Current Trends in Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer among men. Despite advances in diagnosis and management, prostate cancer led to more than 300,000 deaths globally in 2020. Chemotherapy is a cornerstone of therapy for advanced prostate cancer and can prolong survival of patients with both castration-sensitive and castration-resistant disease. Herein, we present a comprehensive review of the data supporting implementation of chemotherapy in the modern treatment of advanced prostate cancer, with special attention to the use of chemotherapy for aggressive variant prostate cancer (e.g., neuroendocrine prostate cancer) and the combination of chemotherapy with androgen signaling inhibitors. As the field of prostate cancer research continues to rapidly evolve yielding novel agents and treatment modalities, chemotherapy continues to play an essential role in prolonging the survival of patients with advanced and metastatic prostate cancer.

Visceral Metastasis Predicts Response to New Hormonal Agents in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

Visceral metastasis (VM) and a higher number of bone metastasis generally define high volume/risk in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Subgroup analysis of pivotal trials did not show a clear benefit of second-generation non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAAs) in patients with VM. However, subgroup analysis of the trial assessing abiraterone acetate, a CYP 17 inhibitor, plus prednisone (AAP) showed an improved overall survival (OS) in patients with mCSPC with VM. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and congress abstracts for the phase III randomized controlled trials of second-generation NSAAs and AAP in patients with mCSPC. In this pooled analysis, we included 6485 patients from the 6 phase III trials. The rate of patients with VM was 15.2%. Interestingly, in contrast to NSAAs, AAP seems to be effective in improving OS among patients with VM (hazard ratio, HR: 0.89, 95% CI, 0.72-1.11, P = .30 for second-generation NSAAs; HR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.40-0.84, P = .004 for AAP). In contrast, both second-generation NSAAs (HR: 0.63, 95% CI, 0.57-0.70, P < .001) and AAP (HR: 0.68, 95% CI, 0.57-0.81, P < .001) improved OS in patients without VM. In this pooled analysis, we demonstrate that while AAP provided an OS improvement in patients with VM, second-generation NSAAs did not demonstrate a similar OS benefit in this population.

Effects of apalutamide dose reduction on skin-related adverse events in patients with advanced prostate cancer: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the effects of apalutamide dose reduction on skin-related adverse events (AEs) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)-free survival in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 35 patients with nonmetastatic CRPC and 72 patients with treatment-naïve metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC) who were treated with apalutamide. The primary outcome was the effect of apalutamide dose reduction on skin-related AEs. The secondary outcomes were the effect of apalutamide dose reduction on skin-related AEs in patients with small body size, postskin AE apalutamide discontinuation rate, and CRPC-free survival in patients with mCSPC treated with upfront apalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy.

RESULTS

Of the 107 patients, 65 (60.7%) and 42 (39.3%) were treated with full and reduced doses of apalutamide, respectively. The skin-related AE rate was not significantly different between the groups (55% vs. 43%, p = 0.761). In the group receiving reduced apalutamide dose, the incidence of skin-related AEs was significantly lower in patients with small body sizes (body weight <67 kg and body mass index <24 kg/m² ) than in those with other body sizes. The postskin AE apalutamide discontinuation rate was significantly differed between patients receiving the full (50%) and reduced (16.7%) doses. In the 72 patients with mCSPC, CRPC-free survival was not significantly different between the full and reduced dose groups.

CONCLUSION

Apalutamide dose reduction was not significantly associated with the incidence of skin-related AEs. However, dose reduction in patients with small body sizes may alleviate skin-related AEs without sacrificing oncological outcomes.

PSA provocation by bipolar androgen therapy may predict duration of response to first-line androgen deprivation: Updated results from the BATMAN study

BACKGROUND

Previously, we reported results from the Phase II BATMAN study (Bipolar Androgen Therapy for Men with Androgen-ablation Naïve prostate cancer). This study (NCT01750398) was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a treatment regimen consisting of a 6-month lead in-phase of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) followed by alternating 3-month intervals of bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) and ADT alone. Here we report > 5-year follow-up related to the duration of subsequent ADT, response to first-line androgen receptor inhibitors, safety, and survival in men with castration-sensitive prostate cancer treated on the BATMAN study.

METHODS

Univariate Cox regression was utilized to compare overall survival between Responders who achieved a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of <4 ng/ml and Non-Responders who achieved a PSA level of ≥4 ng/ml after BAT/ADT. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression were used to assess progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on BAT and on subsequent abiraterone or enzalutamide and on the association between PSA peak during BAT and each time to event outcome.

