Prognosis Associated With Luminal and Basal Subtypes of Metastatic Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Luminal and basal subtypes of primary prostate cancer have been shown to be molecularly distinct and clinically important in predicting response to therapy. These subtypes have not been described in metastatic prostate cancer. OBJECTIVES: To identify clinical and molecular correlates of luminal and basal subtypes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and investigate differences in survival, particularly after treatment with androgen-signaling inhibitors (ASIs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, a retrospective analysis was conducted of 4 cohorts with mCRPC (N = 634) across multiple academic centers. Treatment was at the physicians' discretion. Details of the study cohorts have been published elsewhere between 2016 and 2019. Data were analyzed from March 2018 to February 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary clinical end point was overall survival from the date of tissue biopsy/molecular profiling. Luminal and basal subtypes were also stratified by postbiopsy ASI treatment. The primary molecular analyses included associations with small cell/neuroendocrine prostate cancer (SCNC), molecular pathways, and DNA alterations. RESULTS: In the 634 patients, 288 (45%) had tumors classified as luminal, and 346 (55%) had tumors classified as basal. However, 53 of 59 (90%) SCNC tumors were basal (P < .001). Similar to primary prostate cancer, luminal tumors exhibited overexpression of AR pathway genes. In basal tumors, a significantly higher rate of RB1 loss (23% basal vs 4% luminal; P < .001), FOXA1 alterations (36% basal vs 27% luminal; P = .03) and MYC alterations (73% basal vs 56% luminal; P < .001) were identified. Patients with basal tumors had worse overall survival compared with those with luminal tumors only in patients treated with an ASI postbiopsy (East Coast Dream Team: hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.74; P = .004; West Coast Dream Team: HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97; P = .04). Among patients with luminal tumors, those treated with an ASI had significantly better survival (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.53; P < .001), whereas patients with basal tumors did not (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.36-1.04, P = .07). The interaction term between subtype and ASI treatment was statistically significant (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.89; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings represent the largest integrated clinical, transcriptomic, and genomic analysis of mCRPC samples to date, and suggest that mCRPC can be classified as luminal and basal tumors. Analogous to primary prostate cancer, these data suggest that the benefit of ASI treatment is more pronounced in luminal tumors and support the use of ASIs in this population. In the basal tumors, a chemotherapeutic approach could be considered in some patients given the similarity to SCNC and the diminished benefit of ASI therapy. Further validation in prospective clinical trials is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".