A prostate cancer gastrointestinal transcriptional phenotype may be associated with diminished response to AR-targeted therapy
Aishwarya Subramanian,Meng Zhang,Marina Sharifi,Thaidy Moreno-Rodriguez,Eric Feng,Nicholas R. Rydzewski,Raunak Shrestha,Xiaolin Zhu,Shuang G. Zhao,Rahul Aggarwal,Eric J. Small,Chien-Kuang Cornelia Ding,David A. Quigley,Martin Sjöström
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.02.595931
2024-06-03
Abstract:Background: Prostate cancer is a heterogenous disease, but once it becomes metastatic it eventually becomes treatment resistant. One mechanism of resistance to AR-targeting therapy is lineage plasticity, where the tumor undergoes a transformation to an AR-indifferent phenotype, most studied in the context of neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC). However, activation of additional de- or trans-differentiation programs, including a gastrointestinal (GI) gene expression program, has been suggested as an alternative method of resistance. In this study, we explored the previously identified GI prostate cancer phenotype (PCa-GI) in a large cohort of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patient biopsy samples.
Methods: We analyzed a dataset of 634 mCRPC samples with batch effect corrected gene expression data from the West Coast Dream Team (WCDT), the East Coast Dream Team (ECDT), the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC) and the Weill Cornell Medical center (WCM). Survival data was available from the WCDT and ECDT cohorts. We calculated a gene expression GI score using the sum of z-scores of genes from a published set of PCa-GI-defining genes (N=38). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression with endpoint overall survival from time of biopsy to death of any cause.
Results: We found that the PCa-GI score had a bimodal distribution, identifying a distinct set of tumors with an activated GI expression pattern. Approximately 35% of samples were classified as PCa-GI high, which was concordant with prior reports. Liver metastases had the highest median score but after excluding liver samples, 29% of the remaining samples were still classified as PCa-GI high, suggesting a distinct phenotype not exclusive to liver metastases. No correlation was observed between GI score and proliferation, AR signaling, or NEPC scores. Furthermore, the PCa-GI score was not associated with genomic alterations in AR, FOXA1, RB1, TP53 or PTEN. However, tumors with MYC amplifications showed significantly higher GI scores (p=0.0001). Patients with PCa-GI tumors had a shorter survival (HR=1.5 [1.1-2.1], p=0.02), but this result was not significant after adjusting for the liver as metastatic site (HR=1.2 [0.82-1.7], p=0.35). Patients with PCa-GI low samples had a better outcome after androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ASI, abiraterone or enzalutamide) than other therapies (HR=0.37 [0.22-0.61], p=0.0001) while the benefit of ASI was smaller and non-significant for PCa-GI high samples (HR=0.55 [0.29-1.1], p=0.07). A differential pathway analysis identified FOXA2 signaling to be upregulated PCa-GI high tumors (FDR = 3.7 x 10-13).
Conclusions: The PCa-GI phenotype is prevalent in clinical mCRPC samples and may represent a distinct biological entity. PCa-GI tumors may respond less to ASI and could offer a strategy to study novel therapeutic targets.
Cancer Biology