Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition Signaling and Prostate Cancer Stem Cells: Emerging Biomarkers and Opportunities for Precision Therapeutics

Prostate cancers may reactivate a latent embryonic program called the epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) during the development of metastatic disease. Through EMT, tumors can develop a mesenchymal phenotype similar to cancer stem cell traits that contributes to metastasis and variation in therapeutic responses. Some of the recurrent somatic mutations of prostate cancer affect EMT driver genes and effector transcription factors that induce the chromatin- and androgen-dependent epigenetic alterations that characterize castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). EMT regulators in prostate cancer comprise transcription factors (SNAI1/2, ZEB1, TWIST1, and ETS), tumor suppressor genes (RB1, PTEN, and TP53), and post-transcriptional regulators (miRNAs) that under the selective pressures of antiandrogen therapy can develop an androgen-independent metastatic phenotype. In prostate cancer mouse models of EMT, Slug expression, as well as WNT/β-Catenin and notch signaling pathways, have been shown to increase stemness potential. Recent single-cell transcriptomic studies also suggest that the stemness phenotype of advanced prostate cancer may be related to EMT. Other evidence correlates EMT and stemness with immune evasion, for example, activation of the polycomb repressor complex I, promoting EMT and stemness and cytokine secretion through RB1, TP53, and PRC1. These findings are helping clinical trials in CRPC that seek to understand how drugs and biomarkers related to the acquisition of EMT can improve drug response.

Reversal of lineage plasticity in RB1/TP53-deleted prostate cancer through FGFR and Janus kinase inhibition

The inherent plasticity of tumor cells provides a mechanism of resistance to many molecularly targeted therapies, exemplified by adeno-to-neuroendocrine lineage transitions seen in prostate and lung cancer. Here we investigate the root cause of this lineage plasticity in a primary murine prostate organoid model that mirrors the lineage transition seen in patients. These cells lose luminal identity within weeks following deletion of Trp53 and Rb1, ultimately acquiring an Ar-negative, Syp+ phenotype after orthotopic in vivo transplantation. Single-cell transcriptomic analysis revealed progressive mixing of luminal-basal lineage features after tumor suppressor gene deletion, accompanied by activation of Jak/Stat and Fgfr pathway signaling and interferon-a and -g gene expression programs prior to any morphologic changes. Genetic or pharmacologic inhibition of Jak1/2 in combination with FGFR blockade restored luminal differentiation and sensitivity to antiandrogen therapy in models with residual AR expression. Collectively, we show lineage plasticity initiates quickly as a largely cell-autonomous process and, through newly developed computational approaches, identify a pharmacological strategy that restores lineage identity using clinical grade inhibitors.

Updates on Molecular and Biochemical Development and Progression of Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents the most commonly non-cutaneous diagnosed cancer in men worldwide and occupies a very wide area of preclinical and clinical research. Targeted therapy for any cancer depends on the understanding of the molecular bases and natural behaviour of the diseases. Despite the well-known effect of androgen deprivation on PCa, many patients develop resistance either for antiandrogen therapy or other new treatment modalities such as checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy. Comprehensive understanding of the development of PCa as well as of the mechanisms underlying its progression is mandatory to maximise the benefit of the current approved medications or to guide the future research for targeted therapy of PCa. The aim of this review was to provide updates on the most recent mechanisms regarding the development and the progression of PCa. According to the current understanding, future treatment strategies should include more predictive genetic and biomarker analysis to assign different patients to the expected most appropriate and effective treatment.

A Systematic Comparison of Antiandrogens Identifies Androgen Receptor Protein Stability as an Indicator for Treatment Response

Antiandrogen therapy is a primary treatment for patients with metastasized prostate cancer. Whilst the biologic mechanisms of antiandrogens have been extensively studied, the operating protocols used for the characterization of these drugs were not identical, limiting their comparison. Here, the antiandrogens Bicalutamide, Enzalutamide, Apalutamide, and Darolutamide were systematically compared using identical experimental setups. Androgen-dependent LNCaP and LAPC4 cells as well as androgen-independent C4-2 cells were treated with distinct concentrations of antiandrogens. Androgen receptor (AR)-mediated gene transactivation was determined using qPCR. Cell viability was measured by WST1 assay. Protein stability and AR localization were determined using western blot. Response to the tested antiandrogens across cellular backgrounds differed primarily in AR-mediated gene transactivation and cell viability. Antiandrogen treatment in LNCaP and LAPC4 cells resulted in AR protein level reduction, whereas in C4-2 cells marginal decreased AR protein was observed after treatment. In addition, AR downregulation was already detectable after 4 h, whereas reduced AR-mediated gene transactivation was not observed before 6 h. None of the tested antiandrogens displayed an advantage on the tested parameters within one cell line as opposed to the cellular background, which seems to be the primary influence on antiandrogen efficacy. Moreover, the results revealed a prominent role in AR protein stability. It is one of the first events triggered by antiandrogens and correlated with antiandrogen efficiency. Therefore, AR stability may surrogate antiandrogen response and may be a possible target to reverse antiandrogen resistance.

Targeting glucocorticoid metabolism in prostate cancer

In the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, resistance to hormonal therapy is a major obstacle. With antiandrogen therapies that suppress androgen signaling through the androgen receptor (AR), the primary driver of prostate cancer, some malignancies are able take advantage of the closely related glucocorticoid receptor (GR). Escape from AR-dependency often involves a simple functional switch from one steroid receptor to another. Recent research efforts have outlined the mechanism enabling this switch, which involves alterations in glucocorticoid metabolism that occur with antiandrogen therapy to increase tumor tissue glucocorticoids and enable GR signaling. Targeting this mechanism pharmacologically by blocking hexose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase shows promise in normalizing glucocorticoid metabolism and restoring responsiveness to antiandrogen therapy. This perspective reviews what we have learned about this resistance mechanism, examines potential implications, and considers how this knowledge might be harnessed for therapeutic benefit.

Quo Vadis Advanced Prostate Cancer Therapy? Novel Treatment Perspectives and Possible Future Directions

Prostate cancer is a very common disease, which is, unfortunately, often the cause of many male deaths. This is underlined by the fact that the early stages of prostate cancer are often asymptomatic. Therefore, the disease is usually detected and diagnosed at late advanced or even metastasized stages, which are already difficult to treat. Hence, it is important to pursue research and development not only in terms of novel diagnostic methods but also of therapeutic ones, as well as to increase the effectiveness of the treatment by combinational medicinal approach. Therefore, in this review article, we focus on recent approaches and novel potential tools for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer; these include not only androgen deprivation therapy, antiandrogen therapy, photodynamic therapy, photothermal therapy, immunotherapy, multimodal therapy, but also poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, Akt and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors.