Tag Archives: prostate research

Deep in the weeds. “Doc, is there anything new?”


How to answer this VERY common question is a pretty daunting task. Last week I was at the PCF Foundation annual scientific retreat. This is the ultimate place to hear about new science in prostate cancer, and the incredible progress being made. That said, distilling even one of the many lectures given by leaders in the field is challenging. If I were writing for the National Enquirer, I would have enough notes to write at least a year’s worth of “CANCER BREAKTHROUGH PROMISES PROSTATE CANCER CURE” articles.

So let me just wander into the weeds a bit from only two such lectures . Karen Knudson is one of the best prostate cancer researchers on the planet at this point. She works effectively with clinicians and basic scientists alike on a variety of projects that ultimately yield insights into what controls prostate cancer cell biology. Her lecture this year was on DNA repair targets. (Disclaimer: It is very much beyond my area of expertise to try and cover DNA repair at a sophisticated level, but there is an excellent article dealing with this in the New England Journal this week.) So here we go, weed hunters.

The DNA in each cell is not the long strand of double helix you are used to seeing. Rather, it is intimately wound up with proteins that give it structures looking like a thread wound around a protein ball, then these are further formed into bundles that aggregate and ultimately form the chromosome pictures you find in biology textbooks. The nuclear proteins that are part of this process, in turn, are not only structural, but also contribute to how the Androgen Receptor (AR) binds to specific locations on the DNA and leads to cell growth, turning on the gene that makes PSA and so forth. As you know, AR biology insights led to abiraterone (Zytiga™) and enzalutamide (Xtandi™)

OK, if you have followed this far, get ready for more complexity. The nuclear proteins can all be modified in their functions (helping to initiate the replication of DNA, peeling off the RNA that will go to the cytoplasm to code for proteins, changing the structure of the chromosomes, etc) by enzymes that change the proteins themselves (their shape, charge, function). There are several such modifications, but common ones consist of adding CH3 (methyl) molecules to specific spots on the proteins, or COCH3 (acetyl) molecules. These changes can have dramatic effects on which genes are expressed in which tissues and there is an easy to read overview called the histone code in Wikipedia. (please, please click on that link and read the paragraph on its complexity to get a feel for the research described below)

Honestly, Glode, get to the point….(and I sincerely hope you took a look at some of the links I put in above to make the structures and details more available)

OK, so to make it more relevant to Pca, an important modifier that has explicit functions in cancer is a protein called PARP1. This is an enzyme that modifies the nuclear proteins by a process called ADP ribosylation and adds simple molecules called ADP-ribose to various proteins (including itself) for modifying function. It turns out that PARP1 binds at sites similar to the place where the Androgen Receptor binds in the DNA and also changes other other proteins called DNAPKs that help to repair DNA. The DNAPKs are dramatically over expressed in castrate resistant prostate cancer, and if you inhibit them, you can suppress metastases from forming. Inhibitors of PARP1 and inhibitors of DNAPKs are under intense study as possible therapeutics for prostate (and other) cancers. One such example is cc-115 that is being studied by Celgene, but there are others.

 

So if you got this far, you have successfully navigated exactly 35 minutes of notes from Karen and another colleague from Celgene, Kristen Hege. And remember, the program went on for a day and a half with me furiously writing notes. It was like drinking from a fire hose, but the net result is this answer to the question, “Anything new?” OMG, “YES” and thanks to the science community for working so hard on unraveling what we need to know about how cancer operates!

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Amazing genetics and personalized medicine


I have been a bit concerned for some time regarding the hype surrounding “personalized medicine” as it relates to cancer. The concern arises from the excitement generated when a novel mutation can be targeted in a specific subgroup of cancer patients with astonishing results. The media goes wild. A good example of this is the BRAF mutation in melanoma. The V600E mutation found in 40-60% of patients with melanoma can be targeted with a drug (vemurafenib) that inhibits this activated cancer causing enzyme. The results can be astonishing, including apparently complete remissions in a disease that only 5 years ago was always fatal when metastatic. However, less well “advertised” is the fact that in most cases, the duration of such responses is quite short (median time to progression with BRAF inhibitors seems to be in the 6 month range). You can read a nice article on this story here. The personalized medicine aspect is that there is no reason to treat with the expensive drug if you don’t find the mutation. That’s the good news of personalized medicine. The bad news is that for cancer, heterogeneity is the achilles heel of this approach. If even one cell doesn’t have the target, it will survive…and/or cells that do have the target have enough genetic instability to get around the block in short order.

Now comes a fascinating study from the outstanding Hopkins investigators who looked at prostate cancer in a single patient who was diagnosed with prostate cancer at age 47. In the beginning he had a lymph node that was involved and he received surgery, androgen ablation, localized radiation and eventually chemotherapy and vaccine therapy. He succumbed to widespread metastases 17 years later at age 64. By doing deep genetic analysis of the primary tumor, the researchers were able to identify the source of the metastases. Surprisingly, the lethal metastatic disease originated in a small part of the primary tumor that was low grade, Gleason pattern 3, not the more aggressive, larger volume tumor elsewhere. While this is the first such study I am aware of in prostate cancer, similar studies in a few patients with renal cancer were reported last year.

So, for personalized medicine, the situation is either a cup half-full or half-empty. If you are an optimist, you hope that the majority of cancer cells in a patient can be targeted with a “driver mutation” like the BRAF mutation, and that when all of the susceptible cells have died off, the immune system might be stimulated to take over with a vaccine, or one of the exciting drugs that potentiate an immune response by knocking down the control arm of the immune system (PD-1 inhibitors, ipilumimab, etc.) and that the last cell will be eliminated before genetic instability gives the cancer the upper hand. If you are on the “half-empty” side, you contemplate that the human genome has evolved over millions of years to be remarkably adaptable to everything from volcano sulfuric gases to solar radiation, and that without such adaptability we might not be here at all. In this scenario, it seems unlikely that we will easily conquer the myriad of survival pathways that got us here by just attacking one of them. And…which one to attack may depend on which biopsy site you look at.

I haven’t decided which philosophic point of view I favor. The incredible progress made in treating HIV by attacking multiple pathways and converting HIV-AIDS to a chronic illness, much like diabetes, provides hope. So does the fact that the Hopkins patient lived 17 years thanks to the progress made in treating prostate cancer. As I often remind my patients, “if you die of a heart attack, we will count that as a cure of your prostate cancer”. May we all live in a healthy condition until our time comes!

9 Comments

Filed under General Prostate Cancer Issues

Active Surveillance – NIH draft statement


Not to put too many blogs up this week, but  a very well balanced article was just published and includes input from my friend Lori Klotz, whose articles have been at the forefront of doing active surveillance. He tried to get an international trial going that would provide some definitive evidence that this is a reasonable alternative. In the trial, men with low-volume Gleason 6 disease were asked if they would sign up to be randomized between immediate therapy versus going on an active surveillance program. We had the protocol open for about two years and could only find 1 or 2 men willing to participate. When you read THIS ARTICLE, you will see that the study was really important, since a significant portion of men go on to get treatment anyway, and that some studies suggest lower survival with this approach. On the other hand, those being watched do not suffer the side effects of definitive therapy. As with screening, there will be no “final answer”. However I really like this statement as an informational piece that I can give patients who are considering this approach. We also still offer targeted focal therapy at our institution as a possible “in between” treatment option – an interesting approach that is still very early in terms of knowing the long term consequences of this treatment. Mike Landess took this approach and has made a nice video blog of his experience. One of the major unanswered questions in all of this is what the optimal formula for followup should be. For example, PSA’s every 3 months, or should it be more often? Should you initiate treatment based on some absolute number, or a change in the doubling time? Should you biopsy every 2 years, or should it be 18 months? What about doing mapping biopsy on everyone who wants to consider active surveillance? So many questions and so little time !

2 Comments

Filed under General Prostate Cancer Issues