BACKGROUND Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the backbone of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer since the 1940s. We assessed whether concomitant treatment with ADT plus docetaxel would result in longer overall survival than that with ADT alone. METHODS We assigned men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to receive either ADT plus docetaxel (at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks for six cycles) or ADT alone. The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that the median overall survival would be 33.3% longer among patients receiving docetaxel added to ADT early during therapy than among patients receiving ADT alone. RESULTS A total of 790 patients (median age, 63 years) underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 28.9 months, the median overall survival was 13.6 months longer with ADT plus docetaxel (combination therapy) than with ADT alone (57.6 months vs. 44.0 months; hazard ratio for death in the combination group, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). The median time to biochemical, symptomatic, or radiographic progression was 20.2 months in the combination group, as compared with 11.7 months in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; P<0.001). The rate of a prostate-specific antigen level of less than 0.2 ng per milliliter at 12 months was 27.7% in the combination group versus 16.8% in the ADT-alone group (P<0.001). In the combination group, the rate of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia was 6.2%, the rate of grade 3 or 4 infection with neutropenia was 2.3%, and the rate of grade 3 sensory neuropathy and of grade 3 motor neuropathy was 0.5%. CONCLUSIONS Six cycles of docetaxel at the beginning of ADT for metastatic prostate cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival than that with ADT alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00309985.)

SUMMARY Allelic loss of the essential autophagy gene beclin1 occurs in human cancers and renders mice tumor-prone suggesting that autophagy is a tumor-suppression mechanism. While tumor cells utilize autophagy to survive metabolic stress, autophagy also mitigates the resulting cellular damage that may limit tumorigenesis. In response to stress, autophagy-defective tumor cells preferentially accumulate p62/SQSTM1 (p62), endoplasmic reticulum (ER) chaperones, damaged mitochondria, reactive oxygen species (ROS), and genome damage. Moreover, suppressing ROS or p62 accumulation prevented damage resulting from autophagy defects indicating that failure to regulate p62 caused oxidative stress. Importantly, sustained p62 expression resulting from autophagy defects was sufficient to alter NF-κB regulation and gene expression and to promote tumorigenesis. Thus defective autophagy is a mechanism for p62 upregulation commonly observed in human tumors that contributes directly to tumorigenesis likely by perturbing the signal transduction adaptor function of p62 controlling pathways critical for oncogenesis.

Autophagy is a catabolic pathway used by cells to support metabolism in response to starvation and to clear damaged proteins and organelles in response to stress. We report here that expression of a H-ras V12 or K-ras V12 oncogene up-regulates basal autophagy, which is required for tumor cell survival in starvation and in tumorigenesis.In Ras-expressing cells, defective autophagosome formation or cargo delivery causes accumulation of abnormal mitochondria and reduced oxygen consumption. Autophagy defects also lead to tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle metabolite and energy depletion in starvation. As mitochondria sustain viability of Ras-expressing cells in starvation, autophagy is required to maintain the pool of functional mitochondria necessary to support growth of Ras-driven tumors. Human cancer cell lines bearing activating mutations in Ras commonly have high levels of basal autophagy, and, in a subset of these, down-regulating the expression of essential autophagy proteins impaired cell growth. As cancers with Ras mutations have a poor prognosis, this ''autophagy addiction'' suggests that targeting autophagy and mitochondrial metabolism are valuable new approaches to treat these aggressive cancers.

