Context

Given the highly variable behavior and clinical course of prostate cancer (PCa) and the multiple available treatment options, a personalized approach to oncologic risk stratification is important. Novel genetic approaches offer additional information to improve clinical decision making.

Objective

To review the use of genomic biomarkers in the prognostication of PCa outcome and prediction of therapeutic response.

Evidence acquisition

Systematic literature review focused on human clinical studies reporting outcome measures with external validation. The literature search included all Medline, Embase, and Scopus articles from inception through July 2014.

Evidence synthesis

An improved understanding of the genetic basis of prostate carcinogenesis has produced an increasing number of potential prognostic and predictive tools, such as transmembrane protease, serine2:v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (TMPRSS2:ERG) gene fusion status, loss of the phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) gene, and gene expression signatures utilizing messenger RNA from tumor tissue. Several commercially available gene panels with external validation are now available, although most have yet to be widely used. The most studied commercially available gene panels, Prolaris, Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score, and Decipher, may be used to estimate disease outcome in addition to clinical parameters or clinical nomograms. ConfirmMDx is an epigenetic test used to predict the results of repeat prostate biopsy after an initial negative biopsy. Additional future strategies include using genetic information from circulating tumor cells in the peripheral blood to guide treatment decisions at the initial diagnosis and at subsequent decision points.

Conclusions

Major advances have been made in our understanding of PCa biology in recent years. Our field is currently exploring the early stages of a personalized approach to augment traditional clinical decision making using commercially available genomic tools. A more comprehensive appreciation of value, limitations, and cost is important.

Patient summary

We summarized current advances in genomic testing in prostate cancer with a special focus on the estimation of disease outcome. Several commercial tests are currently available, but further understanding is needed to appreciate the potential benefits and limitations of these novel tests.

Context

Despite excellent cancer control with the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa), some men will experience a recurrence of disease. The optimal management of recurrent disease remains uncertain.

Objective

To systematically review recent literature regarding management of biochemical recurrence after primary treatment for localized PCa.

Evidence acquisition

A comprehensive systematic review of the literature was performed from 2000 to 2012 to identify articles pertaining to management after recurrent PCa. Search terms included prostate cancer recurrence, salvage therapy, radiorecurrent prostate cancer, post HIFU, post cryoablation, postradiation, and postprostatectomy salvage. Studies were selected according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and required to provide a comprehensive description of primary and secondary treatments along with outcomes.

Evidence synthesis

The data from 32 original publications were reviewed. The most common option for local salvage therapy after radical prostatectomy (RP) was radiation. Options for local salvage therapy after primary radiation included RP, brachytherapy, and cryotherapy. Different definitions of recurrence and risk profiles among patients make comparative assessment among salvage treatment modalities difficult. Triggers for intervention and factors predicting response to salvage therapy vary.

Conclusions

Radiation therapy (RT) after RP can provide durable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses in a sizeable percentage of men, especially when given early (ie, PSA <1 ng/ml). Though a few studies suggest improvements in mortality, prospective randomized trials are needed and underway. The role of salvage treatment after RT is less clear.

Nuclear mutations are well known to drive tumor incidence, aggression and response to therapy. By contrast, the frequency and roles of mutations in the maternally inherited mitochondrial genome are poorly understood. Here we sequence the mitochondrial genomes of 384 localized prostate cancer patients, and identify a median of one mitochondrial single-nucleotide variant (mtSNV) per patient. Some of these mtSNVs occur in recurrent mutational hotspots and associate with aggressive disease. Younger patients have fewer mtSNVs than those who diagnosed at an older age. We demonstrate strong links between mitochondrial and nuclear mutational profiles, with co-occurrence between specific mutations. For example, certain control region mtSNVs co-occur with gain of the MYC oncogene, and these mutations are jointly associated with patient survival. These data demonstrate frequent mitochondrial mutation in prostate cancer, and suggest interplay between nuclear and mitochondrial mutational profiles in prostate cancer.In prostate cancer, the role of mutations in the maternally-inherited mitochondrial genome are not well known. Here, the authors demonstrate frequent, age-dependent mitochondrial mutation in prostate cancer. Strong links between mitochondrial and nuclear mutational profiles are associated with clinical aggressivity.

Global changes in chromatin accessibility may drive cancer progression by reprogramming transcription factor (TF) binding. In addition, histone acetylation readers such as bromodomain-containing protein 4 (BRD4) have been shown to associate with these TFs and contribute to aggressive cancers including prostate cancer (PC). Here, we show that chromatin accessibility defines castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We show that the deregulation of androgen receptor (AR) expression is a driver of chromatin relaxation and that AR/androgen-regulated bromodomain-containing proteins (BRDs) mediate this effect. We also report that BRDs are overexpressed in CRPCs and that ATAD2 and BRD2 have prognostic value. Finally, we developed gene stratification signature (BROMO-10) for bromodomain response and PC prognostication, to inform current and future trials with drugs targeting these processes. Our findings provide a compelling rational for combination therapy targeting bromodomains in selected patients in which BRD-mediated TF binding is enhanced or modified as cancer progresses.

DNA methylation patterns are altered in numerous diseases and often correlate with clinically relevant information such as disease subtypes, prognosis and drug response. With suitable assays and after validation in large cohorts, such associations can be exploited for clinical diagnostics and personalized treatment decisions. Here we describe the results of a community-wide benchmarking study comparing the performance of all widely used methods for DNA methylation analysis that are compatible with routine clinical use. We shipped 32 reference samples to 18 laboratories in seven different countries. Researchers in those laboratories collectively contributed 21 locus-specific assays for an average of 27 predefined genomic regions, as well as six global assays. We evaluated assay sensitivity on low-input samples and assessed the assays' ability to discriminate between cell types. Good agreement was observed across all tested methods, with amplicon bisulfite sequencing and bisulfite pyrosequencing showing the best all-round performance. Our technology comparison can inform the selection, optimization and use of DNA methylation assays in large-scale validation studies, biomarker development and clinical diagnostics.

Identifying the earliest somatic changes in prostate cancer can give important insights into tumor evolution and aids in stratifying high- from low-risk disease. We integrated whole genome, transcriptome and methylome analysis of early-onset prostate cancers (diagnosis ≤55 years). Characterization across 292 prostate cancer genomes revealed age-related genomic alterations and a clock-like enzymatic-driven mutational process contributing to the earliest mutations in prostate cancer patients. Our integrative analysis identified four molecular subgroups, including a particularly aggressive subgroup with recurrent duplications associated with increased expression of ESRP1, which we validate in 12,000 tissue microarray tumors. Finally, we combined the patterns of molecular co-occurrence and risk-based subgroup information to deconvolve the molecular and clinical trajectories of prostate cancer from single patient samples.

There is substantial heterogeneity among primary prostate cancers, evident in the spectrum of molecular abnormalities and its variable clinical course. As part of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we present a comprehensive molecular analysis of 333 primary prostate carcinomas. Our results revealed a molecular taxonomy in which 74% of these tumors fell into one of seven subtypes defined by specific gene fusions (ERG, ETV1/4, and FLI1) or mutations (SPOP, FOXA1, and IDH1). Epigenetic profiles showed substantial heterogeneity, including an IDH1 mutant subset with a methylator phenotype. Androgen receptor (AR) activity varied widely and in a subtype-specific manner, with SPOP and FOXA1 mutant tumors having the highest levels of AR-induced transcripts. 25% of the prostate cancers had a presumed actionable lesion in the PI3K or MAPK signaling pathways, and DNA repair genes were inactivated in 19%. Our analysis reveals molecular heterogeneity among primary prostate cancers, as well as potentially actionable molecular defects.

(Cell Reports 23, 313–326; April 3, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the author list contained two errors. Specifically, David J. Kwiatkowski was misspelled as David J. Kwaitkowski, and William Y. Kim was inadvertently written as William T. Kim. Both names have been corrected online. The authors regret this error.

(Immunity 48, 812–830.e1–e14; April 17, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the authors neglected to include Younes Mokrab and Aaron M. Newman as co-authors and misspelled the names of authors Charles S. Rabkin and Ilya Shmulevich. The author names have been corrected here and online. In addition, the concluding sentence of the subsection “Immune Signature Compilation” in the Method Details in the original published article was deemed unclear because it did not specify differences among the gene set scoring methods. The concluding sentences now reads “Gene sets from Bindea et al., Senbabaoglu et al., and the MSigDB C7 collection were scored using single-sample gene set enrichment (ssGSEA) analysis (Barbie et al., 2009), as implemented in the GSVA R package (Hänzelmann et al., 2013). All other signatures were scored using methods found in the associated citations.”

(Cell 173, 371–385.e1–e9; April 5, 2018) It has come to our attention that we made two errors in preparation of this manuscript. First, in the STAR Methods, under the subheading of “Hypermutators and Immune Infiltrates” within the “Quantification and Statistical Analysis” section, we inadvertently referred to Figures S7A–S7C for data corresponding to sample stratification by hypermutator status alone in the last sentence. It should have referred to Figure S6A–S6C. Second, the lists of highly frequent missense mutations for COAD (colon adenocarcinoma) and READ (rectum adenocarcinoma) displayed in Figure S7 were incorrect because when we ordered the mutations in the initial analysis, we mistakenly combined the two cancer types COAD and READ for analysis, despite the fact that they were listed as two separate cancer types in the x-axis of the figure. After re-ordering the mutations by frequency for COAD and READ independently, information on highly frequent missense mutations for each of these cancer types is different and updated now in the revised Figure S7. These errors don't change the major conclusions of the paper and have been corrected online. We apologize for any confusion they may have caused. [Figure-presented]