Purpose: Cross-resistance renders multiple lines of androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors increasingly futile in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to determine acquired genomic contributors to cross-resistance. Experimental Design: We collected 458 serial plasma cell-free DNA samples at baseline and progression timepoints from 202 patients with mCRPC receiving sequential AR signaling inhibitors (abiraterone and enzalutamide) in a randomized phase II clinical trial (NCT02125357). We utilized deep targeted and whole-exome sequencing to compare baseline and posttreatment somatic genomic profiles in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Results: Patient ctDNA abundance was correlated across plasma collections and independently prognostic for sequential therapy response and overall survival. Most driver alterations in established prostate cancer genes were consistently detected in ctDNA over time. However, shifts in somatic populations after treatment were identified in 53% of patients, particularly after strong treatment responses. Treatment-associated changes converged upon the AR gene, with an average 50% increase in AR copy number, changes in AR mutation frequencies, and a 2.5-fold increase in the proportion of patients carrying AR ligand binding domain truncating rearrangements. Conclusions: Our data show that the dominant AR genotype continues to evolve during sequential lines of AR inhibition and drives acquired resistance in patients with mCRPC.

Purpose: DNA mismatch repair defects (MMRd) and tumor hypermutation are rare and under-characterized in metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). Furthermore, because hypermutated MMRd prostate cancers can respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors, there is an urgent need for practical detection tools.Experimental Design: We analyzed plasma cell-free DNAtargeted sequencing data from 433 patients with mPC with circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) purity !2%. Samples with somatic hypermutation were subjected to 185 Â whole-exome sequencing and capture of mismatch repair gene introns. Archival tissue was analyzed with targeted sequencing and IHC.Results: Sixteen patients (3.7%) had somatic hypermutation with MMRd etiology, evidenced by deleterious alterations in MSH2, MSH6, or MLH1, microsatellite instability, and characteristic trinucleotide signatures. ctDNA was concordant with mismatch repair protein IHC and DNA sequencing of tumor tissue. Tumor suppressors such as PTEN, RB1, and TP53 were inactivated by mutation rather than copy-number loss. Hotspot mutations in oncogenes such as AKT1, PIK3CA, and CTNNB1 were common, and the androgen receptor (AR)-ligand binding domain was mutated in 9 of 16 patients. We observed high intrapatient clonal diversity, evidenced by subclonal driver mutations and shifts in mutation allele frequency over time. Patients with hypermutation and MMRd etiology in ctDNA had a poor response to AR inhibition and inferior survival compared with a control cohort.Conclusions: Hypermutated MMRd mPC is associated with oncogene activation and subclonal diversity, which may contribute to a clinically aggressive disposition in selected patients. In patients with detectable ctDNA, cell-free DNA sequencing is a practical tool to prioritize this subtype for immunotherapy.See related commentary by Schweizer and Yu, p. 981

Purpose: DNA damage repair (DDR) defects are common across cancer types and can indicate therapeutic vulnerability. Optimal exploitation of DDR defects in prostate cancer requires new diagnostic strategies and a better understanding of associated clinical genomic features. Experimental Design: We performed targeted sequencing of 1,615 plasma cell-free DNA samples from 879 patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Depth-based copy-number calls and heterozygous SNP imbalance were leveraged to expose DDR-mutant allelic configuration and categorize mechanisms of biallelic loss. We used split-read structural variation analysis to characterize tumor suppressor rearrangements. Patient-matched archival primary tissue was analyzed identically. Results: BRCA2, ATM, and CDK12 were the most frequently disrupted DDR genes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), collectively mutated in 15% of evaluable cases. Biallelic gene disruption via second somatic alteration or mutant allele–specific imbalance was identified in 79% of patients. A further 2% exhibited homozygous BRCA2 deletions. Tumor suppressors TP53, RB1, and PTEN were controlled via disruptive chromosomal rearrangements in BRCA2-defective samples, but via oncogene amplification in context of CDK12 defects. TP53 mutations were rare in cases with ATM defects. DDR mutations were re-detected across 94% of serial ctDNA samples and in all available archival primary tissues, indicating they arose prior to metastatic progression. Loss of BRCA2 and CDK12, but not ATM, was associated with poor clinical outcomes. Conclusions: BRCA2, ATM, and CDK12 defects are each linked to distinct prostate cancer driver genomics and aggression. The consistency of DDR status in longitudinal samples and resolution of allelic status underscores the potential for ctDNA as a diagnostic tool.

No abstract

Background: Treatment of poor prognosis metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) includes taxane chemotherapy and androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI). We sought to determine optimal treatment in this setting. Patients and methods: This multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase II trial recruited patients with ARPI-naive mCRPC and poor prognosis features (presence of liver metastases, progression to mCRPC after <12 months of androgen deprivation therapy, or !4 of 6 clinical criteria). Patients were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive cabazitaxel plus prednisone (group A) or physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone (group B) at standard doses. Patients could cross over at progression. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate for first-line treatment (defined as prostate-specific antigen response !50%, radiographic response, or stable disease !12 weeks). Results: Ninety-five patients were accrued (median follow-up 21.9 months). First-line clinical benefit rate was greater in group A versus group B (80% versus 62%, P ¼ 0.039). Overall survival was not different between groups A and B (median 37.0 versus 15.5 months, hazard ratio (HR) ¼ 0.58, P ¼ 0.073) nor was time to progression (median 5.3 versus 2.8 months, HR ¼ 0.87, P ¼ 0.52). The most common first-line treatment-related grade !3 adverse events were neutropenia (cabazitaxel 32% versus ARPI 0%), diarrhoea (9% versus 0%), infection (9% versus 0%), and fatigue (7% versus 5%). Baseline circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) fraction above the cohort median and on-treatment ctDNA increase were associated with shorter time to progression (HR ¼ 2.38, P < 0.001; HR ¼ 4.03, P < 0.001). Patients with >30% ctDNA fraction at baseline had markedly shorter overall survival than those with undetectable ctDNA (HR ¼ 38.22, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Cabazitaxel was associated with a higher clinical benefit rate in patients with ARPI-naive poor prognosis mCRPC. ctDNA abundance was prognostic independent of clinical features, and holds promise as a stratification biomarker.

Objectives In the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting.Methods Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (vegfr) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (os) and time to treatment failure (ttf) were calculated using Kaplan–Meier curves. Overall response rates (orrs) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment.Results The analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median os was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% ci: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib (p = 0.61). The ttf was also similar at 6.90 months (95% ci: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% ci: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib (p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (hr) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% ci: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by imdc criteria and age, the hr was 1.32 (95% ci: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35.Conclusions Real-world imdc data indicate comparable os and ttf for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line vegfr-targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND:To the authors' knowledge, outcomes and prognostic tools have yet to be clearly defined in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are treated with immuno-oncology (IO) checkpoint inhibitors (programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] inhibitors). In the current study, the authors aimed to establish IO efficacy benchmarks in patients with mRCC and update patient outcomes in each International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic class. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using the IMDC database with data from 38 centers. It included patients with mRCC who were treated with ≥1 line of IO. Overall response rates (ORRs), duration of treatment (DOT), and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Patients were stratified using IMDC prognostic factors. RESULTS: A total of 687 patients (90% with clear cell and 10% with non-clear cell) were included. The ORR was 27% in evaluable patients (461 patients). In patients treated with first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab (49 patients), the combination of PD-L1 inhibitor and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (72 patients), and PD-L1 inhibitor (51 patients), the ORR was 31%, 39%, and 40%, respectively, and the median DOT was 8.3 months, 14.7 months, and 8.3 months, respectively. The ORR for second-line, third-line, and fourth-line nivolumab was 22%, 24%, and 26%, respectively. The median DOT was 5.7 months, 6.2 months, and 8.3 months, respectively, in the second-line, third-line, and fourth-line settings. When segregated into IMDC favorable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk groups, the median OS rates for the first-line, second-line, third-line, and fourth-line treatment settings were not reached (NR), NR, and NR, respectively (P = .163); NR, 26.7 months, and 7.4 months, respectively (P < 0. 0001); 36.1 months, 28.2 months, and 11.1 months, respectively (P = .016); and NR, NR, and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: The ORR was not found to deteriorate from the first-line to the fourth-line of IO therapy. In the second line through fourth line, the IMDC criteria appropriately stratified patients into favorable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk groups for OS. Cancer 2018;124:3677-3683.

Background: Treatment outcomes are poorly characterized in patients with metastatic chromophobe renal cell cancer (chrRCC), a subtype of renal cell carcinoma.Objective: This retrospective series aims to determine metastatic chrRCC treatment outcomes in the targeted therapy era.Methods: A retrospective data analysis was performed using the IMDC dataset of 4970 patients to determine metastatic chrRCC treatment outcomes in the targeted therapy era.Results: 109/4970 (2.2%) patients had metastatic chrRCC out of all patients with mRCC treated with targeted therapy. These patients were compared with 4861/4970 (97.8%) clear cell mRCC (ccRCC) patients. Patients with metastatic chrRCC had a similar OS compared to patients with ccRCC (23.8 months (95% CI 16.7 – 28.1) vs 22.4 months (95% CI 21.4 – 23.4), respectively (p = 0.0908). Patients with IMDC favorable (18%), intermediate (59%) and poor risk (23%) had median overall survivals of 31.4, 27.3, and 4.8 months, respectively (p = 0.028).Conclusions: To the authors’ knowledge, this is the largest series of metastatic chrRCC patients and these results set new benchmarks for survival in clinical trial design and patient counseling. The IMDC criteria risk categories seem to stratify patients into appropriate favourable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, although larger patient numbers are required. It appears that outcomes between metastatic chrRCC and ccRCC are similar when treated with conventional targeted therapies. Patients with metastatic chrRCC can be treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and enrolled in clinical trials to further measure outcomes in this rare patient population.