Bipolar Androgen Therapy: Clinical Validation

QUIET BIOLOGY FRAMEWORK | Scientific Support Paper No. 11

Finley Proudfoot | Quiet Biology Framework | March 2026

01Background and Conceptual Foundation

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the cornerstone of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The dependence of prostate cancer on the androgen receptor (AR) for growth and survival makes castration, surgical or pharmacological, effective at inducing remission. However, progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is, in current clinical practice, inevitable. The central mechanism of this transition is adaptive AR overexpression: under the selective pressure of chronic androgen deprivation, prostate cancer cells upregulate AR expression 27- to 90-fold above normal epithelial levels and amplify AR sensitivity to detect and respond to residual androgens at concentrations that would be physiologically inert.^[1][2]

This adaptive upregulation is not a fixed genetic mutation. It is an acquired, reversible, condition-responsive change. CRPC cells maintain the machinery to inversely regulate their AR expression in response to circulating androgen levels, upregulating AR when androgen is scarce, and capable of downregulating it when androgen is abundant. It is this reversibility that creates the therapeutic vulnerability that Bipolar Androgen Therapy (BAT) exploits.^[2][3]

The conceptual lineage of BAT begins with Huggins’ observation in 1962 that excessive hormonal exposure, progesterone and oestradiol at supraphysiological doses, could extinguish mammary tumours that the same hormones at physiological doses had been stimulating. He termed this ’hormone interference’ and identified it as a distinct therapeutic principle: a system adapted to a hormonal environment can be disrupted by its extreme opposite.^[4][5]

The Quiet Biology oscillation framework provides the mechanistic language for what Huggins observed empirically. A biological system that has been forced into a fixed chronic state, in this case, chronic androgen deprivation, loses the adaptive capacities that depended on oscillation. The cell becomes maximally sensitised to androgens it can no longer receive. When androgen is suddenly and massively restored, the sensitisation that was a survival adaptation becomes a lethal vulnerability. The oscillation that chronic ADT eliminated is restored, and the cells that adapted to its absence cannot survive its return.^[6]

02Mechanisms of Supraphysiological Testosterone (SPT) Action

Multiple concurrent mechanisms mediate the growth-inhibitory effects of supraphysiological testosterone in AR-overexpressing prostate cancer cells. No single dominant pathway has been identified; genetic screens and transcriptional profiling consistently reveal multi-pathway action, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the therapeutic effect is the global consequence of restoring androgen signalling beyond the range the adapted cell can handle.^[7]

2.1 c-Myc Downregulation and G1 Arrest

AR overexpression in CRPC cells acquires oncogenic gain-of-function regulation of c-Myc, the opposite of normal prostate epithelium, in which AR-mediated c-Myc downregulation promotes growth arrest and differentiation.^[8]

Under SPT, ligand-bound AR represses c-Myc by disrupting interactions between distal super-enhancers (PCAT1, PVT1) and the c-Myc promoter through conformational changes in the 8q24 topologically-associated domain.^[9]

c-Myc downregulation suppresses its target gene SKP2, the substrate-recruiting subunit of the SCF E3 ligase complex. SKP2 normally phosphorylates CDK inhibitors p27 and p21, marking them for ubiquitination and degradation. SPT-mediated SKP2 suppression therefore stabilises p27 and p21, inhibiting cyclin E/CDK2 complex activity and inducing G1 arrest.^[10][11]

Critically, elevated AR expression prior to SPT is both necessary and sufficient for this c-Myc downregulation: AR knockdown in SPT-sensitive LNCaP cells prevents it, while AR overexpression in SPT-resistant lines restores it. This establishes that the degree of AR overexpression, the hallmark of CRPC adaptation, is the primary determinant of SPT sensitivity.^[12]

2.2 AR Licensing Factor Disruption

In prostate cancer cells, AR acquires oncogenic function as a licensing factor for DNA replication. During G1, ligand-bound AR joins origin of replication sites (ORS) already bound by the origin recognition complex (ORC), facilitating loading of MCM 2-7 proteins and CDT1 to form the pre-replication complexes required for G1-dependent DNA licensing.^[13]

