immunotherapy in prostate cancer.

Germline and Somatic Mutations in Prostate Cancer for the Clinician

It is increasingly important for clinicians involved in the management of prostate cancer to understand the relevance of heritable (germline) mutations that, for select patients, affect prostate cancer risk and cancer biology, and acquired (somatic) mutations that occur in prostate cancer cells. In the advanced disease setting, mutations in homologous recombination repair genes (eg, BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2) suggest candidacy for platinum chemotherapy and PARP inhibitor trials. Similarly, microsatellite instability and mismatch repair deficiency, which may arise in the setting of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 mutations, suggest potential vulnerability to PD-1 inhibitors. Germline genetic testing has potential importance in the treatment and assessment of familial risk, and tumor-directed somatic sequencing may guide treatment decision-making. This review provides clinicians with knowledge of basic genetic terminology, awareness of the importance of family history of cancer (not limited to prostate cancer), contrasts between the different but potentially related objectives of germline versus somatic testing of tumor tissue, and indications for genetic counseling. Specific clinical scenarios, objectives of testing, and nature of the assays are reviewed. Germline and somatic mutations of known and potential relevance to prostate cancer are discussed in the context of treatment options, and algorithms to assist clinicians in approaching this area are proposed.

DNA damage repair alterations are frequent in prostatic adenocarcinomas with focal pleomorphic giant-cell features

AIMS

Prostatic adenocarcinomas with focal pleomorphic giant-cell features constitute a rare tumour subtype with abysmal clinical outcomes. More than one-third of patients with this histology die within a year of the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer. We aimed to perform molecular profiling of these tumors to identify potential therapeutic targets.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Here, we performed next-generation sequencing with a highly validated targeted panel (UW-OncoPlex) on somatic tumour DNA extracted from eight cases of prostatic adenocarcinoma with focal pleomorphic giant-cell features, including cases with and without prior treatment for prostate cancer. We found that DNA damage repair mutations are common in this rare subset of prostate tumours, with two of eight having bi-allelic pathogenic mutations in homologous DNA repair genes (including BRCA2 and NBN) and two of eight having bi-allelic pathogenic mutations in mismatch repair genes (including MSH2 and MLH1).

CONCLUSION

These data are consistent with emerging data showing that DNA repair alterations are enriched among castration-resistant prostate cancer and aggressive subsets of primary tumours. Given that these patients are potential candidates for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and/or immune checkpoint blockade, and have a poor prognosis with standard therapy, we recommend that tumour and germline DNA sequencing with or without mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry be considered for all prostatic adenocarcinomas with focal pleomorphic giant-cell features.

Genomic Characterization of Prostatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Identifies a High Prevalence of DNA Repair Gene Mutations

PURPOSE

Ductal prostate cancer (dPC) is a rare variant of prostatic adenocarcinoma associated with poor outcomes. Although its histopathologic features are well characterized, the underlying molecular hallmarks of this aggressive subtype are not well described. We sought to provide a comprehensive overview of the spectrum of mutations associated with dPC.

METHODS

Three case series across multiple institutions were assembled. All patients had a diagnosis of dPC, and histopathologic classification was confirmed by an expert genitourinary pathologist. Case series 1 included men who were prospectively enrolled in a tumor sequencing study at the University of Washington (n = 22). Case series 2 and 3 included archival samples from men treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital (n = 21) and University of Calgary (n = 8), respectively. Tumor tissue was sequenced on a targeted next-generation sequencing assay, UW-OncoPlex, according to previously published methods. The frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutations are reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 25 patients (49%) had at least one DNA damage repair gene alteration, including seven (14%) with a mismatch repair gene mutation and 16 (31%) with a homologous repair mutation. Germline autosomal dominant mutations were confirmed or suspected in 10 patients (20%). Activating mutations in the PI3K pathway (n = 19; 37%), WNT pathway (n = 16; 31%), and MAPK pathway (n = 8; 16%) were common.

CONCLUSION

This study strongly suggests that dPCs are enriched for actionable mutations, with approximately 50% of patients demonstrating DNA damage repair pathway alteration(s). Patients with dPC should be offered next-generation sequencing to guide standard-of-care treatment (eg, immune checkpoint inhibitors) or triaged toward an appropriate clinical trial (eg, poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitors).

