Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a heterogeneous disease with diverse drivers of disease progression and mechanisms of therapeutic resistance. We conducted deep phenotypic characterization of CRPC metastases and patient-derived xenograft (PDX) lines using whole-genome RNA sequencing, gene set enrichment analysis, and immunohistochemistry. Our analyses revealed 5 mCRPC phenotypes based on the expression of well-characterized androgen receptor (AR) or neuroendocrine (NE) genes: AR-high tumors (ARPC), AR-low tumors (ARLPC), amphicrine tumors composed of cells coexpressing AR and NE genes (AMPC), double-negative tumors (i.e., AR^–/NE^–; DNPC), and tumors with small cell or NE gene expression without AR activity (SCNPC). RE1 silencing transcription factor (REST) activity, which suppresses NE gene expression, was lost in AMPC and SCNPC PDX models. However, knockdown of REST in cell lines revealed that attenuated REST activity drives the AMPC phenotype but is not sufficient for SCNPC conversion. We also identified a subtype of DNPC tumors with squamous differentiation and generated an encompassing 26-gene transcriptional signature that distinguished the 5 mCRPC phenotypes. Together, our data highlight the central role of AR and REST in classifying treatment-resistant mCRPC phenotypes. These molecular classifications could potentially guide future therapeutic studies and clinical trial design.

Intermittent treatment with high-dose testosterone shows therapeutic potential in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Understanding the integrated immunogenomic landscape of advanced prostate cancer (APC) could impact stratified treatment selection. Defective mismatch repair (dMMR) status was determined by either loss of mismatch repair protein expression on IHC or microsatellite instability (MSI) by PCR in 127 APC biopsies from 124 patients (Royal Marsden [RMH] cohort); MSI by targeted panel next-generation sequencing (MSINGS) was then evaluated in the same cohort and in 254 APC samples from the Stand Up To Cancer/Prostate Cancer Foundation (SU2C/PCF). Whole exome sequencing (WES) data from this latter cohort were analyzed for pathogenic MMR gene variants, mutational load, and mutational signatures. Transcriptomic data, available for 168 samples, was also performed. Overall, 8.1% of patients in the RMH cohort had some evidence of dMMR, which associated with decreased overall survival. Higher MSINGS scores associated with dMMR, and these APCs were enriched for higher T cell infiltration and PD-L1 protein expression. Exome MSINGS scores strongly correlated with targeted panel MSINGS scores (r = 0.73, P < 0.0001), and higher MSINGS scores associated with dMMR mutational signatures in APC exomes. dMMR mutational signatures also associated with MMR gene mutations and increased immune cell, immune checkpoint, and T cell-associated transcripts. APC with dMMR mutational signatures overexpressed a variety of immune transcripts, including CD200R1, BTLA, PD-L1, PD-L2, ADORA2A, PIK3CG, and TIGIT. These data could impact immune target selection, combination therapeutic strategy selection, and selection of predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy in APC. We acknowledge funding support from Movember, Prostate Cancer UK, The Prostate Cancer Foundation, SU2C, and Cancer Research UK.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) becomes resistant to androgen ablation through adaptive upregulation of the androgen receptor in response to the low-testosterone microenvironment. Bipolar androgen therapy (BAT), defined as rapid cycling between high and low serum testosterone, disrupts this adaptive regulation in castration-resistant PCa (CRPC). METHODS: The TRANSFORMER (Testosterone Revival Abolishes Negative Symptoms, Fosters Objective Response and Modulates Enzalutamide Resistance) study is a randomized study comparing monthly BAT (n = 94) with enzalutamide (n = 101). The primary end point was clinical or radiographic progression-free survival (PFS); crossover was permitted at progression. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and objective response rates, PFS from randomization through crossover (PFS2), safety, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: The PFS was 5.7 months for both arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.55; P = .42). For BAT, 50% decline in PSA (PSA50) was 28.2% of patients versus 25.3% for enzalutamide. At crossover, PSA50 response occurred in 77.8% of patients crossing to enzalutamide and 23.4% to BAT. The PSA-PFS for enzalutamide increased from 3.8 months after abiraterone to 10.9 months after BAT. The PFS2 for BAT→enzalutamide was 28.2 versus 19.6 months for enzalutamide→BAT (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88; P = .02). OS was 32.9 months for BAT versus 29.0 months for enzalutamide (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.39; P = .80). OS was 37.1 months for patients crossing from BAT to enzalutamide versus 30.2 months for the opposite sequence (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.28; P = .225). BAT adverse events were primarily grade 1-2. Patient-reported QoL consistently favored BAT. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial establishes meaningful clinical activity and safety of BAT and supports additional study to determine its optimal clinical integration. BAT can sensitize CRPC to subsequent antiandrogen therapy. Further study is required to confirm whether sequential therapy with BAT and enzalutamide can improve survival in men with CRPC.

