Small Cell Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials

(frequently updated)

Small Cell Prostate Cancer (SCPC), and more generally Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer (NEPC), are thankfully rare types of prostate cancers. They are not responsive to hormone therapy, to taxanes (Taxotere or Jevtana), or to radiation. They are difficult to detect and monitor with the kinds of imaging used to detect prostate adenocarcinoma (mpMRI, bone scans, PSMA PET scans), but may show up with FDG PET (see this link). They do not put out PSA, PAP or bone alkaline phosphatase. Special biochemical tests or biopsies for chromogranin A, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), synaptophysin,  DLL-3, CD56, and other biomarkers are required. It often appears at a "mixed type." 

Sub-types

Not all neuroendocrine prostate cancers carry the same prognosis. Aggarwal identified a sub-type that became prevalent in 17% of patients who were heavily pretreated with enzalutamide (Xtandi) and abiraterone (Zytiga). He calls this "treatment-emergent small cell neuroendocrine prostate cancer (t-SCNC). The pre-treatment probably selected for this subtype that may be partially responsive to familiar therapies. The "treatment-emergent" subtype and the small amounts sometimes detected initial biopsies do not appear to be as virulent (see this link). There are some studies that indicate that they may appear spontaneously in later stages of normal prostate cancer development. Aggarwal commented:

“Although long term androgen deprivation therapy may be associated with the development of treatment-emergent small cell neuroendocrine prostate cancer (t-SCNC) in a minority of patients, multiple studies have confirmed the long-term benefit of abiraterone and enzalutamide for prostate cancer patients in various disease settings. Use of these agents should not be limited by concern for the subsequent development of t-SCNC.”

Aggarwal has announced a clinical trial where he will be testing a combination of Xtandi, Keytruda, and ZEN-3694 in (among others) a group of men identified with the t-SCNC subtype. ZEN-3694 is an experimental medicine that inhibits a gene called MYC, which is often over-expressed in advanced prostate cancer. 

Aggarwal is also testing FOR-46 targeting the CD-46 protein that often is expressed in neuroendocrine tumors.

177Lu Basket Trial (begins June 18, 2024)

Because there are several subtypes of neuroendocrine PCa, Novartis is running a trial that takes patients with 3 different subtypes and treats them with a radiopharmaceutical with the most appropriate ligand tailored to the dominant subtype. A biopsy determines whether it is neuroendocrine and which of 3 subtypes predominates. 177Lu is attached to any of the following 3 ligands:

1. PSMA
2. SSTR2 (Somatostatin receptor)
3. GRPR (Gonadotropin releasing hormone receptor)

Chemotherapy

Because of the "mixed type," chemo often includes a taxane. More often, a platin is mixed in a cocktail with another chemo agent, like etoposide. A couple of case reports from Japan (see this link and this one) reported some success with a platin combined with irinotecan.

This clinical trial at Duke has two chemotherapies (cabazitaxel and carboplatin), as well as two checkpoint blockade-type immunotherapies (nivolumab and ipilimumab):

CHAMP

Nuclear Medicine/ Somatostatin

The Urology Cancer Center in Omaha, Nebraska has announced a clinical trial of 225Ac-FPI-2059 for neuroendocrine cancers. FPI-2059 is a small molecule that attaches to the neurotensin receptor 1 peptide that is expressed by neuroendocrine cancer cells.

Another radiopharmaceutical has been tried by the nuclear medicine department at the University of Heidelberg. I suggest that anyone who is interested email or call (they all speak English) Uwe_Haberkorn@med.uni-heidelberg.de Phone: 06221/56 7731. With the euro now at close to parity with the dollar, this medical tourism is an especially attractive option:

213Bi-DOTATOC shows efficacy in targeting neuroendocrine tumors

A similar radiopharmaceutical using Lu-177-DOTATATE (called Lutathera) has been FDA-approved for small cell cancer affecting the digestive tract. DOTATOC (and also DOTATEC and DOTATATE) binds to somatostatin receptors on the small cell digestive tract cancer surface, where it is highly expressed. It is rarely expressed in small-cell prostate cancer, but there have been some isolated case reports like this one or small trials like this one. This means that treatment with a somatostatin analog (octreotide, lanreotide, or pasireotide) may be somewhat effective even without the radioactive emitter attached to it. These drugs are available now in the US, are not toxic, and your doctor can prescribe them without a clinical trial. there is a clinical trial of it in London for any solid tumor:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02236910

These clinical trials include somatostatins:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01794793
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02754297

This clinical trial at Johns Hopkins uses Lutathera to treat neuroendocrine prostate cancer, specifically:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05691465

While the presence of somatostatin receptors in the tumor can be determined by pathological analysis (immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for SSTR2), there is an FDA-approved PET scan that uses Ga-68-DOTATATE that can detect it without a biopsy. It is used to detect neuroendocrine tumors that are often non-prostatic. Researchers at Emory found that Ga-68-DOTATATE uptake is higher even in neuroendocrine tumors of prostatic origin, which suggests that somatostatin-based therapy may be beneficial. (One patient who was positive for a BRCA2 mutation but negative for NEPC had high uptake as well.)

DLL3

DLL3 is a protein that is expressed on the surface of neuroendocrine cells regardless of the cancer of origin, and has been identified in two-thirds of neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) cells. An antibody linked to a chemotherapy, called Rova-T, against DLL3 has been developed and has shown some promise against NEPC in a preclinical study. Unfortunately, AbbVie discontinued R&D after it failed to meet goals for small cell lung cancer (SCLC). A Phase 2 trial that included NEPC was discontinued. Misha Beltran at Dana Farber has tried an antibody-drug conjugate (rovalpituzumab teserine) targeted to DLL3 on a single patient. After two treatments, his metastases shrank and stabilized.

Harpoon has announced a clinical trial of HPN328  for people with advanced cancers that express DLL3. HPN328 is a bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) that targets DLL3 and also promotes T cells to attack those cells exhibiting it. AMG757 is also a BiTE. Amgen has announced a clinical trial of AMG 757 for advanced prostate cancer. Phanes Therapeutics has a BiTE clinical trial targeting DLL3.

AMG119 is a CAR-T therapy that targets DLL-3. CAR-T involves treating one's own T-cells by sensitizing them to DLL3. Both of these create a T-cell and a cytokine response in environments that otherwise have low immune cell activity. That response may kill bystander cells, and through a phenomenon called "antigen spreading," may be able to kill other cancer cells that do not exhibit DLL3. (BiTE and CAR-T therapies that target PSMA are  in clinical trials noted at end of this article)

The Wang Lab at Duke has specific expertise in morphological analysis of NEPC and IHC staining for DLL3. It may be a good idea to get a second opinion from them.

Checkpoint blockade

Another recent discovery is that PD-L1 is highly expressed in SCPC. This opens the door to immunotherapies that target the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, like Keytruda.

PD-L1 expression in small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas

Small clinical trials have so far shown little benefit:

Avelumab (Duke)

Pembrolizumab (UCLA)

Testosterone to TREAT prostate cancer - are they crazy? No - it just may work. (mCRPC)

(frequently updated)

Background

When prostate cancer metastasizes and becomes castration-resistant (mCRPC) after a period of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a number of biochemical changes to the androgen receptor (AR) take place within the cancer cell. Among those changes:

• The androgen receptor (AR) multiplies on the cancer cell surface so that even the smallest amount of testosterone or other circulating androgens can activate it.
• Even without an androgen ligand, the androgen receptor moves from the surface of the cell to the inside where it is protected. These internalized androgen receptors play a role in encouraging cell replication and in self-destruction (apoptosis) of cells in which the DNA  has become irreparably damaged.
• The cell manufactures its own androgens internally. These activate the internalized androgen receptors.
• The androgen receptor mutates into truncated versions that can be activated by a host of other molecules (other than testosterone), or don't require other molecules at all to activate it. Recently, researchers at Johns Hopkins identified a version called the "AR-V7 splice variant" that allows the cancer cell to multiply even when all androgens are completely eliminated. It is induced by long term androgen deprivation (see this link).

There may also be tissue-based effects. This means that, in a tumor, there are a variety of cell types. Castration resistance is not an all-or-none situation. Some cells within any given tumor will always remain hormone sensitive. Some cells, like cancer stem cells, have never been hormone sensitive. All of these cell types interact. Hormone-sensitive cells signal castration-resistant cells to become more like them. At the same time, castration-resistant cells signal hormone-sensitive cells to become more like them. Over time, the hormone-sensitive cells (being the ones that are killed by ADT)  lose the battle as the equilibrium shifts towards castration resistance.

How testosterone can help

Supraphysiologic doses, meaning serum levels greater than 1000 ng/dL, may help in several ways:

• Testosterone prevents the androgen receptor from multiplying on the cell surface, and decreases the  number of androgen receptors already there, thereby increasing the cancer cell's sensitivity to subsequent androgen ablation (see this link). It also prevents the cell from becoming super-sensitized to androgens.
• Inside the cell, high levels of testosterone prevent the internalized androgen receptors from encouraging cell replication - too much testosterone, as well as too little testosterone, discourages cancer cell replication (see this link).
• High levels of testosterone and other androgens may induce damage the cancer cell's DNA (see this link). One of the interesting hypotheses is that combining high testosterone with a chemotherapy that is known to cause DNA damage will be particularly effective (see below).
• Testosterone may be able to reverse the AR-V7 splice variant that is known to cause resistance to even second-line hormonal therapies like Zytiga and Xtandi (see this link).
• On the tumor tissue level, testosterone supports the growth of hormone-sensitive cells while destroying castration-resistant cells, as described. This shifts the equilibrium back towards androgen deprivation sensitivity.
• Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs) may be able to provide similar benefits without some of the drawbacks (see this link).

Why can't we just give continuous high doses of testosterone?

It's been known for a while that testosterone plays a role in keeping healthy prostate cells healthy. We have observed that hypogonadal men (men who have low natural levels of testosterone) are more likely to have prostate cancer, and more virulent types. For a thorough recent review of this subject, see this link. In fact, one pilot study showed that men with mCRPC who had higher plasma testosterone levels (but still at castration levels) survived twice as long. They responded better to chemotherapy as well (see this link).

In 2009, Robert Liebowitz et al. reported on 96 patients who received very high dose testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) after some kind of prostate cancer treatment. For 59 of those men, the only treatment had been androgen deprivation. 12% were detectably metastatic. 60% had PSA progression while on TRT, but few had metastatic progression in that time period. For most of those, discontinuing TRT reversed the PSA progression.

There was a small (12 man) safety trial at Memorial Sloan Kettering. None of the men achieved supraphysiological serum testosterone levels from the transdermal gel they used. One man had to discontinue when he experienced spinal pain, but there weren't any other major side effects. Of the 12 men, 7 had decreased PSA (one had a 50% decrease). The other 5 had increased PSA, 2 by more than 50%. There was no regression of metastases in any of the men.

Other small trials of TRT alone had mixed results (see this link and this one).

So TRT alone doesn't seem to work. Both effects are necessary: (1) the TRT re-establishes hormone sensitivity, and then (2) the ADT kills off the hormone-sensitive cancer cells. For disease stabilization or regression, it seems to be necessary to alternate TRT with ADT. This is called bipolar androgen therapy (BAT).

I'm on intermittent hormone therapy - doesn't that accomplish the same thing?

Unfortunately, no. It had been hoped that intermittent ADT would accomplish two benefits:

1. Delay the development of castration resistance, and thereby prolong survival, and
2. Give men a break during which quality of life would improve temporarily

In fact, it accomplishes neither for most men. Intermittent ADT is sometimes inferior to continuous androgen ablation, perhaps especially for those with low metastatic burden. Castration resistance occurs at the same time with either intermittent or continuous ADT, and intermittent has not been shown to prolong survival.