Clinical Features and Therapeutic Outcomes in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer and DNA Mismatch Repair Gene Mutations

Mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations are rare in prostate cancer, and their histological and clinical characteristics are largely unknown. We conducted a retrospective study to explore disease characteristics and treatment outcomes of men with metastatic prostate cancer harboring germline and/or somatic MMR mutations detected using clinical-grade genomic assays. Thirteen patients with a deleterious MMR gene mutation were identified. Median age was 64 yr, 75% had grade group 5 (Gleason sum 9 or 10), 23% had intraductal histology, 46% had metastatic disease at initial diagnosis, and 31% had visceral metastases. Most patients (46%) had MSH6 mutations, 73% demonstrated microsatellite instability, and median tumor mutational load was 18/Mb (range, 3-165 mutations/Mb). Surprisingly, responses to standard hormonal therapies were very durable (median progression-free survival [PFS] of 67 mo to initial androgen deprivation and median PFS of 26 mo to abiraterone/enzalutamide). Two of four men receiving PD-1 inhibitors achieved a ≥50% prostate-specific antigen response at 12 wk, with a median PFS duration in these four men of 9 mo. Despite aggressive clinical and pathological features, patients with MMR-mutated advanced prostate cancer appear to have particular sensitivity to hormonal therapies, as well as anecdotal responses to PD-1 inhibitors. Certain histological features (grade group 5, intraductal carcinoma) should prompt evaluation for MMR deficiency. These data are only hypothesis generating. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate cancers with mismatch repair gene mutations have aggressive clinical and pathological features; however, these are very sensitive to standard and novel hormonal therapies, and also demonstrate anecdotal sensitivity to PD-1 inhibitors such as pembrolizumab.

Advancing therapies in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer worldwide and is the most frequently detected cancer in the European Union in men over 50 years of age. Androgen deprivation therapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for recurrent or metastatic disease. Unfortunately, nearly all patients will develop resistance to androgen blockade leading to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Over the last 10 years, new treatments have dramatically improved overall survival of men with mCRPC. Current therapies are based on AR-axis inhibitors and taxane-based chemotherapies, as well as radiopharmaceuticals and Sipuleucel T.

AREAS COVERED

The authors provide a review of the current field of systemic therapy in metastatic CRPC. This is followed by an in-depth analysis of recent developments in treatment, and the biological rationale behind these therapies.

EXPERT OPINION

Since several trials with docetaxel or novel hormonal agents showed improvement in overall survival in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, as well as in non-metastatic castration-resistant patients, it is expected that a growing subgroup of patients will be exposed earlier to chemotherapy and to AR targeted agents. It becomes then fundamental to find novel strategies to overcome drug resistance and further improve survival.

Recent advances in prostate cancer research: large-scale genomic analyses reveal novel driver mutations and DNA repair defects

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a disease of mutated and misregulated genes. However, primary prostate tumors have relatively few mutations, and only three genes ( ERG, PTEN, and SPOP) are recurrently mutated in more than 10% of primary tumors. On the other hand, metastatic castration-resistant tumors have more mutations, but, with the exception of the androgen receptor gene ( AR), no single gene is altered in more than half of tumors. Structural genomic rearrangements are common, including ERG fusions, copy gains involving the MYC locus, and copy losses containing PTEN. Overall, instead of being associated with a single dominant driver event, prostate tumors display various combinations of modifications in oncogenes and tumor suppressors. This review takes a broad look at the recent advances in PCa research, including understanding the genetic alterations that drive the disease and how specific mutations can sensitize tumors to potential therapies. We begin with an overview of the genomic landscape of primary and metastatic PCa, enabled by recent large-scale sequencing efforts. Advances in three-dimensional cell culture techniques and mouse models for PCa are also discussed, and particular emphasis is placed on the benefits of patient-derived xenograft models. We also review research into understanding how ETS fusions (in particular, TMPRSS2-ERG) and SPOP mutations contribute to tumor initiation. Next, we examine the recent findings on the prevalence of germline DNA repair mutations in about 12% of patients with metastatic disease and their potential benefit from the use of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and immune modulation. Lastly, we discuss the recent increased prevalence of AR-negative tumors (neuroendocrine and double-negative) and the current state of immunotherapy in PCa. AR remains the primary clinical target for PCa therapies; however, it does not act alone, and better understanding of supporting mutations may help guide the development of novel therapeutic strategies.

Prostate cancer in the era of "Omic" medicine: recognizing the importance of DNA damage repair pathways

Data from recent high-throughput studies analyzing local and advanced prostate cancer have revealed an incredible amount of biological diversity, which has led to the classification of distinct molecular tumor subtypes. While integrating prostate cancer genomics with clinical medicine is still at its infancy, new approaches to treat prostate cancer are well underway and being studied. With the recognition that DNA damage repair (DDR) mutations play an important role in the pathogenesis of this disease, clinicians can begin to utilize genomic information in complex treatment decisions for prostate cancer patients. In this Review, we discuss the role of DDR mutations in prostate cancer, including deficiencies in homologous repair and mismatch repair (MMR), and how this information is revolutionizing the treatment landscape. In addition, we highlight the potential resistance mechanisms that may result as we begin to target these pathways in isolation and discuss potential combinatorial approaches that may delay or overcome resistance.