Summary 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, FLI1) or mutations (SPOP, FOXA1, 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.

No abstract

A growing literature supports the safety and efficacy of active surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. However, the experience behind this literature is based almost entirely in academic centers, and prior reports have consistently found surveillance generally underused in most other settings. 1,2 Conversely, high-risk tumors have been undertreated with androgen deprivation treatment alone. 2,3 Recent trends in community-based practice patterns have not been well documented.Methods | Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) is a national registry accruing men with prostate cancer diagnosed at 45 urology practices across the United States since 1995. A mix of large and small practices are included. All but 3 are community-based practices and 28 states across all regions are represented. Both prospective enrollment of newly diagnosed men and retrospective enrollment of previously diagnosed men were permitted before 1998; however, since 1998 all enrollment has been prospective.

IMPORTANCE Black men are more likely to die of prostate cancer than white men. In men with similar stages of disease, the contribution of biological vs nonbiological differences to this observed disparity is unclear. OBJECTIVE To quantify the association of black race with long-term survival outcomes after controlling for known prognostic variables and access to care among men with prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multiple-cohort study included updated individual patient-level data of men with clinical T1-4N0-1M0 prostate cancer from the following 3 cohorts: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER [n = 296 273]); 5 equal-access regional medical centers within the Veterans Affairs health system (VA [n = 3972]); and 4 pooled National Cancer Institute-sponsored Radiation Therapy Oncology Group phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs [n = 5854]). Data were collected in the 3

Luminal- and basal-like prostate cancers demonstrate divergent clinical behavior, and patients with luminal B tumors respond better to postoperative ADT than do patients with non–luminal B tumors. These findings contribute novel insight into prostate cancer biology, providing a potential clinical tool to personalize ADT treatment for prostate cancer by predicting which men may benefit from ADT after surgery.

Purpose To endorse Cancer Care Ontario’s guideline on Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The ASCO Endorsement Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 2015, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifying statements. The Cancer Care Ontario recommendation regarding 5-alpha reductase inhibitors was not endorsed by the ASCO panel. Recommendations For most patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤ 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the recommended disease management strategy. Factors including younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into account when making management decisions. Select patients with low-volume, intermediate-risk (Gleason 3 + 4 = 7) prostate cancer may be offered active surveillance. Active surveillance protocols should include prostate-specific antigen testing, digital rectal examinations, and serial prostate biopsies. Ancillary radiologic and genomic tests are investigational but may have a role in patients with discordant clinical and/or pathologic findings. Patients who are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score ≥ 7) or who have significant increases in tumor volume on subsequent biopsies should be offered active therapy.

Importance Prostate cancer treatments are associated with side effects. Understanding the side effects of contemporary approaches to management of localized prostate could inform shared decision-making. Objective To compare the harms of radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS). Design The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, cohort study of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 2011–2012. This study reports follow up through August 2015. Setting Patients accrued from five Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results registry sites and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. Participants Men < 80 years old with clinical stage cT1-2 disease, prostate specific antigen < 50 ng/mL, enrolled within six months of diagnosis, who completed a baseline survey and at least 1 follow-up survey. Exposure Treatment with RP, EBRT or AS was ascertained within one year of diagnosis. Main Outcome and Measures Patient-reported function in sexual, urinary incontinence, urinary irritative, bowel, and hormonal domains on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) 36 months after enrollment. Domain scores range from 0–100. Higher score indicates better function. Minimum clinically important difference defined as 10–12, 6, 5, 5, and 4, respectively. Results The cohort included 2550 men (mean age 63.8 years, 74% white, 55% intermediate or high risk), of whom 1523 (59.7%) underwent RP, 598 (23.5%) EBRT, and 429 (16.8%) AS. Men undergoing EBRT were older (mean age 68.1 vs. 61.5, p<0.001), and had worse baseline sexual function (mean EPIC domain score 52.3 vs. 65.2, p<0.001) than men undergoing RP. At 3 years, adjusted mean sexual domain score for men undergoing RP had declined more than for men undergoing EBRT (mean difference −11.9 points, 95% CI [−15.1, −8.7]). The difference in decline in sexual domain scores between EBRT and AS was not clinically significant (−4.3 points, 95% CI [−9.2, 0.7]). RP was associated with worse urinary incontinence than EBRT (−18.0 points, 95% CI [−20.5, −15.4]) or AS (−12.7 points, 95% CI [−16.0, −9.3]) and better urinary irritative symptoms compared to AS (5.2 points, 95% CI [3.2, 7.2]). No clinically significant differences for bowel or hormone function were noted beyond 12 months. No differences in global quality of life or disease-specific survival (3 deaths) were noted (99.7–100%). Conclusion and Relevance In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, RP was associated with a larger decline in sexual function and urinary incontinence than EBRT or AS after 3 years, and lesser urinary irritative symptoms compared to AS; however, there were no meaningful differences in bowel or hormonal function beyond 12 months and no meaningful differences in global quality of life measures. These findings may facilitate counseling regarding the comparative harms of contemporary treatments for prostate cancer.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is Purpose: Utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of prostate SBRT. We therefore sought to systematically analyze biochemical NotedAn online CME test for this article can be taken at https:// academy.astro.org.