After a long while on ADT, it takes a long time for a man's testicles to recover the ability to generate amounts of testosterone that are adequate to recover libido and help a man feel better. As far as the cancer is concerned, the cancer couldn't adapt if it were suddenly shocked by a large surge of testosterone. But during the "off-cycle,"as the amount of testosterone slowly increases, his cancer is able to adapt.  The cancer consequently thrives on the incremental increases rather than being killed by it. By the time the testosterone reaches a level that makes a measurable difference to his quality of life, the cancer has proliferated. His PSA has then gotten so high that the ADT "holiday" must be ended.

It sounds good in theory, but does it work in clinical practice?

Schweizer et al. conducted a pilot test at Johns Hopkins. They treated 16 asymptomatic men who were diagnosed a metastatic and castration-resistant. They were all still on ADT. They gave the men high doses of injected testosterone and treatment with the chemo drug etoposide (see above), which is normally ineffective in treating prostate cancer. After at least 3 cycles:

• Half of them enjoyed a decline in PSA, most of those by more than a 50% decline
• Half had a radiographic response, including 1 patient who had no discernable metastases
• Half the patients did not respond at all, and PSA continued to rise
• Responders had a higher pre-BAT PSA than non-responders
• 10 of 10 patients (100%) responded to second-line ADT (Xtandi, Zytiga or Casodex) after BAT (some were resistant to those therapies before BAT)
• 3 patients had severe toxicity attributable to etoposide.

It appears that BAT may at least delay progression in at least some men with mCRPC. It seems to resensitize their cancers to hormonal agents, even when it didn't succeed in decreasing PSA or evident (radiographic) progression. It does not increase survival (see the TRANSFORMER RCT below). However, the men periodically enjoyed enhanced quality of life from periodic high levels of testosterone. It's unclear whether etoposide chemotherapy added much to the response.

How can we tell who will respond and who will get worse?

Markowski et al. reported on 6 men treated with BAT. A PSMA PET scan (DCFPyL) 3 months into BAT treatment revealed that 3 of them had already progressed to having new metastases.

Before it can gain widespread use, is imperative that predictive biomarkers be found. So far, genomic analysis has failed to discover any.

Can it overcome resistance to Zytiga or Xtandi?

(Update 6/2017) Denmeade's group reported on 30 minimally symptomatic mCRPC men who had progressed on Xtandi.

• 30% saw PSA reduced by at least 50%
• 43% saw PSA increase from baseline; in 17%, PSA more than doubled.
• 36% had some regression of disease
• Median 8.6 months of radiographic/clinical progression-free survival
• 54% responded to re-challenge with Xtandi with a subsequent drop in PSA by at least 50% and progression-free survival of 4.8 months
• A third of those with the resistant AR-V7 mutation responded to BAT, and had lowered AR-V7 levels
• 2 converted from AR-V7 positive to AR-V7 negative
• There were adverse side effects while on BAT. Transient pain flare was the most common, affecting 40%. A few men suffered very serious side effects: pulmonary embolism, heart attack, urinary obstruction, gallstones and fatal sepsis.

(Update July 2020) In the RESTORE randomized clinical trial (RCT), the researchers are investigating whether BAT can restore sensitivity to Zytiga and Xtandi to mCRPC men who have already progressed while using those. They are excluding those who have already had chemotherapy, and no chemo is used in this trial.  They give monthly testosterone injections until there is radiographic progression. The RESTORE trial found that BAT was able to restore responsiveness to Xtandi but much less to Zytiga.

• Following testosterone therapy, PSA declined by 50% in 30% of the group who'd previously taken Xtandi, and in 17% of the group who'd previously taken Zytiga. On these small groups, the difference wasn't statistically significant.
• After BAT, PSA declined by ≥50% in 68% on rechallenge with Xtandi and lasted 13 months
• After BAT, PSA declined by ≥50% in 16% on rechallenge with Zytiga and lasted 8 months
• There was no benefit to rechallenge with either in men with the AR-V7 mutation

(Update December 2020) The "C-arm" of the RESTORE trial comprised 29 castration-resistant (mostly metastatic) patients who received only ADT but no second-line hormonal therapies. 

• Only 4 men (14%) had a PSA decline ≥50% due to the testosterone therapy
• Only 4 men had a reduction in their metastases. All of those had lymph node metastases only.
• Testosterone therapy lasted for 9 months (median) before radiographic progression was detected
• Maximum PSA response was achieved in 56 days. Only 7 patients had any PSA reduction.
• PSA more than doubled in 52%, and increased markedly in 14% more.
• 31% had some radiographic reduction of metastases.
• Median radiographic progression-free survival was 8.5 months
• Musculoskeletal pain was experienced by 40%
• Other prevalent side effects were: hypertension (21%), breast tenderness (21%), leg swelling (17%), fatigue (14%), and difficulty breathing (10%). One patient died of a stroke.
• 18 patients later received Zytiga or Xtandi, with excellent results.
• There weren't any discernable genomic determinants of response.

Based on the RESTORE trial, this trial suggests that BAT should be reserved for patients who:

1. have already progressed on Xtandi, or 
2. a short duration of BAT may make the first use of Xtandi last longer. 

Both of those hypotheses should be tested in larger trials. It also brings into question whether PSA reduction should be used as an endpoint. PSMA PET/CT may be a better indicator of early progression on BAT (see this link). There is still no clue as to why only 31% respond.

In the TRANSFORMER RCT,  195 chemo-naive mCRPC men who failed therapy with Zytiga were randomized to receive either BAT or Xtandi. Everyone crossed over to the therapy they didn't previously get. With up to 2 years of follow-up:

• Comparing BAT to Xtandi (before crossover), there were no significant differences in the time to clinical or radiographic progression (5.7 months in both groups) or reduction in PSA by ≥ 50% "PSA50" (28% and 25%)
• After crossover, PSA50 was 78% for Zytiga->BAT->Xtandi vs 23% for Zytiga->Xtandi->BAT
• After crossover, PSA-progression-free survival was 11 months for Zytiga->BAT->Xtandi vs 4 months for Zytiga->Xtandi->BAT
• Those who went from Zytiga -> BAT -> Xtandi survived 37 months vs 29 months for those who went from Zytiga -> Xtandi (not significantly different)
• BAT improved patient-evaluated quality of life
• 3 patients received Keytruda after BAT and did very well. This observation led to the COMBAT trial using a different immune checkpoint inhibitor (Opdivo)
• (update 5/7/24) Patients who never achieved serum T below 20 ng/dl did better with BAT than Xtandi.

Including BAT right after Zytiga failure and then using Xtandi increased the time to PSA progression, delayed radiographic progression, and reduced PSA. But waiting until after a failure on both drugs had no effect. This trial suggests that BAT may be useful after Zytiga but before Xtandi, particularly if T response to ADT has been less than optimal.

(Update Oct. 5, 2022) An exploratory analysis helps to explain why BAT has limited effectiveness (only 20-30% of  CRPC men derive any benefit from BAT), and what might be done to make it more effective. They focussed on the protein called c-MYC, which is known to be upregulated in advanced prostate cancer. They found:

• High androgen receptor (AR) activity is required for BAT to work. Only about ⅓ of CRPC men have high AR activity.
• But AR inhibition first is needed for T to raise its activity
• High AR activity downregulates c-MYC. 
• High doses of testosterone (T) increases AR activity.
• Xtandi (but not Zytiga or other advanced antiandrogens) prevents acquired resistance to T because it upregulates the AR while it inhibits it.

AR activity (requiring tumor biopsy) may be a valuable biomarker.

They are running a clinical trial to test cycling between T and Xtandi after Zytiga failure.

(update January 2021) In the COMBAT trial, 45 heavily-pretreated men who were mCRPC and who have progressed on either Zytiga or Xtandi, received BAT followed by Opdivo (nivolumab - an immune checkpoint inhibitor).

• ⅔ had at least some PSA reduction
• 40% had a PSA reduction ≥ 50%
• Median overall survival was 28 months
• 24% had a measurable reduction in disease; 11% for 11 or more months
• Median radiographic progression-free survival was 5.7 months
• 1 patient had a complete PSA response
• However, in 27% PSA got much worse after BAT
• BAT seems to inhibit MYC - a genetic driver of prostate cancer

This trial suggests that BAT may prime prostate cancer cells so that they are more sensitive to checkpoint inhibitors.

(Updated 9/21/21) 30 heavily-pretreated men who were mCRPC and who have progressed on either Zytiga or Xtandi, received BAT and the PARP inhibitor olaparib. Half had DNA damage repair defects. This was hypothesized based on lab findings.

• ¾ had at least some PSA reduction
• 47% had a PSA reduction ≥ 50% (44% if 2 who dropped out for progression are added)
• 23% had a 12-wk PSA increase ≥50% (28% if 2 who dropped out for progression are added)
• Median progression-free survival was 14.8 months if they were mutation-free vs. 7.5 months if they had the defects.
• 2 patients had a complete PSA response
• 5 of 8 90+% responders were free of DNA damage repair defects
• 3 of 6 90+% progressors had DNA damage repair defects
• 5 patients had serious (grade ≥ 3) toxicity, including one death

This trial suggests that BAT + olaparib achieved good response regardless of DNA damage repair defect status. Excellent responders had mutations of the T53 gene or DNA repair genes (see this link). The cause of responder/non-responder differences remains elusive.

(update 6/3/2022) A small trial suggests that there may be genomic predictors. They found that some mCRPC patients got a better PSA response from BAT if they had germline (inherited) or somatic (tumor biopsy) genomic mutations of the tp53 gene and one of either RBI gene or PTEN gene loss. There are no clear indications - the results were mixed:

• PSA decreased in 10 of 17 men with tp53 and PTEN loss
• in 8, PSA decreased more than 50%
• in 1, PSA became undetectable
• PSA increased in 7 of 17 men with tp53 and PTEN loss
• in 3 of those 7, PSA more than doubled
• PSA decreased in 2 of 2 men with tp53 and RB1 loss
• PSA increased in 3 of 3 men with RB1 and PTEN loss, so tp53 loss seems to be necessary for a BAT benefit

They also pointed out that in the recent trial of cabazitaxel+carboplatin at MD Anderson, the same genomic predictors of success were found. They propose a comparative trial of the 2 therapies in men who have mutations in tp53 and one of the two (either rb1 or pten).

(Update 11/8/2018) A new clinical trial at the University of Colorado, Denver will try transdermal testosterone instead of injections alternating with enzalutamide.

(update 6/2024) A new clinical trial at Roswell Park, Buffalo to restore sensitivity to ARSi.

(Update Jan 11, 2020) A new clinical trial at Johns Hopkins will combine BAT and Xofigo. Prior treatment with chemo and/or no more than one kind of second-line antiandrogen are allowed but not required. Recall that the RESTORE trial suggested that response was limited to lymph nodes only, so Xofigo may be a complementary treatment. Treatments that induce double strand breaks, like BAT and Xofigo, may be complementary, especially when combined with immunotherapy (see this link).

Other clinical trials include combining with Provenge, combining with Carboplatin, and using on patients who have genomic repair defects other than BRCA: ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2.

It will be important to determine, in future clinical trials, which men will respond to BAT and which men will not. Sadly, there may only be a survival benefit in a small subset of patients, although there is a quality of life benefit. Importantly, all clinical studies so far have only been Phase 2 trials in very small groups of patients. Larger trials will be necessary to prove safety and efficacy. There are already concerns about safety, so patients should not attempt BAT outside of a carefully monitored clinical trial.

There may be particular situations where BAT may be an effective therapy, but data are so far lacking: 

• What, if any, is its benefit in men who are metastatic but still hormone-responsive (mHSPC)? (see this link)
• Does it have any benefit in men who have already had docetaxel chemotherapy? 
• Considering that metastases shrank in some men on BAT, should it be tried in symptomatic men as well? 
• What is its effect on AR-V7-positive or negative men? 
• Should it be used in combination with other therapies, such as PARP1 inhibitors, immunotherapies, and radiological therapies? 
• What is the optimal sequencing of therapies? 
• Is there any benefit to BAT  used along with radiation therapy in high-risk men (see this link)?

Will Lu-177-anti-PSMA be the next Xofigo?

Xofigo has been a game-changer in the treatment of prostate cancer metastatic to bone. Not only does it provide significant pain palliation and reduce skeletal-related adverse events, but it slows down progression of the disease, increasing median survival by about 30%. Unlike external beam radiation, it can be used when there are many widely distributed metastases.

Several new studies looked at a potentially important new radiotherapy. Lutetium 177 is a low-energy beta particle emitter. In this case, low energy is a good thing because it limits the distance the beta particles (actually electrons) can travel through tissue. Ideally, we want internal radiotherapies to deposit their energy in tumor tissue only; radioemitters that deposit their energy over long distances are too toxic for internal therapeutic applications. Xofigo (radium 223 chloride) is an alpha particle emitter (a helium nucleus consisting of 2 protons and 2 neutrons). Alpha particles are very heavy and can travel only a short distance through tissue; however, they deposit a lot of energy in the tissue they interact with, efficiently killing cancer cells in a small radius. One can safely hold a glass vial of Xofigo in one’s hand because it can’t penetrate beyond the thickness of the glass or penetrate skin. Because beta particles are thousands of times smaller than alpha particles, they can travel farther through tissue, but their cell-killing power is less.

Another desirable quality in radiotherapeutics is a half-life long enough to allow for convenient treatment and time in the body to kill off cancer cells, but short enough so that it doesn’t hang around too long, accumulate in the liver and kidneys, and kill healthy tissue. Both Ra-223 and Lu-177 fit that criterion.

Ra-223 is chemically similar to calcium, so tissues that uptake calcium, uptake radium as well. That means principally bone, especially in highly metabolically active sites like bone metastases.  However, calcium is ubiquitous in the human body, so small amounts of radium may accumulate in other tissues, causing toxicity.

Lu-177 by itself has little therapeutic use; however, scientists have attached it to an antibody found mostly on the surface prostate cancer cells, at least 95% of them, called prostate surface membrane antigen (PSMA). The radioactive Lu-177 is chemically bonded to a monoclonal PSMA antibody, called J591, which finds its way to prostate cancer cells anywhere in the body. Unlike Xofigo, which only attaches to bone metastases, Lu-177-anti-PSMA attaches to any metastasis – bone, lymph node or visceral. It can potentially treat systemic micrometastases as well. It has the ability to potentially kill many more cells because of the increased range of the beta particle. And because it does not attach to non-prostatic tissue, the toxicity is more limited.

Lu-177 has another important benefit that Ra-223 lacks: it emits small amounts of highly penetrating gamma rays. The gamma rays are not powerful enough to kill tissue, but they can be detected by a 2D gamma ray camera (scintigraphy), or a 3D SPECT scan. This means that we can see even small metastases that the radiotherapy is attacking; it is both therapeutic and diagnostic (sometimes called theranostic).

The table below summarizes some of the key characteristics of Ra-223 and Lu-177.

	Xofigo (Ra-223 Chloride)	Lu-177-anti-PSMA
Emits:	Alpha particles (95%)	Beta particles, gamma rays
Half-life:	11.4 days	6.7 days
Attaches to:	Tissues that uptake calcium	Prostate cancer expressing the prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA)
Destroys metastases in:	Bone only (areas of active calcium uptake)	Bone, lymph nodes, viscera, systemic micrometastases
Destructive range:	Shorter range:<0.1 mm or about 8 cells	Longer range: ~0.25 mm or about 125 cells
Cancer cell killing power:	Higher	Lower
Imaging:	Not detectable	Gamma camera (scintigraphy) or SPECT
Toxicity	Gastrointestinal, edema, myelosuppression	Myelosuppression: platelets, neutrophils & leukocytes

Tagawa et al.(2013) published the results of a Phase II clinical trial that demonstrated Lu-177-anti-PSMA resulted in declines in PSA among patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. In a follow-up analysis, they reported a better response, including increased survival, but with higher toxicity with increased dose. As with Radium-223, PSA response may not be the best measure of its efficacy. They also noted large declines in circulating tumor cells (CTCs). There was better response among patients who had better anti-PSMA uptake. Based on this, they suggested the following additional studies:

• Improved patient selection using PSMA-based imaging and circulating tumor cell (CTC) analysis

• Escalated cumulative doses using dose fractionation

• Concurrent use with docetaxel to radiosensitize tumors

• Earlier use as soon as biochemical recurrence is identified after initial therapy

At the 2015 Genitourinary Conference there were early reports on some of those studies.  Batra et al. reported on a small Phase II clinical trial of Lu-177-anti-PSMA used with or without docetaxel, and with fractionated dosing. The group that received both docetaxel and the higher cumulative dosing with fractionated dosing had the best response, with 81% having a reduction in PSA of over 30%, although their overall survival did not seem significantly improved compared to the low dose group. The group that received the highest fractionated dose, but without docetaxel, had an overall survival three times longer (43 months) than the group that received a low dose. Myelosuppression was reversible after treatment. Karir et al. reported on CTC counts of patients in the same study. Over 90% of those with an unfavorable CTC count (>5) had a favorable CTC count (<5) following treatment. Interestingly, they found that anti-PSMA alone, without the added Lu-177, had a favorable effect in a small subset they tested.

Agarwal et al. used Lu-177-EDTMP in 44 patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer or breast cancer with skeletal metastases to see if it provided significant pain palliation. Complete alleviation of pain was observed in 13%, a partial response in 48%, and a minimal response in 25%.

The results so far look promising, and certainly warrant expanded clinical trials.

For those interested, there is an open clinical trial (NCT00859781) at 10 locations around the U.S., testing Lu-177-anti-PSMA plus ketoconazole and hydrocortisone in patients with biochemical progression after primary RP or RT and castrate-resistance, but who have no detectable distant metastases.

PORTOS: a gene signature that predicts salvage radiation success

Salvage radiation is curative in roughly half of all cases. There are many factors that contribute to an unfavorable prognosis, including waiting too long, high PSA and rapid PSA doubling time, adverse post-surgery pathology (stage, Gleason score, positive margins), and high Decipher or CAPRA-S score. But, other than a detected distant metastasis, none can predict failure of salvage therapy. For the first time, there seems to be a genetic signature that predicts when adjuvant or salvage radiation  (A/SRT) will succeed.

The study is all the more impressive because of the many top prostate cancer researchers attached to it, representing a collaborative effort from many top institutions: Harvard, University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern University, University of California San Francisco, Mayo Clinic and others.

The process

Zhao et al. started with data on 545 patients who had a prostatectomy at the Mayo Clinic between 1987 and 2001. They attempted to find patients who were matched on pre-RP PSA, Gleason score, stage, and positive margins, but differed on whether they received A/SRT or not. They also had to have complete information on diagnosis and whether they eventually had metastatic progression. This yielded 98 matched pairs. They then did complex genetic screening of archived tissue samples from those prostatectomy patients, focusing on 1800 genes that have been implicated in response to DNA damage after radiation. They found 24 genes that were correlated with occurrence of metastases after salvage radiation. After correcting for other factors, they determined what they call a “Post Operative Radiation Therapy Outcomes Score (PORTOS).” A PORTOS of zero (called a “low” PORTOS) means it predicts no benefit from salvage radiotherapy. A PORTOS greater than zero (called a “high” PORTOS) predicts a benefit from salvage radiation.

Validation

The next phase was to predict how well the 24-gene signature would predict salvage radiation success in a larger data set. They analyzed 840 patient records from patients treated at the Mayo Clinic from 2000-2006, Johns Hopkins (1992-2010), Thomas Jefferson University (1999-2009) and Durham VA Medical Center (1991-2010). They were able to find 165 matched pairs – half treated with A/SRT, half with no radiation. Tissue samples were screened and scored, and 10-year incidence of detected metastases was obtained. 1 in 4 men were categorized as “high PORTOS,” 3 in 4 were “low PORTOS.”

In the “high PORTOS” group: 

• Only 4% suffered metastatic progression if they had A/SRT
• 35% suffered metastatic progression if they did not have A/SRT
• They had an 85% reduction in 10-year incidence of metastases after A/SRT, which was statistically significant.

In the “low PORTOS” group:

• 32% suffered metastatic progression if they had A/SRT
• 32% suffered metastatic progression if they did not have A/SRT

None of the other prognostic tools (Decipher, CAPRA-S, or Prolaris) that are sometimes used to predict metastases after prostatectomy could predict the response to A/SRT.

Caveats

This should be interpreted with caution for several reasons:

It was retrospective, and therefore subject to selection bias. That is, the physicians may have decided on the basis of patient characteristics or other disease characteristics not captured here to give A/SRT to some patients, but not to others. Only a prospective, randomized trial can tell us if the association with PORTOS is the cause of the differential response.

Among the disease characteristics the researchers were unable to capture for this study were the time between prostatectomy and A/SRT, PSA at time of A/SRT/maximum PSA reached, nadir PSA achieved after prostatectomy, PSA doubling time, extent of positive margins, Gleason score at the positive margin, and comorbidities. Patients were not treated uniformly with respect to radiation dose received and duration of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Only 12% received any adjuvant ADT, and only 12% received adjuvant (rather than salvage) radiation.

Metastases were detected by bone scan and CT. Lymph node dissection, if performed, was limited. It was detected in 4% of the “low PORTOS” group, but in none of the “high PORTOS” group. It is unclear how today’s newer PET scans would affect outcomes.

Radioresistance

Prostate cancer has long been known to be radioresistant relative to other cancers. To understand radioresistance, we must first understand how ionizing radiation (X-rays or protons) kills cancer cells. The radiation causes a chemical reaction with water and oxygen to generate molecules known as “reactive oxygen species” or ROS. One such ROS molecule, the hydroxyl radical, inserts itself into the cell’s DNA to break both strands of the double helix, called “double strand breaks.” The cell dies when it can’t replicate because of those double strand breaks.

Radiobiologists cite 5 reasons for radioresistance:

1. Hypoxia

Prostate cancer thrives in an oxygen-poor environment, and often does not have a good blood supply that brings oxygenation. It therefore requires more radiation to provide adequate ROS, especially into thick tumors.

2. Cell-Cycle Phase

As a cancer cell attempts to build new DNA and replicate, it goes through several phases. In one of those phases, the “S phase,” the cell is building new DNA. It is particularly radioresistant in this phase. Radiotherapy is typically carried out over a period of time in multiple fractions, rather than in a single shot, to allow the cancer cells to cycle into more radiosensitive phases. However, in a recent lab study, McDermott et al. showed that fractionated radiation increases the population of radioresistant S-phase prostate cancer cells.

3. Repair of DNA damage

Non-cancerous cells that can’t repair the DNA damage, commit suicide (called apoptosis). Many non-cancerous cells are able to repair the DNA damage and survive. Fractionation gives them time to self-repair. Cancerous cells usually lack that DNA-repair mechanism and most cannot undergo apoptosis. If they are not killed immediately, they die when they try to replicate. However, some cancerous cells may escape destruction by turning the genetic cell repair mechanism back on.

4. Repopulation

Some cancers grow so quickly that fractionated radiation gives them time to grow back between treatments. This is not the case for prostate cancer.

5. Inherent radioresistance

Some kinds of cells are inherently impervious to radiation damage; muscle, nerves, and stem cells are radioresistant, as are melanoma and sarcoma. Prostate cancer stem cells, thought to play a role in prostate cancer proliferation, are inherently radioresistant. A recent lab study showed that radiation may paradoxically activate stem-cell like features of prostate cancer cells, turning them into radioresistant stem cells.

How should PORTOS be used?

GenomeDx is already supplying PORTOS to post-prostatectomy patients who order Decipher. Should it be used to guide A/SRT decision-making? Given the caveats (above), there are many uncertainties in how predictive it actually will be when it is used prospectively in larger patient populations. But the information is certainly interesting.

I wonder whether PORTOS reflects a genetic change that occurs in local prostatic cancer cells as they undergo a change (called “epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition” (EMT)) into metastatic-capable cells. Or is it a genetic characteristic, there from the start? A recent study showed that 12% of men with metastases have faulty DNA-repair genes. (This included 16 DNA-repair genes, compared to the 24 in the PORTOS study). Such faults occurred in 5% of men with localized prostate cancer, and 3% in men with no prostate cancer. DNA-repair mutations seem to accumulate as the cancer progresses. It may well be that PORTOS is an early detector of systemic micrometastases. Perhaps it will be found to be redundant to detection of small metastases using new PET indicators. I would love to see a PORTOS analysis on metastatic tissue as well (lymph node, bone and visceral) and maybe on circulating tumor cells to see whether radioresistance is an acquired trait of PC progression. If it is an early indicator of metastatic progression, it may already be too late for primary radical therapy.

While a “high” PORTOS suggests that A/SRT will be curative, only a quarter of the men had a high PORTOS. Does that really mean that three-quarters of recurrent men should give up on curative therapy? If PORTOS is not an indicator of EMT, I hope that those recurrent cancers still can be cured. But it may mean that certain adjuvant measures may be required, including higher radiation doses, systemic therapies that are known to enhance radiation effectiveness, and investigational adjuvant therapies.

•      A/SRT doses are typically in the range of 66-70 Gy. Some A/SRT studies used doses as high as 72-76 Gy. With modern IGRT/IMRT technology, such doses may be delivered with acceptable toxicity. Also, if larger lesions can be identified with the new PET scans and multiparametric MRIs, it may be possible to deliver a simultaneous integrated boost dose to those lesions.

•      ADT has been shown to reduce hypoxic cancer survival and inhibit DNA repair. It is possible that prolonged neoadjuvant use, perhaps with second-line hormonal agents (Zytiga or Xtandi) may improve radiation cell kill. Docetaxel, which has shown limited usefulness in non-metastatic patients, may prove useful in low-PORTOS situations. Perhaps immunotherapy can play a role as well.

•     There are many investigational agents that may enhance radiosensitization. PARP1 inhibitors (e.g., olaparib) and heat shock protein inhibitors may prove useful in restoring radiation sensitivity (see this link). PI3K/mTor inhibitors and HDAC inhibitors (e.g., vorinostat) may increase cell kill in hypoxic conditions (see this link) and to cancer stem cells (see this link). Cell oxygenation may be enhanced by a measure as simple as 15 minutes of aerobic exercise before each treatment (see this link). There are common supplements like resveratrol and soy isoflavones, and drugs like statins, aspirin, and metformin that have shown promise as radiosensitizers in lab studies.

It is possible that PORTOS may also prove useful in predicting radiation response among newly diagnosed unfavorable risk patients. GenomeDx  currently requires whole-mount prostate specimens. I don’t know if PORTOS can be done on biopsy cores, or if it provides any prognostic information beyond what the conventional risk factors (PSA, Gleason score, stage and tumor volume) provide. It would have to be similarly validated before we would be able to incorporate it in primary therapy decision-making.

This test is very expensive. For now it only is available along with Decipher, which costs about $4,000. Medicare may cover it, but private insurance may or may not. Always get pre-authorization first.

Is there an oligometastatic state for prostate cancer?

The concept of an "oligometastatic state" is that there exists an early stage where metastases are few in number and are in some way different from metastases that develop later. It also means that there are no micrometastases in systemic circulation (in bone and lymph) and in reservoirs like bone, nerve cells, lymph nodes and other organs. If such a state exists, the cancer can be picked off, like dandelions in a lawn, and the person can be cured.

The alternative concept is that cancer spread is always polymetastatic. Thousands of cells are released from the primary tumor. They find their way to sites where they change the tissue they land in, making it amenable to future growth. This is called "seed and soil." A metaphor might be mushrooms growing at the base of an oak tree. The mycelium extends everywhere throughout the soil and into the roots of the tree. Occasionally, a mushroom crops up. You can pick all the mushrooms you want, but the fungus is never destroyed. There is no way to destroy the fungus short of destroying the roots of the oak tree and sterilizing the soil. This is what "systemic" means.

It is well known that tumor cells must undergo a genomic change called epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) before they are capable of traveling and living outside of their original environment. Metastasized cells do not look like or behave like the original tumor in its original tissue; they are phenotypically different.

Are all cancers alike?

There are certain "hallmarks of cancer." To qualify as a cancer, it must be malignant, destroying healthy tissue. Most cancers multiply rapidly, losing the ability to self-destruct when its DNA goes awry (apoptosis). They are usually immortal and evade destruction by the immune system. They can travel from one place to another. Solid tumors change the structure of their host tissue and usually generate their own blood supply and nerve innervation (see cancer as a tissue-based disease).

But all cancers are different. Unlike most other solid tumors, prostate cancer is usually originally multifocal in the prostate. While some cancers can be cured by surgically removing the original tumor, the whole organ must be removed (or irradiated) for prostate cancer. Foci may be a centimeter or more apart, so it is known to have a strong signalling mechanism that changes host tissue. It has a predilection for lymph nodes and bone, where it usually creates osteoblastic lesions (bone overgrowth). It is activated by an androgen receptor, which eventually becomes impervious to androgen deprivation. Tumors tend to be hypoxic, and have low immune-cell infiltration. They are relatively radioresistant, and are not appreciably killed off by non-taxane chemotherapy. There are multiple growth pathways - block one and others predominate. It is also abnormally slow growing. It may take many years for EMT cells to originate. The time from the first detectable metastasis to the second may be years apart. Unlike other cancers, prostate cancer metastatic cells generate energy for reproduction from lipid metabolism at first. Many years later, glycolysis may come to predominate (as it does in most other cancers).

To determine if there is such a thing as an "oligometastatic state" it is therefore necessary to show that such a state exists for every kind of cancer. The first step is to show plausibility. With high throughput sequencing it may be able to distinguish the genomics of early metastases from later ones. However, because genetic breakdown is a characteristic of cancer, it is also necessary to show that the early clones are phenotypically different from later clones. If early clones lack the ability to disseminate and prepare the "soil" for metastatic progression, that would create a case for an oligometastatic state.

It is also necessary to show that such a state exists for every type of cancer, or at least to find the cancers in which such a state exists. One cannot just assume that all cancers are alike in this regard.

Iyengar et al. reported the results of a small trial where 14 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a small number of distant metastases were treated with SBRT to the lung and distant lesions ("consolidative therapy") and chemotherapy. 15 patients only received chemo. There was a significant increase in progression-free survival: 9.7 months vs 3.5 months. Larger trials (NRG LU002 and SARON) will investigate overall survival.

(update 12/6/23) NRG LU002 will not move to a Phase III trial because the Phase II Progression-Free Survival failed to meet its prespecified goal.

(update 6.2.22) Steven Chmura reported at the 2022 ASCO meeting (J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 16; abstr 1007) that the randomized trial (NRG BR-002) of SBRT (+ standard of care (SOC)) to oligometastatic breast cancer failed to slow progression or increase survival over SOC alone. There were 125 patients (65 SBRT+SOC, 60 SOC). An expanded trial was canceled due to futility.  Clearly then, there is no oligometastatic "state" that applies to all cancers.

The SABR-COMET Phase 2 Trial

Palma et al. recruited 99 patients at 10 hospitals in Canada, Scotland, Australia and the Netherlands from 2012-2015. Patients had 1-5 metastases, and were randomly assigned to high-intensity metastasis-directed radiotherapy (SABR or SBRT) or systemic standard of care. After 2 years median follow-up, there were:

• 66  patients in the SABR group
• 33 patients in the control group
• Most had 1-3 metastases: 94% in the control group, 93% in the SABR group
• SABR dose was most commonly 35 Gy in 5 treatments,  60 Gy in  8 treatments, and 54 Gy in 3 treatments
• 12% received additional SABR for disease progression

After a median follow-up of 25-26 months:

• Overall mortality was 36% for SABR, 48% for control (Hazard Ratio = .75)
• Overall survival (median) was 41 months for SABR, 29 months for control (Hazard Ratio = 0.57; p=0.09) Note: they prespecified that anything above 80% confidence would be sufficient to expand to a Phase 3 study.
• 39% had metastatic progression in the SABR group, mostly new metastases
• 61% had new metastases in the control group
• Grade ≥2 adverse events: 9% in the control group, 29% in the SABR group
• 5% of the SABR group died as a result of treatment: radiation pneumonitis, pulmonary abscess, and subdural hemorrhage from surgery to repair a perforated gastric ulcer

The authors are cautious about the toxicity, but optimistic that their study provides proof of an "oligometastatic state." They have already announced two Phase 3 randomized clinical trials for people with 1-3 metastases and 4-10 metastases.

Skewed Distribution of Cancers Accounts for the Purported Benefit

The distribution of cancer types was vastly different in the SABR and control groups. Metastatic colorectal cancer, which has an 70% 2-year mortality rate, is twice as likely to appear in the control group as the SABR group; while metastatic prostate cancer, which has a 10% 2-year mortality rate is more than 3 times as prevalent in the SABR group. This skewed distribution accounts for almost all of the difference that the authors attribute to a treatment effect.

Type of Cancer	Control		SABR		expected 2-year survival (approx)
	n	% of total	n	% of total
Breast	5	15%	13	20%	50% (1)
Colorectal	9	27%	9	14%	30% (2)
Lung	6	18%	12	18%	10% (3)
Prostate	2	6%	14	21%	90% (4)
Other	11	33%	18	27%
TOTAL	33		66

(1) https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2015127
(2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739317/
(3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096514/
(4) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32486-3/fulltext

	Control	SABR
Expected 2-year survival due to distribution	35%	48%
Expected 2-year mortality due to distribution	65%	52%
Hazard Ratio due to skewed distribution	80%
Reported Hazard Ratio	75%

Because of the uneven distributions in the treatment and control, the hazard ratio does not reach 80% confidence and the hypothesis should be rejected. The authors believe that just eliminating prostate cancer patients from both groups would correct the flaw, but they would have to eliminate colorectal cancer as well - I doubt the result would be significant with even 80% confidence. I believe the authors of the study erred in accepting the results even with 80% confidence for forging ahead with a Phase 3 randomized trial. The treatment effect, if any, is so small that their Phase 3 trial as specified is insufficiently powered to detect a treatment effect. They do not propose to stratify by type of cancer. Also, much longer follow-up is needed for prostate cancer.

On top of that, they have not made the case for an oligometastatic state, which would have to be true for every cancer type and not just a weighted average sum of them. They would also have to include genomic and phenotypic analysis of biopsied tissue when there are both few metastases and many in order to demonstrate plausibility.

Patients should note the mortality rate attributable to SABR of metastases. There is little risk in irradiating metastases occurring in safe locations, like the pelvic bones. There may be unacceptable risk in irradiating metastases near the heart, lungs, or digestive tract. Since there is no evidence that metastasis-directed therapy for prostate cancer improves survival, patients should not avoid systemic therapy (for which there is convincing evidence). Patients who are interested in SABR of metastases should talk to experienced radiation oncologists in large tertiary-care facilities.

(update 05/25/2022) SABR-COMET was updated with 8-year results. They report:

• 8-yr overall survival was 26.2% in the SABR arm vs 13.2% in the control arm (HR=0.50)
• 8-yr progression-free survival was 21.6% in the SABR arm vs 0.0% in the control arm (HR=0.45)
• Rates of acute or late Grade 2+ toxicity were 30.3% in the SABR arm vs 9.1% in the control arm

The Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed a large drop-out of participants after 4 years in the control group. This is consistent with the relative lack of prostate cancer patients and the relatively large presence of colorectal cancer patients in the control group. 

There was no difference between arms in time to new metastases. So, the larger progression-free survival in the SABR arm is entirely due to local control. The cancer continued to seed new metastases at the same rate in both arms.