No abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second leading cause of cancerrelated death for men in the United States. Approximately 35% of PCa recurs and is often transformed to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPCa), the most deadly and aggressive form of PCa. However, the CRPCa standard-of-care treatment (enzalutamide with abiraterone) usually has limited efficacy. Herein, we report a novel molecule (PAWI-2) that inhibits cellular proliferation of androgen-sensitive and androgen-insensitive cells (LNCaP and PC-3, respectively). In vivo studies in a PC-3 xenograft model showed that PAWI-2 (20 mg/kg per day i.p., 21 days) inhibited tumor growth by 49% compared with vehicletreated mice. PAWI-2 synergized currently clinically used enzalutamide in in vitro inhibition of PCa cell viability and resensitized inhibition of in vivo PC-3 tumor growth. Compared with vehicletreated mice, PC-3 xenograft studies also showed that PAWI-2 (20 mg/kg per day i.p., 21 days) and enzalutamide (5 mg/kg per day i.p., 21 days) inhibited tumor growth by 63%. Synergism was mainly controlled by the imbalance of prosurvival factors (e.g., Bcl-2, Bcl-xL, Mcl-1) and antisurvival factors (e.g., Bax, Bak) induced by affecting mitochondrial membrane potential/ mitochondria dynamics. Thus, PAWI-2 utilizes a distinct mechanism of action to inhibit PCa growth independently of androgen receptor signaling and overcomes enzalutamide-resistant CRPCa. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPCa) is the most aggressive human prostate cancer (PCa) but standard chemotherapies for CRPCa are largely ineffective. PAWI-2 potently inhibits PCa proliferation in vitro and in vivo regardless of androgen receptor status and uses a distinct mechanism of action. PAWI-2 has greater utility in treating CRPCa than standard-of-care therapy. PAWI-2 possesses promising therapeutic potency in low-dose combination therapy with a clinically used drug (e.g., enzalutamide). This study describes a new approach to address the overarching challenge in clinical treatment of CRPCa.

Over the past 5 years, a small group of cancer patients who stated their physicians had determined there were no additional available antineoplastic therapeutic options (including potential investigational strategies) were seen for a ‘second opinion' in a cancer hospital-based oncology program and subsequently experienced what can reasonably be characterized as having achieved meaningful ‘clinical benefit' (functioning at a fairly high level for a minimum 1 year in the work, home, and/or family environments) following the further delivery of a variety of treatment approaches. While recognized to be limited (or even simply ‘anecdotal'), this experience emphasizes several clinically relevant conclusions, including the overall utility of a ‘second-opinion' strategy and the potential that the reported statement of an individual practitioner or cancer program that all rational options have been attempted may be inaccurate.