Search

Background: Black men consistently have higher rates of prostate cancer (PCA)- related mortality. Advances in PCA treatment, screening, and hereditary cancer assessment center around germline testing (GT). Of concern is the significant under-engagement of Black males in PCA GT, limiting the benefit of precision therapy and tailored cancer screening despite longstanding awareness of these disparities. To address these critical disparities, the Socioecological Model (SEM) was employed to develop comprehensive recommendations to overcome barriers and implement equitable strategies to engage Black males in PCA GT. Methods: Clinical/research experts, national organization leaders, and community stakeholders spanning multiple regions in US and Africa participated in developing a framework for equity in PCA GT grounded in the SEM. A novel mixed-methods approach was employed to generate key areas to be addressed and informed statements for consensus consideration utilizing the modified Delphi model. Statements achieving strong consensus (> =75% agreement) were included in final equity frameworks addressing clinical/community engagement and research engagement. Results: All societal levels of the SEM (interpersonal, institutional, community, and policy/advocacy) must deliver information about PCA GT to Black males that address benefits/limitations, clinical impact, hereditary cancer implications, with acknowledgment of mistrust (mean scores [MS] 4.57-5.00). Interpersonal strategies for information delivery included engagement of family/friends/peers/Black role models to improve education/awareness and overcome mistrust (MS 4.65-5.00). Institutional strategies included diversifying clinical, research, and educational programs and integrating community liaisons into healthcare institutions (MS 4.57-5.00). Community strategies included partnerships with healthcare institutions and visibility of healthcare providers/researchers at community events (MS 4.65–4.91). Policy/advocacy included improving partnerships between advocacy and healthcare/community organizations while protecting patient benefits (MS 4.57-5.00). Media strategies were endorsed for the first time at every level (MS 4.56-5.00). Conclusion: The SEM-based equity frameworks proposed provide the first multidisciplinary strategies dedicated to increase engagement of Black males in PCA GT, which are critical to reduce disparities in PCA-mortality through informing tailored screening, targeted therapy, and cascade testing in families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We observed lack of clarity and consistency in end point definitions of large randomized clinical trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. These inconsistencies are such that trials might, in fact, address different clinical questions. They complicate interpretation of results, including comparisons across studies. Problems arise from different ways to account for events occurring after randomization including absence of improvement in disease status, treatment discontinuation or the initiation of new therapy. We call for more dialogue between stakeholders to define with clarity the questions of interest and corresponding end points. We illustrate that assessing different end point rules across a range of plausible patient journeys can be a powerful tool to facilitate such a discussion and contribute to better understanding of patient-relevant end points. Plain Language Summary What is this article about? This article talks about the lack of clarity and consistency in the definitions of outcomes used in clinical trials that investigate new treatments for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. This is mainly due to how these different outcome definitions handle events such as absence of improvement in disease status, treatment discontinuation or initiation of new treatment. The authors discuss how these inconsistencies make it hard to interpret the results of individual clinical trials and to compare results across clinical trials. Why is it important? Defining the above events and consequently defining outcomes affects what we can learn from the trials and can lead to different results. Some approaches may not reflect good and bad outcomes for patients appropriately. This makes it challenging for patients, physicians, health authorities and payors to understand the true benefit of treatments under investigation and which one is better. What are the key take-aways? This article serves as a call-to-action for more dialogue among all stakeholders involved in drug development and the decision-making process related to drug evaluations. There is an urgent need for clinical trials to be designed with more clarity and consistency on what is being measured so that relevant questions for patients and prescribing physicians are addressed. Understanding patient journeys will be key to successfully understand what truly matters to patients and how to measure the benefit of new treatments. Such discussions will contribute toward more clarity and consistency in the evaluation of new treatments. Tweetable Abstract Time for more dialogue to harmonize end point definitions in lymphoma! Use patient journeys to bring more clarity, consistency and patient-relevance! Learn about key considerations for the choice of end points and why PFS is not always meaningful! Article highlights Background End points in clinical trials should reflect good and bad outcomes for patients appropriately. Clarity on end point definitions is critical when interpreting trial results. Review of phase III trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) highlights the prevailing lack of clarity and consistency in the choice of end points and their definitions. Overall survival Combines the effect on survival of both the initial and any subsequent therapies received until death and captures potential effects of initial therapy on the choice, safety and efficacy of subsequent therapies. Challenging interpretation of clinical trial results in DLBCL with rapidly changing treatment options and multiple potentially curative subsequent treatments. Progression-free survival The response of stable disease is a bad outcome for DLBCL patients, and as progression-free survival (PFS) does not count it as event it might not be patient-relevant. Different approaches to consider the impact of new therapies initiated prior to PFS event or to exclude their impact address different questions. Good understanding of the reasons for treatment discontinuations and start of new therapy critical to interpret PFS results. Event-free survival Event-free survival (EFS) considers not only death and progression as events, but also a type of 'treatment failure'. Treatment discontinuation generally not used in confirmatory trials as 'treatment failure' event as it can be influenced by other factors not related to efficacy. Start of new therapy often considered as treatment failure event regardless of the reason, i.e., even if it follows discontinuation due to toxicities. In some trials, start of a new therapy for efficacy-related reasons is defined as an event, showing a focus on the anti-tumour activity of the drug. Additional considerations required for studies of treatment strategies with multiple interventions such as CAR-T or transplant strategies. Patient-reported outcomes Challenging to interpret the results in the absence of clear, well-defined research objectives. When defining research objectives, it is important to differentiate between short-term and long-term effects and to consider duration of treatment, frequency of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessments, the impact of new therapies and deaths and whether quality of life (QoL) at later timepoints reflects only the results in responding patients. Discussion Various elements of patient journey, disease setting and therapy type impact the appropriateness of end points. Dialogue between all stakeholders needed to define more explicitly the questions of interest and corresponding end points in DLBCL and to ensure that relevant data are collected, clinical trials are designed to address these questions and the results are easier to interpret. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND. Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is an aggressive subtype, the presence of which changes the prognosis and management of metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS. We performed analytical validation of a Circulating Tumor Cell (CTC) multiplex RNA qPCR assay to identify the limit of quantification (LOQ) in cell lines, synthetic cDNA, and patient samples. We next profiled 116 longitudinal samples from a prospectively collected institutional cohort of 17 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (7 NEPC, 10 adenocarcinoma) as well as 265 samples from 139 patients enrolled in 3 adenocarcinoma phase II trials of androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs). We assessed a NEPC liquid biomarker via the presence of neuroendocrine markers and the absence of androgen receptor (AR) target genes. RESULTS. Using the analytical validation LOQ, liquid biomarker NEPC detection in the longitudinal cohort had a per- sample sensitivity of 51.35% and a specificity of 91.14%. However, when we incorporated the serial information from multiple liquid biopsies per patient, a unique aspect of this study, the per-patient predictions were 100% accurate, with a receiver- operatingcurve (ROC) AUC of 1. In the adenocarcinoma ARSI trials, the presence of neuroendocrine markers, even while AR target gene expression was retained, was a strong negative prognostic factor. CONCLUSION. Our analytically validated CTC biomarker can detect NEPC with high diagnostic accuracy when leveraging serial samples that are only feasible using liquid biopsies. Patients with expression of NE genes while retaining AR- target gene expression may indicate the transition to neuroendocrine differentiation, with clinical characteristics consistent with this phenotype. FUNDING. NIH (DP2 OD030734, 1UH2CA260389, R01CA247479, and P30 CA014520), Department of Defense (PC190039 and PC200334), and Prostate Cancer Foundation (Movember Foundation--PCF Challenge Award)., Introduction The majority of prostate cancers are histologically classified as adenocarcinomas. Prostate adenocarcinoma is driven by androgens, expresses prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and other androgen receptor (AR) target genes, and responds [...]

PURPOSE: Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with soft tissue sarcoma with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) amplification treated with palbociclib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. The primary end point was disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16+ weeks duration (SD16+) according to RECIST v1.1. The DC rate was estimated with a 90% CI. Secondary end points included OR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response, duration of SD, and safety. RESULTS: Forty-two patients with CDK4 amplification were enrolled. One patient was not evaluable for efficacy. One patient with partial response and 18 with SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 46% (90% CI, 36 to 100) and 2% (95% CI, <1 to 13), respectively. Median PFS was 16 weeks (95% CI, 9 to 28) and median OS was 69 weeks (95% CI, 31 to 111) for evaluable patients. Twenty patients had at least one grade 3 to 4 adverse event (AE) at least possibly related to palbociclib, including alanine aminotransferase increase, anemia, fatigue, hypophosphatemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: Palbociclib met prespecified criteria to declare a signal of antitumor activity in patients with sarcoma and CDK4 amplification. Palbociclib met @ASCO #TAPUR criteria to declare antitumor activity in patients with CDK4-amplified liposarcoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with various solid tumors with germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations treated with talazoparib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced solid tumors, measurable disease (RECIST), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Patients with germline BRCA -mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were not eligible for this study. Primary end point was disease control (DC) determined by investigator assessment of objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+). The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power = 0.82; α =.10). Secondary end points were OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of SD, and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (20 cancer types) with BRCA1/2 mutations were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2021 and collapsed into a single histology pooled cohort for analysis. All patients were evaluable for efficacy. One complete response, nine partial response, and six SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 57% (one-sided 90% CI, 43 to 100) and 36% (95% CI, 19 to 56), respectively. The null hypothesis of a 15% DC rate was rejected (P <.001). Patients with OR had the following tumor types: breast (2), nonmelanoma skin, mesothelioma, stomach, uterus, non–small cell lung cancer, ovary, hepatocellular carcinoma, and pancreas. Thirteen patients had at least one grade 3-5 adverse event (AE) or serious AE at least possibly related to talazoparib. All were consistent with the drug label except bilirubin increase and hyponatremia (both grade 3 AEs). CONCLUSION: Talazoparib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors and BRCA1/2 mutations, including cancer types for which poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors are not yet US Food and Drug Administration–approved. Talazoparib showed activity in patients with BRCA-mutated tumors for which PARP inhibitors are not yet FDA-approved. @ASCO #TAPUR [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the advent of targeted agents and immunological therapies, the medical research community has become increasingly aware that conventional methods for determining the best dose or schedule of a new agent are inadequate. It has been well established that conventional phase I designs cannot reliably identify safe and effective doses. This problem applies, generally, for cytotoxic agents, radiation therapy, targeted agents, and immunotherapies. To address this, the US Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence initiated Project Optimus, with the goal "to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development." As a response to Project Optimus, the articles in this special issue of Clinical Trials review recent advances in methods for choosing the dose or schedule of a new agent with an overall objective of informing clinical trialists of these innovative designs. This introductory article briefly reviews problems with conventional methods, the regulatory changes that encourage better dose optimization designs, and provides brief summaries of the articles that follow in this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Herein, we report results from a genome-wide study conducted to identify protein quantitative trait loci (pQTL) for circulating angiogenic and inflammatory protein markers in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The study was conducted using genotype, protein marker, and baseline clinical and demographic data from CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Alliance), a randomized phase III study designed to assess outcomes of adding VEGF or EGFR inhibitors to systemic chemotherapy in mCRC patients. Germline DNA derived from blood was genotyped on whole-genome array platforms. The abundance of protein markers was quantified using a multiplex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from plasma derived from peripheral venous blood collected at baseline. A robust rank-based method was used to assess the statistical significance of each variant and protein pair against a strict genome-wide level. A given pQTL was tested for validation in two external datasets of prostate (CALGB 90401) and pancreatic cancer (CALGB 80303) patients. Bioinformatics analyses were conducted to further establish biological bases for these findings. Results: The final analysis was carried out based on data from 540,021 common typed genetic variants and 23 protein markers from 869 genetically estimated European patients with mCRC. Correcting for multiple testing, the analysis discovered a novel cis-pQTL in LINC02869, a long non-coding RNA gene, for circulating TGF-β2 levels (rs11118119; AAF = 0.11; P-value < 1.4e-14). This finding was validated in a cohort of 538 prostate cancer patients from CALGB 90401 (AAF = 0.10, P-value < 3.3e-25). The analysis also validated a cis-pQTL we had previously reported for VEGF-A in advanced pancreatic cancer, and additionally identified trans-pQTLs for VEGF-R3, and cis-pQTLs for CD73. Conclusions: This study has provided evidence of a novel cis germline genetic variant that regulates circulating TGF-β2 levels in plasma of patients with advanced mCRC and prostate cancer. Moreover, the validation of previously identified pQTLs for VEGF-A, CD73, and VEGF-R3, potentiates the validity of these associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical genomic testing of patient germline, tumor tissue, or plasma cell-free DNA can enable a personalized approach to cancer management and treatment. In prostate cancer (PCa), broad genotyping tests are now widely used to identify germline and/or somatic alterations in BRCA2 and other DNA damage repair genes. Alterations in these genes can confer cancer sensitivity to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, are linked with poor prognosis, and can have potential hereditary cancer implications for family members. However, there is huge variability in genomic tests and reporting standards, meaning that for successful implementation of testing in clinical practice, end users must carefully select the most appropriate test for a given patient and critically interpret the results. In this white paper, we outline key pre- and post-test considerations for choosing a genomic test and evaluating reported variants, specifically for patients with advanced PCa. Test choice must be based on clinical context and disease state, availability and suitability of tumor tissue, and the genes and regions that are covered by the test. We describe strategies to recognize false positives or negatives in test results, including frameworks to assess low tumor fraction, subclonal alterations, clonal hematopoiesis, and pathogenic versus nonpathogenic variants. We assume that improved understanding among health care professionals and researchers of the nuances associated with genomic testing will ultimately lead to optimal patient care and clinical decision making. This article provides a helpful framework for choosing and interpreting a genomic test in prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The phase 3 CALGB 90203 (Alliance) trial evaluated neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy for high-risk localized prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy. We dissected the molecular features of post-treated tumors with long-term clinical outcomes to explore mechanisms of response and resistance to chemohormonal therapy. Methods We evaluated 471 radical prostatectomy tumors, including 294 samples from 166 patients treated with 6 cycles of docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy before radical prostatectomy and 177 samples from 97 patients in the control arm (radical prostatectomy alone). Targeted DNA sequencing and RNA expression of tumor foci and adjacent noncancer regions were analyzed in conjunction with pathologic changes and clinical outcomes. Results Tumor fraction estimated from DNA sequencing was significantly lower in post-treated tumor tissues after chemohormonal therapy compared with controls. Higher tumor fraction after chemohormonal therapy was associated with aggressive pathologic features and poor outcomes, including prostate-specific antigen–progression-free survival. SPOP alterations were infrequently detected after chemohormonal therapy, while TP53 alterations were enriched and associated with shorter overall survival. Residual tumor fraction after chemohormonal therapy was linked to higher expression of androgen receptor–regulated genes, cell cycle genes, and neuroendocrine genes, suggesting persistent populations of active prostate cancer cells. Supervised clustering of post–treated high-tumor-fraction tissues identified a group of patients with elevated cell cycle–related gene expression and poor clinical outcomes.  Conclusions Distinct recurrent prostate cancer genomic and transcriptomic features are observed after exposure to docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy. Tumor fraction assessed by DNA sequencing quantifies pathologic response and could be a useful trial endpoint or prognostic biomarker. TP53 alterations and high cell cycle transcriptomic activity are linked to aggressive residual disease, despite potent chemohormonal therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a pragmatic basket trial evaluating antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers harboring potentially actionable genomic alterations. Data from a cohort of patients with lung cancer and ERBB2 mutation or amplification treated with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab (P + T) are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced lung cancer of any histology, no standard treatment options, measurable disease (RECIST v1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and tumors with ERBB2 mutation or amplification. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary end point of disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) per RECIST v. 1.1 or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+). Secondary end points included safety, duration of response, duration of SD, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients with lung cancer (27 non–small-cell, 1 small-cell) and ERBB2 mutation (n = 15), ERBB2 amplification (n = 12), or both (n = 1) were enrolled from November 2016 to July 2020. All patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. Three patients with partial response (two ERBB2 mutation; one both mutation and amplification) and seven patients with SD16+ (five ERBB2 mutation; two amplification) were observed for a DC rate of 37% (95% CI, 21 to 50; P =.005) and OR rate of 11% (95% CI, 2 to 28). Five patients had one or more grade 3 or 4 adverse or serious adverse events at least possibly related to P + T. CONCLUSION: Combination P + T showed evidence of antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with non–small-cell lung cancer and ERBB2 mutation or amplification, particularly those with ERBB2 exon 20 insertion mutations. Pertuzumab + trastuzumab had antitumor activity in pretreated patients with ERBB2-mutated NSCLC @ASCO #TAPUR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The TAPUR Study is a pragmatic basket trial evaluating antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers harboring potentially actionable genomic alterations. Data from a cohort of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) with ERBB2 or ERBB3 (ERBB2/3) amplification, overexpression, or mutation treated with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab (P + T) are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced EC, no standard treatment options, measurable disease (RECIST v1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and tumors with ERBB2/3 amplification, overexpression, or mutation. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary end point of disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks (SD16+) duration. Secondary end points include safety, duration of response, duration of SD, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled from March 2017 to November 2019; all patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. Seventeen patients had tumors with ERBB2/3 amplification and/or overexpression, eight with both ERBB2 amplification and ERBB2/3 mutations, and three with only ERBB2 mutations. Ten patients had DC (two partial response and eight SD16+); all 10 had ERBB2 amplification, and 6 of the 10 patients with DC had >1 ERBB2/3 alteration. DC and OR rates were 37% (95% CI, 21 to 50) and 7% (95% CI, 1 to 24), respectively; the median PFS and median OS were 16 weeks (95% CI, 10-28) and 61 weeks (95% CI, 24-105), respectively. One patient experienced a grade 3 serious adverse event (muscle weakness) at least possibly related to P + T. CONCLUSION: P + T has antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with EC with ERBB2 amplification and warrants additional study. Pertuzumab + trastuzumab had antitumor activity in patients with endometrial cancer with ERBB2/3 alterations @ASCO #TAPUR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The TAPUR Study is a phase II basket trial that aims to evaluate activity of approved targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers with potentially actionable genomic variants. Data from a cohort of patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and BRCA1 / 2 mutations treated with olaparib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients with measurable mCRPC were matched to treatment according to protocol-specified genomic matching rules. Patients had no remaining standard treatment options, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate organ function. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary end point of disease control, defined as objective response or stable disease of at least 16-week duration. Secondary end points include radiographic progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Thirty patients with mCRPC with BRCA1 / 2 mutations were treated with olaparib. The disease control rate was 69% (95% CI, 51 to 81), and the objective response rate was 58% (95% CI, 37 to 77). The median radiographic progression-free survival and the median overall survival were 38.4 (95% CI, 16.3 to 52.1) weeks and 76.4 (95% CI, 49.3 to 106.0) weeks, respectively. Six of 30 (20%) patients experienced grade 3-4 adverse or serious adverse events including anemia, aspiration, decreased WBC count, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: Olaparib has antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC with BRCA1 / 2 mutations and warrants further study to determine how to best integrate it into the standard treatment of patients with BRCA1 / 2 -mutated prostate cancer. Olaparib showed a positive signal of activity in real-world patients w/prostate cancer w/BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations @ASCO #TAPUR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aim: The number of coronavirus disease 2019 deaths and cases continues to increase globally. Novel therapies are urgently needed to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019. We sought to provide a critical review of trials designed during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our primary goal was to provide a critical review of the landscape of clinical trials designed to address the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Specifically, we were interested in assessing the design of phase II/III and phase III interventional trials. Methods: We utilized the ClinicalTrials.gov database to include trials registered between 1 December 2019 and 11 April 2021 to survey the current landscape of clinical trials for coronavirus disease 2019. Variables extracted included: National Clinical Trial number, title, location, sponsor, study type, start date, completion date, gender group, age group, primary outcome, secondary outcome, overall status, and associated references. Results: About 57% of studies were interventional, 14.5% were phase III trials, and the majority of the therapeutic trials included hospitalized patients. There were 52 primary composite outcomes and 285 unique interventions spanning 10 drug classes. The outcomes, disease severity, and comparators varied substantially across trials, and the trials were often too small to be definitive. Conclusion: These findings are relevant as we strongly advocate for global coordination of efforts through the use of common platforms that enable harmonizing of endpoints, collection of common key variables and clear definition of disease severity to have clinically meaningful results from clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identifying exceptional responders or nonresponders is an area of increased research interest in precision medicine as these patients may have different biological or molecular features and therefore may respond differently to therapies. Our motivation stems from a real example from a clinical trial where we are interested in characterizing exceptional prostate cancer responders. We investigate the outlier detection and robust regression problem in the sparse proportional hazards model for censored survival outcomes. The main idea is to model the irregularity of each observation by assigning an individual weight to the hazard function. By applying a LASSO‐type penalty on both the model parameters and the log transformation of the weight vector, our proposed method is able to perform variable selection and outlier detection simultaneously. The optimization problem can be transformed to a typical penalized maximum partial likelihood problem and thus it is easy to implement. We further extend the proposed method to deal with the potential outlier masking problem caused by censored outcomes. The performance of the proposed estimator is demonstrated with extensive simulation studies and real data analyses in low‐dimensional and high‐dimensional settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before biomarkers can be used in clinical trials or patients' management, the laboratory assays that measure their levels have to go through development and analytical validation. One of the most critical performance metrics for validation of any assay is related to the minimum amount of values that can be detected and any value below this limit is referred to as below the limit of detection (LOD). Most of the existing approaches that model such biomarkers, restricted by LOD, are parametric in nature. These parametric models, however, heavily depend on the distributional assumptions, and can result in loss of precision under the model or the distributional misspecifications. Using an example from a prostate cancer clinical trial, we show how a critical relationship between serum androgen biomarker and a prognostic factor of overall survival is completely missed by the widely used parametric Tobit model. Motivated by this example, we implement a semiparametric approach, through a pseudo‐value technique, that effectively captures the important relationship between the LOD restricted serum androgen and the prognostic factor. Our simulations show that the pseudo‐value based semiparametric model outperforms a commonly used parametric model for modeling below LOD biomarkers by having lower mean square errors of estimation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bayesian Way: This animated video explores two possible approaches to analyzing data in a randomized controlled trial: "Frequentist" versus "Bayesian." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Innovations in treatments, imaging and molecular characterisation have improved outcomes for people with advanced prostate cancer; however, many aspects of clinical management are devoid of high-level evidence. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019, many of these topics were addressed, and consensus was not always reached. The results from clinical trials will most reliably plus the gaps. An invited panel of 57 experts voted on 123 multiple-choice questions on clinical management at APCCC 2019. No consensus was reached on 88 (71.5%) questions defined as <75% of panellists voting for the same answer option. We reviewed clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant ongoing phase III trials in these areas of non-consensus. A number of ongoing phase III trials were identified that are relevant to these non-consensus issues. However, many non-consensus issues appear not to be addressed by current clinical trials. Of note, no phase III but only phase II trials were identified, investigating side effects of hormonal treatments and their management. Lack of consensus almost invariably indicates gaps in existing evidence. The high percentage of questions lacking consensus at APCCC 2019 highlights the complexity of advanced prostate cancer care and the need for robust, clinically relevant trials that can fill current gaps with high-level evidence. Our review of these areas of non-consensus and ongoing trials provides a useful summary, indicating areas in which future consensus may soon be reached. This review may facilitate academic investigators to identify and prioritise topics for future research. • APCCC (Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference) addresses knowledge gaps. • At APCCC 2019, many topics did not reach a consensus. • This article reviews ongoing trials and identifies outstanding gaps in knowledge. • The need for robust, clinically relevant trials that can fill gaps is highlighted. • This review may facilitate academic investigators to prioritise research topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]