Diverse Immunoprofile of Ductal Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate with an Emphasis on the Prognostic Factors

High GLUT1 membrane expression and low PSMA membrane expression in Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Intraductal Carcinoma of the prostate

BACKGROUND

Both Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DAC) and Intraductal Carcinoma (IDC) of the prostate are generally associated with aggressive clinical behavior and poor prognosis, which were linked with discordant FDG positivity and low Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) expression. A recent study only cited a DAC patient with low 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT uptake but high 18F-FDG PET/CT uptake, however, there is lack of directly compared articles nor large data sets. Hence, the objective of this study was to investigate the expression of PSMA and GLUT1 in DAC and IDC-P patients.

METHODS

The study was conducted on 87 DAC or/and IDC-P patients without any treatment and 97 PAC patients with a Gleason score ≥8 of prostate biopsies and prostatectomy samples between August 2017 and August 2022. We performed immunohistochemical staining and scoring of various cancer component samples from the patients to reflect the protein expression levels of PSMA and GLUT1.

RESULTS

PSMA expression in PAC was significantly higher than in DAC/IDC-P (141.2 vs 78.6, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in PSMA expression between DAC/IDC-P and adjacent PAC (78.6 vs 93.4, p = 0.166). GLUT1 expression was higher in DAC/IDC-P than in adjacent PAC (68.6 vs 51.3, p = 0.007), but was still lower than that in pure PAC (68.6 vs 93.1, p = 0.0014). It is worth noting that GLUT1 membrane expression in DAC/IDC-P was significantly increased than in pure PAC (13.0 vs 6.6, p = 0.025), and in PAC adjacent to DAC/IDC-P (13.0 vs 2.0, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In DAC/IDC-P tissues, PSMA expression is low, while GLUT1 expression, especially GLUT1 membrane expression is high. These findings imply that DAC/IDC-P may have higher glucose metabolic and raise interest in targeting membrane GLUT1 as a novel anticancer strategy for DAC/IDC-P and other prostate cancer with high glucose metabolism.

Impact of comedonecrosis on prostate cancer outcome: a systematic review

Cribriform architecture has been recognised as an independent parameter for prostate cancer outcome. Little is yet known on the added value of individual Gleason 5 growth patterns. Comedonecrosis is assigned Gleason pattern 5 and can occur in both invasive and intraductal carcinoma. The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature for the prognostic value of comedonecrosis in prostate cancer. A systematic literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane library and Google scholar was performed according to the Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA)guidelines. After identification and screening of all relevant studies published up to July 2022, 12 manuscripts were included. Clinicopathological data were extracted and the presence of comedonecrosis in either invasive, intraductal or ductal carcinoma was associated with at least one clinical outcome measure. No meta-analysis was performed. Eight of 11 studies showed that comedonecrosis was significantly associated with biochemical recurrence and two studies with metastasis or death. The only studies using metastasis-free and disease specific-free survival as an endpoint both found comedonecrosis to be an independent prognostic parameter in multivariate analysis. The studies were all retrospective and demonstrated considerable heterogeneity with regard to clinical specimen, tumour type, grade group, correction for confounding factors and endpoints. This systematic review demonstrates weak evidence for comedonecrosis to be associated with adverse prostate cancer outcome. Study heterogeneity and lack of correction for confounding factors prohibit drawing of definitive conclusions.

Impact of Epithelial Histological Types, Subtypes, and Growth Patterns on Oncological Outcomes for Patients with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Curative Intent: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they need different treatments. Urologists should be aware of these growth patterns and their clinical impact.

Defining Diagnostic Criteria for Prostatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma at Multiparametric MRI

Background Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is an aggressive histologic variant of prostate cancer that often warrants multimodal therapy and poses a significant diagnostic challenge clinically and at imaging. Purpose To develop multiparametric MRI criteria to define DAC and to assess their diagnostic performance in differentiating DAC from prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma (PAC). Materials and Methods Men with histologically proven DAC who had multiparametric MRI before radical prostatectomy were retrospectively identified from January 2011 through November 2018. MRI features were predefined using a subset of nine DACs and then compared for men with peripheral-zone DACs 1 cm or greater in size and men with matched biopsy-confirmed International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 4-5 PAC, by four independent radiologists blinded to the pathologic diagnosis. Diagnostic performance was determined by consensus read. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared by using the Fisher test, t-tests, and Mann-Whitney U test. Agreement (Cohen κ) and sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results There were 59 men with DAC (median age, 63 years [interquartile range, 56, 67 years]) and 59 men with PAC (median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 59, 69 years]). Predefined MRI features, including intermediate T2 signal, well-defined margin, lobulation, and hypointense rim, were detected in a higher proportion of DACs than PACs (76% [45 of 59] vs 5% [three of 59]; P < .001). On consensus reading, the presence of three or more features demonstrated 76% sensitivity, 94% specificity, 94% positive predictive value [PPV], and 80% negative predictive value [NPV] for all DACs and 100% sensitivity, 95% specificity, 81% PPV, and 100% NPV for pure DACs. The DACs and PACs showed no difference in contrast enhancement (100% vs 100%; P >.99, median T2 signal intensity (254 vs 230; P = .99), or apparent diffusion coefficient (median, 677 10^-6 mm²/sec vs 685 10^-6 mm²/sec; P = .73). Conclusion The presence of intermediate T2 signal, well-defined margin, lobulation, and/or hypointense rim, together with restricted diffusion and contrast enhancement at multiparametric MRI of the prostate, suggests prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma rather than prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Survival after radical prostatectomy vs. radiation therapy in ductal carcinoma of the prostate

AIM

To compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs. external beam radiotherapy (RT) in patients with ductal carcinoma (DC) of the prostate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2016), we identified 369 DC patients, of whom 303 (82%) vs. 66 (18%) were treated with RP vs. RT, respectively. Kaplan-Meier plots and uni- and stepwise multivariate Cox regression models addressed CSM in the unmatched population. After propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), Kaplan-Meier curve and Cox regression models tested the effect of RP vs RT on CSM.

RESULTS

Overall, RT patients were older, harbored higher PSA values, higher clinical T and higher Gleason grade groups. 5-year CSM rates were respectively 4.2 vs. 10% for RP vs. RT (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16-0.99, p = 0.048, favoring RP). At step-by-step multivariate Cox regression, after adding possible confounders, the central tendency of the HR for RP vs. RT approached 1. PSM resulted into 124 vs. 53 patients treated respectively with RP vs. RT. After PSM, as well as after IPTW, the protective effect of RP was no longer present (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.23-5.73, p = 0.9 and 0.97, 95% CI 0.35-2.66, p = 0.9, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although CSM rate of ductal carcinoma RP patients is lower of that of RT patients, this apparent benefit disappears after statistical adjustment for population differences.

A first case of ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate having characteristics of neuroendocrine phenotype with PTEN, RB1 and TP53 alterations

BACKGROUND

Ductal adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine cancer are rare subtypes of prostate cancer with poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. We present the first case of ductal adenocarcinoma having a neuroendocrine phenotype.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 63-year-old man presented with gross hematuria and urinary retention, and his serum prostate-specific antigen level was 4.58 ng/mL. We performed transurethral resection of the prostate, and the diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma with a Gleason score of 5 + 4 for acinar adenocarcinoma. Magnetic resonance imaging showed local invasion of left lobe of the prostate and bone metastasis of the left trochanteric section of the femur. Multidisciplinary treatments such as androgen deprivation therapy, chemoradiation therapy, and surgery for metastatic lesions have led to long-term survival. Since next-generation sequencing revealed PTEN and RB1 co-loss and TP53 mutations, we re-evaluated the immunohistochemistry and he was found to be positive for synaptophysin.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first Japanese case of ductal adenocarcinoma with a neuroendocrine phenotype. Genetic analysis may help not only guide the therapeutic strategies, but also sometimes with the diagnosis.

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.

Oncological outcomes of patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate receiving radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy

Objective

To evaluate the oncological outcomes of ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DAC) managed with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) and optimize the proper treatment modality to DAC comprehensively.

Methods

The cohorts included a total of 528 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, 354 receiving RP and 174 receiving RT. Cox proportional hazards regressions were performed to assess cancer specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) between treatment groups. A competing risk analysis was further conducted. Subgroup analyses by age and level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were performed. Propensity score matching was implemented.

Results

Patients managed with RP had lower risks of CSM and OM compared with RT (before matching: Hazard ratio [HR]=0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13–0.47 and HR=0.26, 95% CI 0.17–0.40, respectively; after matching: HR=0.18, 95% CI 0.04–0.82 and HR=0.28, 95% CI 0.11–0.70, accordingly). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients in the middle tertile of the age or with lower tertile PSA level managed with RP took lower risks of OM significantly (HR=0.18, 95% CI 0.06–0.57, p<0.01 and HR=0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.54, p<0.01).

Conclusion

Among patients with DAC, treatment with RP was associated with better survival outcomes in comparison with RT. Patients with DAC in the middle tertile of the age and with lower tertile PSA level benefited the most from RP.

Optimizing the diagnosis and management of ductal prostate cancer

Ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is the most common variant histological subtype of prostate carcinoma and has an aggressive clinical course. DAC is usually characterized and treated as high-risk prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma (PAC). However, DAC has a different biology to that of acinar disease, which often poses a challenge for both diagnosis and management. DAC can be difficult to identify using conventional diagnostic modalities such as serum PSA levels and multiparametric MRI, and the optimal management for localized DAC is unknown owing to the rarity of the disease. Following definitive therapy for localized disease with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, the majority of DACs recur with visceral metastases at low PSA levels. Various systemic therapies that have been shown to be effective in high-risk PAC have limited use in treating DAC. Although current understanding of the biology of DAC is limited, genomic analyses have provided insights into the pathology behind its aggressive behaviour and potential future therapeutic targets.

Ductal Prostate Cancers Demonstrate Poor Outcomes with Conventional Therapies

BACKGROUND

Ductal prostate adenocarcinoma (DAC) is a rare, aggressive, histologic variant of prostate cancer that is treated with conventional therapies, similar to high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (PAC).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcomes of men undergoing definitive therapy for DAC or high-risk PAC and to explore the effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in improving the outcomes of DAC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A single-center retrospective review of all patients with cT1-4/N0-1 DAC from 2005 to 2018 was performed. Those undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RTx) for DAC were compared with cohorts of high-risk PAC patients.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 228 men with DAC were identified; 163 underwent RP, 34 underwent RTx, and 31 had neoadjuvant therapy prior to RP. In this study, 163 DAC patients and 155 PAC patients undergoing RP were compared. Similarly, 34 DAC patients and 74 PAC patients undergoing RTx were compared. DAC patients undergoing RP or RTx had worse 5-yr MFS (75% vs 95% and 62% vs 93%, respectively, p < 0.001) and 5-yr OS (88% vs 97% and 82% vs 100%, respectively, p < 0.05) compared with PAC patients. In the 76 men who received adjuvant/salvage ADT after RP, DAC also had worse MFS and OS than PAC (p < 0.01). A genomic analysis revealed that 10/11 (91%) DACs treated with ADT had intrinsic upregulation of androgen-resistant pathways. Further, none of the DAC patients (0/15) who received only neoadjuvant ADT prior to RP had any pathologic downgrading. The retrospective nature was a limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Men undergoing RP or RTx for DAC had worse outcomes than PAC patients, regardless of the treatment modality. Upregulation of several intrinsic resistance pathways in DAC rendered ADT less effective. Further evaluation of the underlying biology of DAC with clinical trials is needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This study demonstrated worse outcomes among patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate than among high-grade prostate adenocarcinoma patients, regardless of the treatment modality.

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).

Integrative Genomic Analysis of Coincident Cancer Foci Implicates CTNNB1 and PTEN Alterations in Ductal Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate is an aggressive subtype, with high rates of biochemical recurrence and overall poor prognosis. It is frequently found coincident with conventional acinar adenocarcinoma. The genomic features driving evolution to its ductal histology and the biology associated with its poor prognosis remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize genomic features distinguishing ductal adenocarcinoma from coincident acinar adenocarcinoma foci from the same patient.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Ten patients with coincident acinar and ductal prostate cancer underwent prostatectomy. Laser microdissection was used to separately isolate acinar and ductal foci. DNA and RNA were extracted, and used for integrative genomic and transcriptomic analyses.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Single nucleotide mutations, small indels, copy number estimates, and expression profiles were identified. Phylogenetic relationships between coincident foci were determined, and characteristics distinguishing ductal from acinar foci were identified.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Exome sequencing, copy number estimates, and fusion genes demonstrated coincident ductal and acinar adenocarcinoma diverged from a common progenitor, yet they harbored distinct alterations unique to each focus. AR expression and activity were similar in both histologies. Nine of 10 cases had mutually exclusive CTNNB1 hotspot mutations or phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) alterations in the ductal component, and these were absent in the acinar foci. These alterations were associated with changes in expression in WNT- and PI3K-pathway genes.

CONCLUSIONS

Coincident ductal and acinar histologies typically are clonally related and thus arise from the same cell of origin. Ductal foci are enriched for cases with either a CTNNB1 hotspot mutation or a PTEN alteration, and are associated with WNT- or PI3K-pathway activation. These alterations are mutually exclusive and may represent distinct subtypes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The aggressive subtype ductal adenocarcinoma is closely related to conventional acinar prostate cancer. Ductal foci contain additional alterations, however, leading to frequent activation of two targetable pathways.