Niclosamide, an FDA-approved anti-helminthic drug, has activity in preclinical models of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Potential mechanisms of action include degrading constitutively active androgen receptor splice variants (AR-Vs) or inhibiting other drug-resistance pathways (e.g., Wnt-signaling). Published pharmacokinetics data suggests that niclosamide has poor oral bioavailability, potentially limiting its use as a cancer drug. Therefore, we launched a Phase I study testing oral niclosamide in combination with enzalutamide, for longer and at higher doses than those used to treat helminthic infections. We conducted a Phase I dose-escalation study testing oral niclosamide plus standard-dose enzalutamide in men with metastatic CRPC previously treated with abiraterone. Niclosamide was given three-times-daily (TID) at the following dose-levels: 500, 1000 or 1500mg. The primary objective was to assess safety. Secondary objectives, included measuring AR-V expression from circulating tumor cells (CTCs) using the AdnaTest assay, evaluating PSA changes and determining niclosamide’s pharmacokinetic profile. 20 patients screened and 5 enrolled after passing all screening procedures. 13(65%) patients had detectable CTCs, but only one was AR-V+. There were no dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in 3 patients on the 500mg TID cohort; however, both (N = 2) subjects on the 1000mg TID cohort experienced DLTs (prolonged grade 3 nausea, vomiting, diarrhea; and colitis). The maximum plasma concentration ranged from 35.7–82 ng/mL and was not consistently above the minimum effective concentration in preclinical studies. There were no PSA declines in any enrolled subject. Because plasma concentrations at the maximum tolerated dose (500mg TID) were not consistently above the expected therapeutic threshold, the Data Safety Monitoring Board closed the study for futility. Oral niclosamide could not be escalated above 500mg TID, and plasma concentrations were not consistently above the threshold shown to inhibit growth in CRPC models. Oral niclosamide is not a viable compound for repurposing as a CRPC treatment. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02532114

Prostate cancer (PC) initially depends on androgen receptor (AR) signaling for survival and growth. Therapeutics designed to suppress AR activity serve as the primary intervention for advanced disease. However, supraphysiological androgen (SPA) concentrations can produce paradoxical responses leading to PC growth inhibition. We sought to discern the mechanisms by which SPA inhibits PC and to determine if molecular context associates with antitumor activity. SPA produced an AR-mediated, dose-dependent induction of DNA double-strand breaks, G₀/G₁ cell-cycle arrest, and cellular senescence. SPA repressed genes involved in DNA repair and delayed the restoration of damaged DNA, which was augmented by poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 inhibition. SPA-induced double-strand breaks were accentuated in BRCA2-deficient patients with PC, and combining SPA with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase or DNA-dependent protein kinase inhibition further repressed growth. Next-generation sequencing was performed on biospecimens from patients with PC receiving SPA as part of ongoing phase II clinical trials. Patients with mutations in genes mediating homology-directed DNA repair were more likely to exhibit clinical responses to SPA. These results provide a mechanistic rationale for directing SPA therapy to patients with PC who have AR amplification or DNA repair deficiency and for combining SPA therapy with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition.