Prognosis Associated With Luminal and Basal Subtypes of Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Importance Luminal and basal subtypes of primary prostate cancer have been shown to be molecularly distinct and clinically important in predicting response to therapy. These subtypes have not been described in metastatic prostate cancer. Objectives To identify clinical and molecular correlates of luminal and basal subtypes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and investigate differences in survival, particularly after treatment with androgen-signaling inhibitors (ASIs). Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study, a retrospective analysis was conducted of 4 cohorts with mCRPC (N = 634) across multiple academic centers. Treatment was at the physicians' discretion. Details of the study cohorts have been published elsewhere between 2016 and 2019. Data were analyzed from March 2018 to February 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary clinical end point was overall survival from the date of tissue biopsy/molecular profiling. Luminal and basal subtypes were also stratified by postbiopsy ASI treatment. The primary molecular analyses included associations with small cell/neuroendocrine prostate cancer (SCNC), molecular pathways, and DNA alterations. Results In the 634 patients, 288 (45%) had tumors classified as luminal, and 346 (55%) had tumors classified as basal. However, 53 of 59 (90%) SCNC tumors were basal (P < .001). Similar to primary prostate cancer, luminal tumors exhibited overexpression of AR pathway genes. In basal tumors, a significantly higher rate of RB1 loss (23% basal vs 4% luminal; P < .001), FOXA1 alterations (36% basal vs 27% luminal; P = .03) and MYC alterations (73% basal vs 56% luminal; P < .001) were identified. Patients with basal tumors had worse overall survival compared with those with luminal tumors only in patients treated with an ASI postbiopsy (East Coast Dream Team: hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.74; P = .004; West Coast Dream Team: HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97; P = .04). Among patients with luminal tumors, those treated with an ASI had significantly better survival (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.53; P < .001), whereas patients with basal tumors did not (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.36-1.04, P = .07). The interaction term between subtype and ASI treatment was statistically significant (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.89; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance These findings represent the largest integrated clinical, transcriptomic, and genomic analysis of mCRPC samples to date, and suggest that mCRPC can be classified as luminal and basal tumors. Analogous to primary prostate cancer, these data suggest that the benefit of ASI treatment is more pronounced in luminal tumors and support the use of ASIs in this population. In the basal tumors, a chemotherapeutic approach could be considered in some patients given the similarity to SCNC and the diminished benefit of ASI therapy. Further validation in prospective clinical trials is warranted.

[1]  Luke A. Gilbert,et al.  DNA methylation landscapes in advanced prostate cancer , 2020, Nature Genetics.

[2]  Joshua M. Stuart,et al.  Transcriptional profiling identifies an androgen receptor activity-low, stemness program associated with enzalutamide resistance , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Joseph O Deasy,et al.  Robust and interpretable PAM50 reclassification exhibits survival advantage for myoepithelial and immune phenotypes , 2019, npj Breast Cancer.

[4]  M. Loda,et al.  The Role of Lineage Plasticity in Prostate Cancer Therapy Resistance , 2019, Clinical Cancer Research.

[5]  Yi Mi Wu,et al.  Genomic correlates of clinical outcome in advanced prostate cancer , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  M. Gleave,et al.  Genomic Drivers of Poor Prognosis and Enzalutamide Resistance in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer. , 2019, European urology.

[7]  L. Liao,et al.  Neuroendocrine prostate carcinoma cells originate from the p63-expressing basal cells but not the pre-existing adenocarcinoma cells in mice , 2019, Cell Research.

[8]  S. Jolly,et al.  Clinical and Genomic Implications of Luminal and Basal Subtypes Across Carcinomas , 2018, Clinical Cancer Research.

[9]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  The Immune Landscape of Prostate Cancer and Nomination of PD-L2 as a Potential Therapeutic Target , 2018, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[10]  Joshua M. Stuart,et al.  Genomic Hallmarks and Structural Variation in Metastatic Prostate Cancer , 2018, Cell.

[11]  Menggang Yu,et al.  Associations of Luminal and Basal Subtyping of Prostate Cancer With Prognosis and Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy , 2017, JAMA oncology.

[12]  R. Bast,et al.  Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  Ahmet Zehir,et al.  Inherited DNA-Repair Gene Mutations in Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  Yue Lu,et al.  Stem cell and neurogenic gene-expression profiles link prostate basal cells to aggressive prostate cancer , 2016, Nature Communications.

[15]  J. Shendure,et al.  Substantial inter-individual and limited intra-individual genomic diversity among tumors from men with metastatic prostate cancer , 2016, Nature Medicine.

[16]  Matteo Benelli,et al.  Divergent clonal evolution of castration resistant neuroendocrine prostate cancer , 2016, Nature Medicine.

[17]  J. Mesirov,et al.  The Molecular Signatures Database Hallmark Gene Set Collection , 2015 .

[18]  J. Siegfried,et al.  Expression of PAM50 Genes in Lung Cancer: Evidence that Interactions between Hormone Receptors and HER2/HER3 Contribute to Poor Outcome12 , 2015, Neoplasia.

[19]  Lawrence D. True,et al.  Integrative Clinical Genomics of Advanced Prostate Cancer , 2015, Cell.

[20]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Molecular subtyping for clinically defined breast cancer subgroups , 2015, Breast Cancer Research.

[21]  K. Baggerly,et al.  Identification of distinct basal and luminal subtypes of muscle-invasive bladder cancer with different sensitivities to frontline chemotherapy. , 2014, Cancer cell.

[22]  Benjamin E. Gross,et al.  The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. , 2012, Cancer discovery.

[23]  Fionn Murtagh,et al.  Ward’s Hierarchical Agglomerative Clustering Method: Which Algorithms Implement Ward’s Criterion? , 2011, Journal of Classification.

[24]  A. Nobel,et al.  Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Federico Ambrogi,et al.  Challenges in projecting clustering results across gene expression-profiling datasets. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[26]  Pablo Tamayo,et al.  Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[27]  H. Zou,et al.  Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net , 2005 .

[28]  Christian A. Rees,et al.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours , 2000, Nature.

[29]  P. Grambsch,et al.  Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals , 1994 .

[30]  Cheng Li,et al.  Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. , 2007, Biostatistics.

[31]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .