Feng F.Y.,University of Michigan |
de Bono J.S.,Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group |
Rubin M.A.,Precision for Medicine |
Rubin M.A.,New York Medical College |
Knudsen K.E.,Thomas Jefferson University
Molecular Cell | Year: 2015
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) inhibitors were recently shown to have potential clinical impact in a number of disease settings, particularly as related to cancer therapy, treatment for cardiovascular dysfunction, and suppression of inflammation. The molecular basis for PARP1 inhibitor function is complex, and appears to depend on the dual roles of PARP1 in DNA damage repair and transcriptional regulation. Here, the mechanisms by which PARP-1 inhibitors elicit clinical response are discussed, and strategies for translating the preclinical elucidation of PARP-1 function into advances in disease management are reviewed. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) inhibitors were recently shown to have clinical impact in a number of disease settings. In this Perspective, the mechanisms by which PARP1 inhibitors elicit clinical response are discussed, and strategies for translating the preclinical elucidation of PARP1 function into advances in disease management are reviewed. © 2015 Elsevier Inc.
PubMed | University of Michigan, Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group, New York Medical College and Thomas Jefferson University
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Molecular cell | Year: 2015
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) inhibitors were recently shown to have potential clinical impact in a number of disease settings, particularly as related to cancer therapy, treatment for cardiovascular dysfunction, and suppression of inflammation. The molecular basis for PARP1 inhibitor function is complex, and appears to depend on the dual roles of PARP1 in DNA damage repair and transcriptional regulation. Here, the mechanisms by which PARP-1 inhibitors elicit clinical response are discussed, and strategies for translating the preclinical elucidation of PARP-1 function into advances in disease management are reviewed.
Attard G.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Attard G.,Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group |
Parker C.,Academic Urology Unit |
Eeles R.A.,Clinical Academic Cancer Genetics Unit |
And 7 more authors.
The Lancet | Year: 2016
Much progress has been made in research for prostate cancer in the past decade. There is now greater understanding for the genetic basis of familial prostate cancer with identification of rare but high-risk mutations (eg, BRCA2, HOXB13) and low-risk but common alleles (77 identified so far by genome-wide association studies) that could lead to targeted screening of patients at risk. This is especially important because screening for prostate cancer based on prostate-specific antigen remains controversial due to the high rate of overdiagnosis and unnecessary prostate biopsies, despite evidence that it reduces mortality. Classification of prostate cancer into distinct molecular subtypes, including mutually exclusive ETS-gene-fusion-positive and SPINK1-overexpressing, CHD1-loss cancers, could allow stratification of patients for different management strategies. Presently, men with localised disease can have very different prognoses and treatment options, ranging from observation alone through to radical surgery, with few good-quality randomised trials to inform on the best approach for an individual patient. The survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer progressing on androgen-deprivation therapy (castration-resistant prostate cancer) has improved substantially. In addition to docetaxel, which has been used for more than a decade, in the past 4 years five new drugs have shown efficacy with improvements in overall survival leading to licensing for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Because of this rapid change in the therapeutic landscape, no robust data exist to inform on the selection of patients for a specific treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer or the best sequence of administration. Moreover, the high cost of the newer drugs limits their widespread use in several countries. Data from continuing clinical and translational research are urgently needed to improve, and, crucially, to personalise management. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd.
Lorente D.,Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group |
Mateo J.,Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group |
Zafeiriou Z.,Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group |
Smith A.D.,Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group |
And 3 more authors.
Nature Reviews Urology | Year: 2015
The antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome (AAWS) is characterized by tumour regression and a decline in serum PSA on discontinuation of antiandrogen therapy in patients with prostate cancer. This phenomenon has been best described with the withdrawal of the nonsteroidal antiandrogens, bicalutamide and flutamide, but has also been reported with a wide range of hormonal agents. Mutations that occur in advanced prostate cancer and induce partial activation of the androgen receptor (AR) by hormonal agents have been suggested as the main causal mechanism of the AAWS. Corticosteroids, used singly or in conjunction with abiraterone, docetaxel and cabazitaxel might also be associated with the AAWS. The discovery of the Phe876Leu mutation in the AR, which is activated by enzalutamide, raises the possibility of withdrawal responses to novel hormonal agents. This Review focusses on the molecular mechanisms responsible for withdrawal responses, the role of AR mutations in the development of treatment resistance, and the evidence for the sequential use of antiandrogens in prostate cancer therapy. The implications of AR mutations for the development of novel drugs that target the AR are discussed, as are the challenges associated with redefining the utility of older treatments in the current therapeutic landscape. © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Mukherji D.,American University of Beirut |
Omlin A.,Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group |
Omlin A.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Pezaro C.,Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group |
And 4 more authors.
Cancer and Metastasis Reviews | Year: 2014
With five novel therapies shown to improve survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in the last 3 years, patients are now living longer and experiencing better quality of life. Since docetaxel became standard of care for men with symptomatic metastatic CRPC, three artificial treatment "spaces" have emerged for prostate cancer drug development: pre-docetaxel, docetaxel combinations, and following docetaxel. Multiple therapies are currently under development in both early and late stage CRPC. Additionally, the novel agents abiraterone, radium-223, cabazitaxel, and enzalutamide have all been approved in the post-docetaxel setting. Strategies for patient selection and treatment sequencing are therefore urgently required. In this comprehensive review, we will summarize the preclinical and clinical data available with regards to sequencing of the novel treatments for CRPC. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media.
Crespo M.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Van Dalum G.,University of Twente |
Ferraldeschi R.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Ferraldeschi R.,Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group |
And 19 more authors.
British Journal of Cancer | Year: 2015
Background: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are novel endocrine treatments that abrogate androgen receptor (AR) signalling in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Here, we developed a circulating tumour cells (CTCs)-based assay to evaluate AR expression in real-time in CRPC and investigated nuclear AR expression in CTCs in patients treated with enzalutamide and abiraterone. Methods: CTCs were captured and characterised using the CellSearch system. An automated algorithm to identify CTCs and quantify AR expression was employed. The primary aim was to evaluate the association between CTC AR expression and prior treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide. Results: AR expression in CTCs was evaluated in 94 samples from 48 metastatic CRPC patients. We observed large intra-patient heterogeneity of AR expression in CTCs. Prior exposure to abiraterone or enzalutamide was not associated with a change in CTCs AR expression (median intensity and distribution of AR-positive classes). In support of this, we also confirmed maintained nuclear AR expression in tissue samples collected after progression on abiraterone. AR staining also identified additional AR-positive CD45-negative circulating cells that were CK-negative/weak and therefore missed using standard protocols. The number of these events correlated with traditional CTCs and was associated with worse outcome on univariate analysis. Conclusions: We developed a non-invasive method to monitor AR nuclear expression in CTCs. Our studies confirm nuclear AR expression in CRPC patients progressing on novel endocrine treatments. Owing to the significant heterogeneity of AR expression in CTCs, studies in larger cohorts of patients are required to identify associations with outcome. © 2015 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved.