Context: Ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is relatively rare, but is nonetheless the second most common subtype of prostate cancer. First described in 1967, opinion is still divided regarding its biology, prognosis, and outcome.Objectives: To systematically interrogate the literature to clarify the epidemiology, diagnosis, management, progression, and survival statistics of DAC.Materials and methods: We conducted a literature search of five medical databases from inception to May 04 2020 according to PRISMA criteria using search terms “prostate ductal adenocarcinoma” OR “endometriod adenocarcinoma of prostate” and variations of each.Results: Some 114 studies were eligible for inclusion, presenting 2 907 170 prostate cancer cases, of which 5911 were DAC. [Correction added on 16 January 2021 after the first online publication: the preceding statement has been corrected in this current version.] DAC accounts for 0.17% of prostate cancer on meta‐analysis (range 0.0837%‐13.4%). The majority of DAC cases were admixed with predominant acinar adenocarcinoma (AAC). Median Prostate Specific Antigen at diagnosis ranged from 4.2 to 9.6 ng/mL in the case series.DAC was more likely to present as T3 (RR1.71; 95%CI 1.53‐1.91) and T4 (RR7.56; 95%CI 5.19‐11.01) stages, with far higher likelihood of metastatic disease (RR4.62; 95%CI 3.84‐5.56; all P‐values < .0001), compared to AAC. Common first treatments included surgery (radical prostatectomy (RP) or cystoprostatectomy for select cases) or radiotherapy (RT) for localized disease, and hormonal or chemo‐therapy for metastatic disease. Few studies compared RP and RT modalities, and those that did present mixed findings, although cancer‐specific survival rates seem worse after RP.Biochemical recurrence rates were increased with DAC compared to AAC. Additionally, DAC metastasized to unusual sites, including penile and peritoneal metastases. Where compared, all studies reported worse survival for DAC compared to AAC.Conclusion: When drawing conclusions about DAC it is important to note the heterogenous nature of the data. DAC is often diagnosed incidentally post‐treatment, perhaps due to lack of a single, universally applied histopathological definition. As such, DAC is likely underreported in clinical practice and the literature. Poorer prognosis and outcomes for DAC compared to AAC merit further research into genetic composition, evolution, diagnosis, and treatment of this surprisingly common prostate cancer sub‐type.Patient summary: Ductal prostate cancer is a rare but important form of prostate cancer. This review demonstrates that it tends to be more serious at detection and more likely to spread to unusual parts of the body. Overall survival is worse with this type of prostate cancer and urologists need to be aware of the presence of ductal prostate cancer to alter management decisions and follow‐up.

PURPOSE: Androgen receptor (AR) signaling is important in prostate cancer progression, and therapies that target this pathway have been the mainstay of treatment for advanced disease for over 70 years. Tumors eventually progress despite castration through a number of well-characterized mechanisms; however, little is known about what determines the magnitude of response to short-term pathway inhibition. METHODS: We evaluated a novel combination of AR-targeting therapies (degarelix, abiraterone, and bicalutamide) and noted that the objective patient response to therapy was highly variable. To investigate what was driving treatment resistance in poorly responding patients, as a secondary outcome we comprehensively characterized pre- and post-treatment samples using both whole-genome and RNA sequencing. RESULTS: We find that resistance following short-term treatment differs molecularly from typical progressive castration-resistant disease, associated with transcriptional reprogramming, to a transitional epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) phenotype rather than an upregulation of AR signaling. Unexpectedly, tolerance to therapy appears to be the default state, with treatment response correlating with the prevalence of tumor cells deficient for SNAI2, a key regulator of EMT reprogramming. CONCLUSION: We show that EMT characterizes acutely resistant prostate tumors and that deletion of SNAI2, a key transcriptional regulator of EMT, correlates with clinical response.

Newly diagnosed prostate cancers differ dramatically in mutational composition and lethality. The most accurate clinical predictor of lethality is tumor tissue architecture, quantified as tumor grade. To interrogate the evolutionary origins of prostate cancer heterogeneity, we analyzed 666 prostate tumor whole genomes. We identified a compendium of 223 recurrently mutated driver regions, most influencing downstream mutational processes and gene expression. We identified and validated individual germline variants that predispose tumors to acquire specific somatic driver mutations: these explain heterogeneity in disease presentation and ancestry differences. High-grade tumors have a superset of the drivers in lower-grade tumors, including increased frequency of BRCA2 and MYC mutations. Grade-associated driver mutations occur early in tumor evolution, and their earlier occurrence strongly predicts cancer relapse and metastasis. Our data suggest high- and low-grade prostate tumors both emerge from a common premalignant field, influenced by germline genomic context and stochastic mutation timing. Significance: This study uncovered 223 recurrently mutated driver regions using the largest cohort of prostate tumors to date. It reveals associations between germline SNPs, somatic drivers, and tumor aggression, offering significant insights into how prostate tumor evolution is shaped by germline factors and the timing of somatic mutations.

Objectives: To investigate the utility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer diagnosis in the Australian setting.Patients and methods: All consecutive men who underwent a prostate biopsy (transperineal or transrectal) at Royal Melbourne Hospital between July 2017 to June 2019 were included, totalling 332 patients. Data were retrospectively collected from patient records. For each individual patient, the risk of prostate cancer diagnosis at biopsy based on clinical findings was determined using the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator, with and without incorporation of MRI findings.Results: MRI has good diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant prostate cancer. A PI‐RADS 2 or lower finding has a negative predictive value of 96% for clinically significant cancer, and a PI‐RADS 3, 4 or 5 MRI scan has a sensitivity of 93%. However, MRI has a false negative rate of 6.5% overall for clinically significant prostate cancers. Pre‐ biopsy MRI may reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, as up to 50.0% of negative or ISUP1 biopsies have MRI PI‐RADS 2 or lower. Incorporation of MRI findings into the ERSPC calculator improved predictive performance for all prostate cancer diagnoses (AUC 0.77 vs 0.71, P = .04), but not for clinically significant cancer (AUC 0.89 vs 0.87, P = .37).Conclusion: MRI has good sensitivity and negative predictive value for clinically significant prostate cancers. It is useful as a pre‐biopsy tool and can be used to significantly reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies. However, MRI does not significantly improve risk predictions for clinically significant cancers when incorporated into the ERSPC risk calculator.