Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by lack of expression of both estrogen and progesterone receptor as well as lack of overexpression or amplification of HER2. Despite an increased probability of response to chemotherapy, many patients resistant to current chemotherapy regimens suffer from a worse prognosis compared to other breast cancer subtypes. However, molecular determinants of response to chemotherapy specific to TNBC remain largely unknown. Thus, there is a high demand for biomarkers potentially stratifying triple negative breast cancer patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapies or alternative therapies.
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains an incurable disease, despite multiple novel treatment options. The role of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) in the process of mCRPC development has long been underestimated. During the last years, a new understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms of rising PSMA expression and its association with disease progression has emerged. Accurate understanding of these complex interactions is indispensable for a precise diagnostic process and ultimately successful treatment of advanced prostate cancer. The combination of different novel therapeutics such as androgen deprivation agents, 177LU-PSMA radioligand therapy and PARP inhibitors promises a new kind of efficacy. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about the most relevant molecular mechanisms around PSMA in mCRPC development and how they can be implemented in mCRPC management.
Purpose: Androgen receptor splice variants are known to facilitate resistance of prostate cancer cells toward antihormonal therapies. However, detection of the most prominent variant, AR-V7, on its own, is not sufficiently accurate for prediction of response. Thus, simultaneous detection of other variants might improve prediction. AR-V567es has been shown to be expressed in late stages of prostate cancer. Yet, there have been discrepant results regarding incidence of AR-V567es. We therefore aimed to perform a comprehensive comparison of different detection approaches for AR-V567es mRNA. Experimental Design: We compared a custom-made, probe-based PCR assay with 6 published AR-V567es detection PCR assays in distinct samples, that is, cancer cell lines, LuCaP xenografts, primary and metastatic tumor samples, and circulating tumor cells (CTC). Results: Using distinct approaches, we concordantly detected expression of AR-V567es in only three of 45 samples (LuCaP xenografts 86.2 and 136s2 as well as one CTC sample). We observed varying results in all other samples. Specificity analysis displayed nonspecific binding of 5 previously published PCR assays to AR full-length mRNA in the absence of AR-V567es. Conclusions: Validation of biomarker detection approaches is one of the most critical steps before transfer into clinical application. By performing comparative analysis of different detection approaches, we revealed eminent variability among previously described systems. Furthermore, we demonstrate an overestimation of AR-V567es in prostate cancer, presumably due to nonspecific detection of AR-FL mRNA. Therefore, any correlation between AR-V567es expression and clinical responses is highly doubtful and does not reflect the biological nature of the disease.
Background: Androgen receptor (AR) splice variants (AR-Vs) have been discussed as a biomarker in prostate cancer (PC). However, some reports question the predictive property of AR-Vs. From a mechanistic perspective, the connection between AR full length (AR-FL) and AR-Vs is not fully understood. Here, we aimed to investigate the dependence of AR-FL and AR-V expression levels on AR gene activity. Additionally, we intended to comprehensively analyze presence of AR-FL and three clinically relevant AR-Vs (AR-V3, AR-V7 and AR-V9) in different stages of disease, especially with respect to clinical utility in PC patients undergoing AR targeted agent (ARTA) treatment. Methods: AR-FL and AR-V levels were analyzed in PC and non-PC cell lines upon artificial increase of AR pre-mRNA using either drug treatment or AR gene activation. Furthermore, expression of AR-FL and AR-Vs was determined in PC specimen at distinct stages of disease (primary (n = 10) and metastatic tissues (n = 20), liquid biopsy samples (n = 422), mCRPC liquid biopsy samples of n = 96 patients starting novel treatment). Finally, baseline AR-FL and AR-V status was correlated with clinical outcome in a defined cohort of n = 65 mCRPC patients undergoing ARTA treatment. Results: We revealed rising levels of AR-FL accompanied with appearance and increase of AR-Vs in dependence of elevated AR pre-mRNA levels. We also noticed increase in AR-FL and AR-V levels throughout disease progression. AR-V expression was always associated with high AR-FL levels without any sample being solely AR-V positive. In patients undergoing ARTA treatment, AR-FL did show prognostic, yet not predictive validity. Additionally, we observed a substantial clinical response to ARTA treatment even in AR-V positive patients. Accordingly, multivariate analysis did not demonstrate independent significance of AR-Vs in neither predictive nor prognostic clinical utility. Conclusion: We demonstrate a correlation between AR-FL and AR-V expression during PC progression; with AR-V expression being a side-effect of elevated AR pre-mRNA levels. Clinically, AR-V positivity relies on high levels of AR-FL, making cells still vulnerable to ARTA treatment, as demonstrated by AR-FL and AR-V positive patients responding to ARTA treatment. Thus, AR-FL and AR-V might be considered as a prognostic, yet not predictive biomarker in mCRPC patients.
Biomarker in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treatment are rare. We aimed to compare the clinical value of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and androgen receptor splice variant 7 (AR-V7) as biomarker in mCRPC patients undergoing androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) treatment. Overall cohort (65 patients) was stratified regarding either CTC or AR-V7 status followed by further sub-stratification of the respective other marker. Subsequently, prostate specific antigen (PSA) response, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)) of subgroups was compared. CTCs and AR-V7 were detected in 54 (83%) and 33 (61%) patients, respectively. All AR-V7 + were CTC +. We detected PSA response in all subgroups. For PFS and OS, biomarker stratification revealed differences between all subgroups. Interestingly, no significant differences of AR-V7 transcript copy numbers were detected between responding and non-responding patients. Additionally, multivariable analysis revealed no independent prognostic value of AR-V7 positivity. Both biomarkers show clinical value in prognosticating clinical outcome. Nonetheless, AR-V7 stratification underestimates the heterogenous subgroup of CTC − and CTC + patient, the latter requiring more intense clinical surveillance. Additionally, AR-V7 level does not correlate with clinical response. Thus, the value of AR-V7 as a clinical biomarker must be considered skeptically.