RESULTS

Over median follow-up of 95 months, the median PFS on ADT for the entire cohort was 47.8. Median OS has not been reached (NR). Median OS for Non-Responders is 43 months versus NR (not reached) for responders (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.176, p = 0.002). Post-BAT, the PSA50 and PSA90 responses to abiraterone or enzalutamide were 94.4% and 66.7%, respectively and median PFS was 20.6 months. Patients with peak PSA level of ≥9 ng/ml after BAT had median PFS of 20.6 months versus NR for those having PSA < 9 ng/ml (HR: 0.122, p < 0.001). Median OS was 79.6 months for patients with PSA peak of ≥9 ng/ml versus NR for those having PSA peak of <9 ng/ml (HR: 0.409, p = 0.131).

CONCLUSION

The use of BAT as part of first-line hormonal therapy strategy does not induce adversely affect long-term survival or induce any significant long-term adverse sequelae in patients with prostate cancer. Cycling BAT may extend the duration of ADT response and enhance response to subsequent androgen ablative therapies. The magnitude of BAT-provoked increase in PSA may predict duration of ADT response and warrants further study.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Prostate Cancer: Current Data and Future Perspectives

Simple Summary

The treatment landscape of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is constantly improving with the approval of many new therapeutic options. Immunotherapy in PCa has been investigated with disappointing results. This review aims to evaluate the potential role of immunotherapy in both castration-sensitive and castration-resistant PCa, discussing the immunobiology of PCa, the results of the current literature, and the ongoing clinical trials. Potential prognostic and/or predictive factors and future perspectives are also discussed.

Abstract

In the last 10 years, many new therapeutic options have been approved in advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients, granting a more prolonged survival in patients with metastatic disease, which, nevertheless, remains incurable. The emphasis on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has led to many trials in this setting, with disappointing results until now. Therefore, we discuss the immunobiology of PCa, presenting ongoing trials and the available clinical data, to understand if immunotherapy could represent a valid option in this disease, and which subset of patients may be more likely to benefit. Current evidence suggests that the tumor microenvironment needs a qualitative rather than quantitative evaluation, along with the genomic determinants of prostate tumor cells. The prognostic or predictive value of immunotherapy biomarkers, such as PD-L1, TMB, or dMMR/MSI-high, needs further evaluation in PCa. Monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been modestly effective. In contrast, combined strategies with other standard treatments (hormonal agents, chemotherapy, PARP inhibitors, radium-223, and TKIs) have shown some results. Immunotherapy should be better investigated in biomarker-selected patients, particularly with specific pathway aberrations (e.g., AR-V7 variant, HRD, CDK12 inactivated tumors, MSI-high tumors). Lastly, we present new possible targets in PCa that could potentially modulate the tumor microenvironment and improve antitumor activity with ICIs.

Somatic Alterations Impact AR Transcriptional Activity and Efficacy of AR-Targeting Therapies in Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

For patients whose prostate cancer spreads beyond the confines of the prostate, treatment options continue to increase. However, we are missing the information that is needed to choose for each patient the best treatment at each step of his cancer progression so we can ensure that maximal remissions and prolonged survival are achieved. In this review, we examine whether a better understanding of how the activity of the target for the default first treatment, the androgen receptor, is regulated in prostate cancer tissues can improve prostate cancer treatment plans. We consider the evidence for variability of androgen receptor activity among patients and examine the molecular basis for this variable action. We summarize clinical evidence supporting that information on a prostate cancer’s genomic composition may inform on its level of androgen receptor action, which may facilitate choice for the most effective first-line therapy and ultimately improve prostate cancer treatment plans overall.

Abstract

Inhibiting the activity of the ligand-activated transcription factor androgen receptor (AR) is the default first-line treatment for metastatic prostate cancer (CaP). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) induces remissions, however, their duration varies widely among patients. The reason for this heterogeneity is not known. A better understanding of its molecular basis may improve treatment plans and patient survival. AR’s transcriptional activity is regulated in a context-dependent manner and relies on an interplay between its associated transcriptional regulators, DNA recognition motifs, and ligands. Alterations in one or more of these factors induce shifts in the AR cistrome and transcriptional output. Significant variability in AR activity is seen in both castration-sensitive (CS) and castration-resistant CaP (CRPC). Several AR transcriptional regulators undergo somatic alterations that impact their function in clinical CaPs. Some alterations occur in a significant fraction of cases, resulting in CaP subtypes, while others affect only a few percent of CaPs. Evidence is emerging that these alterations may impact the response to CaP treatments such as ADT, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. Here, we review the contribution of recurring somatic alterations on AR cistrome and transcriptional output and the efficacy of CaP treatments and explore strategies to use these insights to improve treatment plans and outcomes for CaP patients.

Treatment Strategies for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: From "All-Comers" to "Personalized" Approach

Standard treatment for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) was androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for >7 decades, and this was termed the “all-comers” approach. A remarkable evolution in the treatment of mCSPC has been noted in the previous several years. High-quality clinical trials have shown that the addition of docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, such as abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, to ADT improves the overall survival (OS) as compared to ADT alone. The first 2 trials demonstrated the benefits of docetaxel and abiraterone acetate in terms of OS in high-volume and high-risk cancer subgroups, respectively. The later trials indicated that upfront combination therapies were associated with improved OS in all patients, irrespective of tumor volume and risk category. Upfront combination therapies are becoming a standard of care for all patients with mCSPC. However, meta-analyses have failed to show that all upfront combination therapies provide significant survival benefits in all patient subgroups. In the low-volume subgroup, significance was observed only for treatment with enzalutamide and radiation to the prostate. Men with low-volume low-risk cancer who have favorable response to ADT achieve long-term survival with ADT only, and toxicities induced by combination therapies would exceed the benefit for these patients. Treatments should be tailored to each patient because mCSPC has marked diversity in its biological and clinical features. Recent advances in diagnostic and molecular technologies will provide useful prognostic and predictive biomarkers, and the treatment strategy will shift from the “for all-comers” to the “individualized” approach.

A Clinical Evaluation of Enzalutamide in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Guiding Principles for Treatment Selection and Perspectives on Research

Enzalutamide was the first novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitor to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in non-metastatic and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). It has emerged as one of the most commonly prescribed oral prostate cancer therapies (ARSI) by medical oncologists and urologists. Amongst a panoply of treatment options for metastatic CSPC, safe and effective utilization of enzalutamide dictates a detailed understanding of alternative therapy options and competing toxicity profiles. Ongoing research supports the potential for expanded enzalutamide use in earlier disease states, in combination with other systemic agents and as monotherapy (without androgen deprivation therapy). Optimal application of enzalutamide will ultimately require greater insight and attention to mitigating strategies for treatment-associated fatigue, cognitive impairment, and functional decline. This publication will comprehensively analyze the clinical evidence and guiding principles of enzalutamide use in CSPC. We will also provide a critical review of ongoing and future ARSI research focusing on pharmacologic approaches to overcome treatment resistance and strategies to improve treatment-associated functional impairment.

Phenotypes of circulating tumour cells predict time to castration resistance in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To identify biomarkers that predict the response to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) of patients newly diagnosed with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) in order to improve therapeutic decision-making, and to investigate whether the characterization of baseline circulating tumour cells (CTCs) would predict the effective period of standard ADT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 108 patients newly diagnosed with high-volume metastatic CSPC. Enumeration and characterization of patients' baseline CTCs (CTCs+ and CTCs-, indicating detectable and undetectable CTCs, respectively) were performed using the CanPatrol technique, which detects markers of the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) in CTCs, and classifies CTCs into epithelial, biophenotypic and mesenchymal phenotypes.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 24 months, 90 patients (83.3%) progressed to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), 93 patients (86.1%) had detectable CTCs, and the median number of CTCs was 4. The rate of progression to CRPC was significantly higher for patients with mesenchymal CTCs+ than for patients with CTCs+/mesenchymal CTCs- and CTCs- (93.1% vs 71.4% and 73.3%; P = 0.013). The median time to CRPC for patients with mesenchymal CTCs+ was significantly shorter than for those with CTCs+/mesenchymal CTCs- and CTCs- (10.5 months vs 18.0 and 14.0 months; P = 0.003). Multivariate Cox regression analysis suggested that the CTC phenotype was the only independent prognostic factor influencing the progression of disease from CSPC to CRPC.

CONCLUSIONS

Characterization of baseline CTCs according to the EMT phenotype predicted the effective period of standard ADT for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic CSPC. These findings are important for counselling patients and designing clinical trials.