Under normal conditions, AR is degraded during mitosis to allow ORS to be freed for relicensing in the subsequent G1 phase. Under SPT, ligand-bound AR is stabilised during mitosis, preventing its degradation, keeping AR bound to ORS, rendering replication origins inaccessible for relicensing, and causing G1/S arrest.^[14]

This mechanism is specific to cancer cells in which AR has acquired the licensing factor function. Normal prostate epithelial cells and AR-negative cell lines are not affected by this pathway.^[13]

2.3 TOP2B-Mediated DNA Damage

Ligand-bound AR recruits topoisomerase II beta (TOP2B) to AR target genes, resulting in TOP2B-mediated double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs) at those sites. DNA repair proteins including Ku70, Ku80, PARP1, ATM, and DNA-PK are recruited to these sites.^[15][16]

SPT exposure induces DSBs and significantly downregulates genes encoding DNA damage repair proteins, creating a situation in which the damage inflicted exceeds the cell’s capacity to repair it.^[17]

The extent of SPT-induced DNA damage correlates with AR overexpression and ligand concentration. BRCA2-deficient cell lines and patient-derived xenografts show accentuated susceptibility, suggesting particular benefit in patients with HRR gene mutations, though clinical biomarker data have not yet confirmed this definitively.^[17]

Additionally, increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) production under SPT may convert initially transient DSBs into true double-strand breaks. Illegitimate repair of unresolved DSBs can result in structural genomic rearrangements including TMPRSS2:ERG fusions, consistent with the bidirectional oestrogen/androgen regulation of TMPRSS2 expression examined in QB Paper 10.^[16][18]

2.4 AR Downregulation via Negative Feedback

A highly conserved binding site in the second intron of the AR gene (ARBS2) regulates AR expression in response to androgen abundance. Ligand-bound AR recruits LSD1 (lysine-specific histone demethylase 1) to ARBS2, causing demethylation of activating histone marks H3K4me1-2, reducing expression of both full-length AR and AR splice variants including AR-V7.^[19]

In JDCaP-hr xenografts overexpressing both AR and AR-V7, exogenous testosterone drastically reduced AR and AR-V7 mRNA and protein levels in a dose-dependent manner. This AR splice variant downregulation represents a direct reversal of one of the primary resistance mechanisms acquired under NHA therapy.^[20]

This negative feedback mechanism is the molecular basis of BAT’s capacity to interrupt the adaptive autoregulation cycle. By flooding the AR signalling environment beyond the cell’s capacity to utilise, BAT triggers the system’s own feedback suppression of AR expression, resetting the CRPC cell’s AR status toward a state that subsequent androgen deprivation can again suppress effectively.^[2][3]

2.5 Senescence, Ferroptosis, and Immune Activation

SPT-induced senescence in CRPC cell lines is dose-dependent and operates through multiple parallel pathways: AR signalling promotes ROS production causing Rb hypophosphorylation and suppression of E2F target genes; p63 expression is reduced; and the p16-Rb-E2F axis independently promotes formation of senescence-associated heterochromatic foci (SAHF).^[21][22]

SPT upregulates autophagy activity in CRPC cells, including ferritinophagy, degradation of ferritin molecules via LC3B-positive autophagosomes, increasing the labile iron pool and driving lipid peroxidase-mediated ferroptosis. This pathway represents a metabolic vulnerability of adapted CRPC cells that is opened specifically by SPT.^[23]

The presence of damaged DNA in the cytoplasm following SPT-induced nucleophagy activates cytosolic nucleic acid sensors (cGAS/STING pathway), triggering innate immune signalling and secretion of cytokines and chemokines including CXCL10, which recruits and activates innate and adaptive immune cells. This immune priming mechanism is likely responsible for the clinically observed enhancement of checkpoint blockade responses in patients who have received prior BAT therapy.^[23][24]

BAT also promotes apoptosis via Bax protein translocation to mitochondria, an effect requiring AR. AR sensitises castration-resistant LNCaP cells to genotoxic stress through the PIRH2-p53-p21 axis.^[25][26]

03The BAT Protocol

BAT involves monthly intramuscular injection of testosterone cypionate (400 mg) while patients continue concurrent ADT. This produces a pharmacokinetic profile in which testosterone rises to supraphysiological levels within 24-72 hours of injection, then falls progressively over the subsequent 28 days to castrate or near-castrate levels before the next injection, creating the alternating supraphysiological/castrate cycle that gives the therapy its name.^[3][27]

The rationale for the alternating design is dual: SPT kills cells that have overexpressed AR to survive castration; the subsequent castrate phase kills cells that have downregulated their AR in response to the testosterone flood, because those cells have lost the AR expression that made castrate-environment survival possible. The alternation provides no stable environment for resistant adaptation.^[3]

The protocol was developed by Samuel Denmeade and John Isaacs at Johns Hopkins, who identified the adaptive autoregulation of AR in CRPC and its oncogenic licensing function as the liabilities that BAT exploits. Preclinical validation was conducted in castrated NOG mice bearing LNCaP/A xenografts with 75-fold AR overexpression, in which testosterone cycling inhibited tumour growth by more than 70% through increased cell death.^[3][27]

04Clinical Evidence

4.1 BATMAN Study, Eight-Year Follow-up

The BATMAN study evaluated BAT as first-line therapy in 29 androgen ablation-naive prostate cancer patients. Initial results showed PSA ≤ 4 ng/mL in 58.6% of patients after 18 months, with objective response in 80% of RECIST-evaluable lesions.^[28]

Eight-year follow-up data provides the most mature evidence of BAT’s capacity to extend the hormonal sensitivity window. Median overall survival for responders has not yet been reached, compared to 43 months for non-responders (p = 0.002). A quarter of patients remain hormone-sensitive. Of 19 patients who received second-line NHA therapy after BAT progression, PSA50 was achieved in 94.4%, compared to 78% for enzalutamide in PREVAIL and 62% for abiraterone in COU-AA-302.^[29]

The time to progression on ADT in BATMAN was 20.6 months, nearly double that of the comparative NHA trials. Patients with peak PSA values below 9 ng/mL after three months of BAT had significantly longer PFS than those above this threshold (not reached vs. 20.6 months; HR 0.122, p < 0.001), suggesting early PSA kinetics during BAT may serve as a practical response predictor.^[29]

4.2 TRANSFORMER, Randomised Phase 2

The TRANSFORMER trial randomised 195 asymptomatic mCRPC patients progressing on abiraterone 1:1 to BAT or enzalutamide, with crossover on progression. BAT and enzalutamide produced similar primary outcomes: PFS 5.6 vs. 5.7 months; PSA50 28.2% vs. 25.5%. BAT was more effective in patients with shorter duration of response to abiraterone (<6 months).^[30]

The crossover data is the TRANSFORMER study’s most important finding. Patients crossing to enzalutamide after BAT (BAT→ENZ) showed dramatically better outcomes than those crossing to BAT after enzalutamide (ENZ→BAT): PSA50 77.8% vs. 21.3%; objective response rate 28.3% vs. 7.3%; PFS2 28.2 vs. 19.6 months. The median time to progression for BAT→ENZ was 10.9 months, more than double that of enzalutamide alone after abiraterone progression (3.8 months).^[30]

4.3 RESTORE, Multi-Cohort Phase 2

RESTORE enrolled 90 patients across three cohorts: post-enzalutamide (Cohort A), post-abiraterone (Cohort B), and castration-only/no prior NHA (Cohort C).^[31]

Cohort A (post-ENZ): PSA50 30%; radiographic response 50%; of 21 patients re-challenged with enzalutamide after BAT, 15 (71%) achieved PSA50. Median PFS2 was 12.8 months.^[31]

Cohort B (post-ABI): PSA50 17%; radiographic response 29%; abiraterone re-challenge PSA50 only 16%. The substantially lower re-sensitisation rate for abiraterone vs. enzalutamide is consistent with their different mechanisms of AR pathway suppression.^[31]

Cohort C (no prior NHA): PSA50 14%; radiographic response 31%; but post-BAT NHA response was remarkable, 94% and 83% PSA50 and PSA90 respectively on subsequent NHA, with median PSA-PFS2 not yet reached at 26.2-month follow-up. Even brief BAT exposure enhanced subsequent NHA response without requiring extended BAT duration.^[31]

4.4 Combination Studies

BAT plus olaparib (PARP1 inhibitor) in 36 mCRPC patients post-ABI and/or ENZ: PSA50 44%; radiographic response 54.5%; median crPFS 13 months; median OS 26 months. No significant difference in response between HRR-intact and HRR-deficient patients.^[32]

COMBAT-CRPC (BAT plus nivolumab) in 45 mCRPC patients: PSA50 40%; ORR 23.8%; median rPFS 5.7 months. Most adverse events were low-grade. A retrospective Hopkins analysis showed prior BAT therapy produced PSA50 on subsequent checkpoint blockade in 4/6 patients (67%) vs. 11.4% in BAT-naive patients (p = 0.008), consistent with the nucleophagy/cGAS-STING innate immune priming mechanism.^[33][34]

05Clinical Results Summary

Study	Setting	PSA50	ORR	crPFS	Key finding
BATMAN (8yr)	Ablation-naive	58.6%	80%	NR	94% PSA50 on subsequent NHA; mOS not reached in responders
TRANSFORMER	mCRPC post-ABI	28.2%	28.2%	5.6 mo	BAT→ENZ: PSA50 78%, PFS2 28.2 mo vs ENZ alone 3.8 mo
RESTORE A	mCRPC post-ENZ	30%	50%	8.6 mo	71% PSA50 on ENZ re-challenge; PFS2 12.8 mo
RESTORE C	mCRPC no prior NHA	14%	31%	8.5 mo	94%/83% PSA50/PSA90 on subsequent NHA; PSA-PFS2 not reached
BAT + Olaparib	mCRPC post-ABI/ENZ	44%	54.5%	13 mo	mOS 26 mo; no HRR-status-dependent difference
COMBAT	mCRPC post-ENZ/ABI	40%	23.8%	5.7 mo	Prior BAT → checkpoint blockade PSA50 67% vs 11.4% (p=0.008)

crPFS = clinical/radiographic progression-free survival; ORR = objective response rate; NR = not reached; NHA = novel hormonal agent; mOS = median overall survival

06Biomarkers and Patient Selection

Identifying reliable pre-treatment biomarkers of BAT response remains the central unresolved clinical problem. Response rates of 30-40% mean the majority of treated patients do not benefit from BAT and are exposed to its side effects and costs without therapeutic gain.^[35]

AR-FL (full-length) and ARV-7 expression in circulating tumour cells did not predict outcomes in TRANSFORMER or RESTORE. Baseline circulating tumour cell counts similarly failed to predict response. HRR gene mutation status, despite the mechanistic rationale for BRCA2-deficiency conferring sensitivity, has not shown consistent predictive value in clinical data.^[30][31][35]

The most promising biomarker finding comes from paired-matched biopsies in COMBAT: the ARAMW score, generated from Mann-Whitney ranking of expression of 10 canonical AR target genes (KLK2, KLK3, FKBP5, STEAP1, STEAP2, PPAP2A, RAB3B, ACSL3, NKX3-1, TMPRSS2), was significantly higher in BAT responders (p = 0.011). Using a cutoff of 0.6, high-ARAMW patients showed better PSA response (p = 0.01), tumour shrinkage (p = 0.05), and longer overall survival (p = 0.002).^[36]

Separately, PSA kinetics during BAT appear informative: in BATMAN, peak PSA below 9 ng/mL after three cycles of BAT predicted significantly longer PFS. An important caveat is that testosterone directly stimulates PSA gene expression at the transcriptional level, producing PSA rises that do not necessarily reflect tumour progression. Radiographic endpoints should be co-assessed when PSA is rising during BAT.^[29]

07PSMA Imaging During BAT: A Critical Interpretive Note

PSMA expression is regulated in part by the androgen/AR axis. Clinical data are heterogeneous, but the general pattern holds: short-term ADT may upregulate PSMA, while long-term androgen exposure reduces it.^[37][38]

During BAT, testosterone administration may simultaneously suppress PSMA expression at the tumour level while also stimulating PSA gene transcription. The clinical consequence is potential discordance between PSA trajectories and PSMA PET findings, with radiographic response visible on PSMA PET while PSA rises, or vice versa.^[39]

A case documented in the PSMA-BAT pilot study illustrates this precisely: a heavily pre-treated mCRPC patient showed clear radiographic response on serial PSMA PET/CT, reduced tumour volume, total lesion PSMA, and SUVmax, over three BAT cycles, while PSA more than doubled. Assessment based on PSA alone would have indicated progressive disease. Assessment based on PSMA PET indicated response, subsequently confirmed.^[39]

For patients tracking disease status during BAT: PSA should not be used as a sole response endpoint during active BAT cycles. PSMA PET where available, conventional cross-sectional imaging, and clinical status should be co-assessed. PSA kinetics between testosterone doses (at trough, before each injection) may be more informative than absolute PSA values.

08Safety Profile

A systematic review of BAT safety across five trials encompassing over 200 patients found adverse events to be relatively rare and predominantly mild to moderate. Most common low-grade (Grade 1-2) adverse events: fatigue (13%), musculoskeletal pain (10.9%), oedema (9.4%), nausea (8.4%), breast tenderness (7.4%), and increased haemoglobin (5.5%). Most common Grade 3-4 events: hypertension (1.5%), pulmonary embolism (1.5%), back pain (1.0%).^[40]

BAT consistently outperforms enzalutamide on quality-of-life metrics, particularly fatigue and sexual function, in direct comparisons in TRANSFORMER and RESTORE.^[30][31]

A pooled analysis of 60 mCRPC patients showed favourable body composition changes after three BAT cycles: 12.2% increased muscle mass; mean visceral and subcutaneous fat reduced approximately 10% and 8% respectively; LDL reduced mean 12.4 mg/dL; triglycerides reduced mean 26.9 mg/dL. These metabolic benefits are notable given the prognostic significance of sarcopenia and adiposity in mCRPC.^[41]

Contraindications and cautions: BAT should not be used in patients with symptomatic bone metastases, spinal cord compression risk, urethral obstruction, or impending pathological fracture, due to risk of tumour flare at high-risk anatomical sites. Patients with significant underlying cardiovascular disease require closer monitoring.^[27][40]

09Connection to the Quiet Biology Framework

BAT occupies a specific and important position within the Quiet Biology framework. The QB papers have argued that prostate cancer biology is better understood through the lens of metabolic and hormonal field conditions than through single-target suppression. Several QB papers are directly relevant to the BAT mechanism.

QB Paper 1 (Saturation Model): Morgentaler’s saturation model established that prostate cancer cells are not stimulated to grow by physiological testosterone, the AR is already saturated at low testosterone levels. BAT exploits the inverse: cells adapted to castrate conditions are not in a saturated state; their massively upregulated AR is maximally sensitised to ligand. The saturation model predicts that adding testosterone will not stimulate these cells proportionally, it will overwhelm them. BAT is the clinical implementation of this prediction at the supraphysiological end of the androgen spectrum.

QB Paper 10 (Oestrogen Axis): The finding that TMPRSS2:ERG fusion, present in approximately 50% of prostate cancers, is regulated by both androgen and oestrogen axes is relevant here. SPT-mediated TOP2B-mediated DSBs can produce TMPRSS2:ERG fusions as a consequence of illegitimate repair of unresolved breaks. This is a double-edged genomic consequence that warrants further investigation in long-term BAT responders.

The Oscillation Principle: The deepest connection between BAT and the QB framework is at the level of the oscillation principle. The QB framework argues that the therapeutic task is not suppression of a pathway but restoration of conditions under which the biology can oscillate appropriately. BAT is the most direct clinical expression of this principle in prostate cancer: rather than further suppressing an already-suppressed androgen axis, it deliberately restores the oscillation that chronic suppression had eliminated, and the cancer cells that adapted to the suppressed state cannot survive the restoration.

10Mechanistic Summary: Seven Concurrent Pathways

Mechanism	Pathway detail	Key determinant
c-Myc suppression	SPT disrupts PCAT1/PVT1 super-enhancer, c-Myc promoter interaction via 8q24 domain remodelling → c-Myc↓ → SKP2↓ → p27/p21 stabilised → G1 arrest	Requires elevated AR expression
DNA relicensing disruption	SPT stabilises AR during mitosis → AR remains bound to ORS → ORS unavailable for relicensing in subsequent G1 → G1/S arrest	Specific to cancer cells with AR licensing function
TOP2B-mediated DSBs	Ligand-bound AR recruits TOP2B → DSBs at AR target genes → DNA repair downregulation → cell-cycle arrest, senescence, apoptosis	Enhanced in HRR-deficient cells; ROS amplifies DSBs
AR negative feedback	SPT → LSD1 recruited to ARBS2 → H3K4me1-2 demethylation → AR and AR-V7 expression suppressed	Reverses primary CRPC resistance mechanism
Senescence	ROS → Rb hypophosphorylation → E2F suppression; p63↓; p16-Rb-E2F axis → SAHF formation	Dose-dependent; AR-required
Ferroptosis	SPT → ferritinophagy via LC3B autophagosomes → labile iron pool↑ → lipid peroxidase-mediated cell death	Metabolic vulnerability of adapted CRPC cells
Immune activation	Nucleophagy of damaged DNA → cytoplasmic DNA → cGAS-STING → IFN-β, CXCL10 → innate/adaptive immune cell recruitment	Basis for BAT + nivolumab rationale

11Clinical Relevance: What BAT Changes About Treatment Sequencing

The most important clinical implication of the BAT evidence base is not that BAT is an effective third-line option in mCRPC, though it is. It is that the sequence in which androgen-axis therapies are deployed determines the biological state of the tumour at each treatment transition, and that biological state determines whether the next therapy works.^[30][31]

Current clinical practice typically deploys NHAs in sequence: ADT, then abiraterone or enzalutamide, then the other NHA, then chemotherapy or PARP inhibitors. At each transition, cross-resistance within the androgen axis reduces the response rate. The BAT→NHA data, particularly the 94% PSA50 rate in BATMAN and the 77.8% BAT→ENZ crossover rate in TRANSFORMER, suggest that inserting BAT before NHA re-challenge can reset this resistance in a substantial proportion of patients.^[28][29][30]

The mechanism of this resensitisation is the AR negative feedback described in section 2.4: SPT suppresses AR and AR-V7 expression via LSD1/ARBS2-mediated epigenetic feedback, reverting the CRPC cell to a state in which androgen deprivation can again produce a meaningful fall in AR signalling. Whether this epigenetic reset is durable or whether cells eventually re-adapt after BAT is a question the long-term follow-up data are beginning to answer, the BATMAN eight-year data suggests durability in responders, but larger prospective studies are required.^[19][29]

For the individual patient navigating advanced prostate cancer, the practical implication is that the sequence of hormonal therapies is not merely a matter of availability and tolerability, it is a determinant of biological outcomes. BAT is most clearly indicated before NHA re-challenge in the post-abiraterone or post-enzalutamide setting, where it transforms a likely limited-duration response into the possibility of a durable resensitisation.

The cancer adapted to the absence of oscillation.

BAT restores it.

The adaptation becomes the mechanism of destruction.

References

1. 01Linja MJ, et al. Amplification and overexpression of androgen receptor gene in hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2001;61:3550-3555.
2. 02Isaacs JT, D’Antonio JM, Chen S, et al. Adaptive auto-regulation of androgen receptor provides a paradigm shifting rationale for bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) for castrate resistant human prostate cancer. Prostate. 2012;72:1491-1505.
3. 03Isaacs JT, Brennen WN, Denmeade SR. Rationale for bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) for metastatic prostate cancer. Cell Cycle. 2017;16:1639-1640.
4. 04Huggins C, Stevens RE Jr, Hodges CV. Studies on prostatic cancer: II. The effects of castration on advanced carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Surg. 1941;43:209-223.
5. 05Huggins C, Yang NC. Induction and extinction of mammary cancer. Science. 1962;137:257-262.
6. 06Denmeade SR, Isaacs JT. Bipolar androgen therapy: the rationale for rapid cycling of supraphysiologic androgen/ablation in men with castration resistant prostate cancer. Prostate. 2010;70:1600-1607.
7. 07Nyquist MD, Corella A, Mohamad O, et al. Molecular determinants of response to high-dose androgen therapy in prostate cancer. JCI Insight. 2019;4:e129715.
8. 08Vander Griend DJ, Litvinov IV, Isaacs JT. Conversion of androgen receptor signaling from a growth suppressor in normal prostate epithelial cells to an oncogene in prostate cancer cells involves a gain of function in c-Myc regulation. Int J Biol Sci. 2014;10:627-642.
9. 09Guo H, Wu Y, Nouri M, et al. Androgen receptor and MYC equilibration centralizes on developmental super-enhancer. Nat Commun. 2021;12:7308.
10. 10Polyak K, et al. Cloning of p27Kip1, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor and a potential mediator of extracellular antimitogenic signals. Cell. 1994;78:59-66.
11. 11Kokontis JM, Hay N, Liao S. Progression of LNCaP prostate tumor cells during androgen deprivation: hormone-independent growth, repression of proliferation by androgen, and role for p27Kip1 in androgen-induced cell cycle arrest. Mol Endocrinol. 1998;12:941-953.
12. 12Sena LA, Kumar R, Sanin DE, et al. Androgen receptor activity in prostate cancer dictates efficacy of bipolar androgen therapy through MYC. J Clin Invest. 2022;132:jci162396.
13. 13Litvinov IV, Vander Griend DJ, Antony L, et al. Androgen receptor as a licensing factor for DNA replication in androgen-sensitive prostate cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:15085-15090.
14. 14Vander Griend DJ, Litvinov IV, Isaacs JT. Stabilizing androgen receptor in mitosis inhibits prostate cancer proliferation. Cell Cycle. 2007;6:647-651.
15. 15Haffner MC, Aryee MJ, Toubaji A, et al. Androgen-induced TOP2B-mediated double-strand breaks and prostate cancer gene rearrangements. Nat Genet. 2010;42:668-675.
16. 16Haffner MC, De Marzo AM, Meeker AK, et al. Transcription-induced DNA double strand breaks: both oncogenic force and potential therapeutic target? Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:3858-3864.
17. 17Chatterjee P, Schweizer MT, Lucas JM, et al. Supraphysiological androgens suppress prostate cancer growth through androgen receptor-mediated DNA damage. J Clin Invest. 2019;129:4245-4260.
18. 18Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science. 2005;310:644-648.
19. 19Cai C, He HH, Chen S, et al. Androgen receptor gene expression in prostate cancer is directly suppressed by the androgen receptor through recruitment of lysine-specific demethylase 1. Cancer Cell. 2011;20:457-471.
20. 20Nakata D, Nakayama K, Masaki T, et al. Growth inhibition by testosterone in an androgen receptor splice variant-driven prostate cancer model. Prostate. 2016;76:1536-1545.
21. 21Mirochnik Y, Veliceasa D, Williams L, et al. Androgen receptor drives cellular senescence. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e31052.
22. 22Roediger J, Hessenkemper W, Bartsch S, et al. Supraphysiological androgen levels induce cellular senescence in human prostate cancer cells through the Src-Akt pathway. Mol Cancer. 2014;13:214.
23. 23Kumar R, Mendonca J, Owoyemi O, et al. Supraphysiologic testosterone induces ferroptosis and activates immune pathways through nucleophagy in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2021;81:5948-5962.
24. 24Deng L, Liang H, Xu M, et al. STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing promotes radiation-induced type I interferon-dependent antitumor immunity in immunogenic tumors. Immunity. 2014;41:843-852.
25. 25Lin Y, Kokontis J, Tang F, et al. Androgen and its receptor promote Bax-mediated apoptosis. Mol Cell Biol. 2006;26:1908-1916.
26. 26Lin Y, Lu Z, Kokontis J, Xiang J. Androgen receptor primes prostate cancer cells to apoptosis through down-regulation of basal p21 expression. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2013;430:289-293.
27. 27Schweizer MT, Antonarakis ES, Wang H, et al. Effect of bipolar androgen therapy for asymptomatic men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from a pilot clinical study. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:269ra2.
28. 28Schweizer MT, Wang H, Luber B, et al. Bipolar androgen therapy for men with androgen ablation naïve prostate cancer: results from the phase II BATMAN study. Prostate. 2016;76:1218-1226.
29. 29Denmeade S, Lim SJ, Isaacson Velho P, Wang H. PSA provocation by bipolar androgen therapy may predict duration of response to first-line androgen deprivation: updated results from the BATMAN study. Prostate. 2022;82:1529-1536.
30. 30Denmeade SR, Wang H, Agarwal N, et al. TRANSFORMER: a randomized phase II study comparing bipolar androgen therapy versus enzalutamide in asymptomatic men with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1371-1382.
31. 31Markowski MC, Wang H, Sullivan R, et al. A multicohort open-label phase II trial of bipolar androgen therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (RESTORE). Eur Urol. 2021;79:692-699.
32. 32Schweizer MT, Gulati R, Yezefski T, et al. Bipolar androgen therapy plus olaparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023;26:194-200.
33. 33Markowski MC, Taplin M-E, Aggarwal RR, et al. COMBAT-CRPC: concurrent administration of bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) and nivolumab in men with mCRPC. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:5014.
34. 34Teply BA, Wang H, Luber B, et al. Bipolar androgen therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after progression on enzalutamide: an open-label, phase 2, multicohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:76-86.
35. 35Nabavi N, Mahdavi SR, Ardalan MA, et al. Bipolar androgen therapy: when excess fuel extinguishes the fire. Cancers. 2024;16.
36. 36Sena LA, Wang H, Lim MS, et al. Bipolar androgen therapy sensitizes castration-resistant prostate cancer to subsequent androgen receptor ablative therapy. Eur J Cancer. 2021;144:302-309. ARAMW biomarker data.
37. 37Vaz S, Hadaschik B, Gabriel M, et al. Influence of androgen deprivation therapy on PSMA expression and PSMA-ligand PET imaging of prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:9-15.
38. 38Sayar E, Patel RA, Coleman IM, et al. Reversible epigenetic alterations mediate PSMA expression heterogeneity in advanced metastatic prostate cancer. JCI Insight. 2023;8:e162907.
39. 39Nabavi N, et al. (2024, ref 35 above), PSMA-BAT pilot imaging data and serial PSMA PET/CT case report.
40. 40Xiong X, Qiu S, Yi X, et al. Efficacy and safety of bipolar androgen therapy in mCRPC after progression on abiraterone or enzalutamide: a systematic review. Urol Oncol. 2022;40:4.e19-4.e28.
41. 41Marshall CH, Tunacao J, Danda V, et al. Reversing the effects of androgen-deprivation therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2021;128:366-373.