Macroautophagy (autophagy) is a lysosomal degradation pathway for the breakdown of intracellular proteins and organelles. Although constitutive autophagy is a homeostatic mechanism for intracellular recycling and metabolic regulation, autophagy is also stress responsive, in which it is important for the removal of damaged proteins and organelles. Autophagy thereby confers stress tolerance, limits damage, and sustains viability under adverse conditions. Autophagy is a tumor-suppression mechanism, yet it enables tumor cell survival in stress. Reconciling how loss of a prosurvival function can promote tumorigenesis, emerging evidence suggests that preservation of cellular fitness by autophagy may be key to tumor suppression. As autophagy is such a fundamental process, establishing how the functional status of autophagy influences tumorigenesis and treatment response is important. This is especially critical as many current cancer therapeutics activate autophagy. Therefore, efforts to understand and modulate the autophagy pathway will provide new approaches to cancer therapy and prevention. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(17):5308-16) Autophagy Is a Lysosomal Degradation Pathway for Intracellular DigestionStress stimuli activate cellular pathways for adaptation that are crucial for cells to either tolerate adverse conditions or to trigger cell suicide mechanisms, such as apoptosis to eliminate damaged and potentially dangerous cells (1). Metabolic stress, including starvation, increases the cellular requirement for energy production and damage mitigation, and catabolic cellular self-digestion by autophagy plays a critical role in both instances. Stress activates autophagy, in which double membrane vesicles form and engulf proteins, cytoplasm, protein aggregates, and organelles that are then delivered to lysosomes where they are degraded (2). Autophagy serves to maintain cellular metabolism through recycling of cellular components when the availability of external nutrient sources is limited. Autophagydeficient mice have tissues with low ATP levels and fail to survive the neonatal starvation period, providing a clear example of autophagy-mediated management of energy homeostasis (3). Stress, particularly resulting from oxidative damage due to aging or hypoxic conditions, damages proteins and organelles that require autophagy for elimination. Mice with autophagy defects accumulate cells with polyubiquitinated p62 (sequestosome1)-containing protein aggregates and damaged mitochondria and show elevated oxidative stress and cell death (4-8). Thus, autophagy is important for the degradative turnover of damaged proteins and organelles during stress, the failure of which is toxic to cells and tissues and can be pro-inflammatory. Peptides generated from proteins degraded by autophagy can also be used for antigen presentation to T cells for regulation of immunity and host defense (9). The importance of autophagy as a homeostatic and survival-promoting mechanism is underscored by the association of autophagy defects in t...

Autophagy is an evolutionarily conserved, intracellular self-defense mechanism in which organelles and proteins are sequestered into autophagic vesicles that are subsequently degraded through fusion with lysosomes. Cells, thereby, prevent the toxic accumulation of damaged or unnecessary components, but also recycle these components to sustain metabolic homoeostasis. Heightened autophagy is a mechanism of resistance for cancer cells faced with metabolic and therapeutic stress, revealing opportunities for exploitation as a therapeutic target in cancer. We summarize recent developments in the field of autophagy and cancer and build upon the results presented at the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) Early Drug Development meeting in March 2010. Herein, we describe our current understanding of the core components of the autophagy machinery and the functional relevance of autophagy within the tumor microenvironment, and we outline how this knowledge has informed preclinical investigations combining the autophagy inhibitor hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Finally, we describe ongoing clinical trials involving HCQ as a first generation autophagy inhibitor, as well as strategies for the development of novel, more potent, and specific inhibitors of autophagy.

Purpose Docetaxel added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly increases the longevity of some patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Herein, we present the outcomes of the CHAARTED (Chemohormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer) trial with more mature follow-up and focus on tumor volume. Patients and Methods In this phase III study, 790 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were equally randomly assigned to receive either ADT in combination with docetaxel 75 mg/m for up to six cycles or ADT alone. The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Additional analyses of the prospectively defined low- and high-volume disease subgroups were performed. High-volume disease was defined as presence of visceral metastases and/or ≥ four bone metastases with at least one outside of the vertebral column and pelvis. Results At a median follow-up of 53.7 months, the median OS was 57.6 months for the chemohormonal therapy arm versus 47.2 months for ADT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P = .0018). For patients with high-volume disease (n = 513), the median OS was 51.2 months with chemohormonal therapy versus 34.4 months with ADT alone (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.79; P < .001). For those with low-volume disease (n = 277), no OS benefit was observed (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.55; P = .86). Conclusion The clinical benefit from chemohormonal therapy in prolonging OS was confirmed for patients with high-volume disease; however, for patients with low-volume disease, no OS benefit was discerned.

Macroautophagy (autophagy hereafter) degrades and recycles proteins and organelles to support metabolism and survival in starvation. Oncogenic Ras up-regulates autophagy, and Ras-transformed cell lines require autophagy for mitochondrial function, stress survival, and engrafted tumor growth. Here, the essential autophagy gene autophagy-related-7 (atg7 ) was deleted concurrently with K-ras G12D activation in mouse models for non-smallcell lung cancer (NSCLC). atg7-deficient tumors accumulated dysfunctional mitochondria and prematurely induced p53 and proliferative arrest, which reduced tumor burden that was partly relieved by p53 deletion. atg7 loss altered tumor fate from adenomas and carcinomas to oncocytomas-rare, predominantly benign tumors characterized by the accumulation of defective mitochondria. Surprisingly, lipid accumulation occurred in atg7-deficient tumors only when p53 was deleted. atg7-and p53-deficient tumor-derived cell lines (TDCLs) had compromised starvation survival and formed lipidic cysts instead of tumors, suggesting defective utilization of lipid stores. atg7 deficiency reduced fatty acid oxidation (FAO) and increased sensitivity to FAO inhibition, indicating that with p53 loss, Ras-driven tumors require autophagy for mitochondrial function and lipid catabolism. Thus, autophagy is required for carcinoma fate, and autophagy defects may be a molecular basis for the occurrence of oncocytomas. Moreover, cancers require autophagy for distinct roles in metabolism that are oncogene-and tumor suppressor gene-specific.

Summary Background Renal-cell carcinoma is highly vascular, and proliferates primarily through dysregulation of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. We tested sunitinib and sorafenib, two oral anti-angiogenic agents that are effective in advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in patients with resected local disease at high risk for recurrence. Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients at 226 study centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients had pathological stage high-grade T1b or greater with completely resected non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma and adequate cardiac, renal, and hepatic function. Patients were stratified by recurrence risk, histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and surgical approach, and computerised double-blind randomisation was done centrally with permuted blocks. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 54 weeks of sunitinib 50 mg per day orally throughout the first 4 weeks of each 6 week cycle, sorafenib 400 mg twice per day orally throughout each cycle, or placebo. Placebo could be sunitinib placebo given continuously for 4 weeks of every 6 week cycle or sorafenib placebo given twice per day throughout the study. The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival between each experimental group and placebo in the intention-to-treat population. All treated patients with at least one follow-up assessment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326898. Findings Between April 24, 2006, and Sept 1, 2010, 1943 patients from the National Clinical Trials Network were randomly assigned to sunitinib (n=647), sorafenib (n=649), or placebo (n=647). Following high rates of toxicity-related discontinuation after 1323 patients had enrolled (treatment discontinued by 193 [44%] of 438 patients on sunitinib, 199 [45%] of 441 patients on sorafenib), the starting dose of each drug was reduced and then individually titrated up to the original full doses. On Oct 16, 2014, because of low conditional power for the primary endpoint, the ECOG-ACRIN Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that blinded follow-up cease and the results be released. The primary analysis showed no significant differences in disease-free survival. Median disease-free survival was 5·8 years (IQR 1·6–8·2) for sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 97·5% CI 0·85–1·23, p=0·8038), 6·1 years (IQR 1·7–not estimable [NE]) for sorafenib (HR 0·97, 97·5% CI 0·80–1·17, p=0·7184), and 6·6 years (IQR 1·5–NE) for placebo. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (105 [17%] patients on sunitinib and 102 [16%] patients on sorafenib), hand-foot syndrome (94 [15%] patients on sunitinib and 208 [33%] patients on sorafenib), rash (15 [2%] patients on sunitinib and 95 [15%] patients on sorafenib), and fatigue (110 [17%] patients on sunitinib and 44 [7%] patients on sorafenib). There were five deaths related to treatment or occurring within 30 days...