Search

Purpose: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors radically changed the treatment paradigm for breast cancer. Similar to estrogen receptor in breast cancer, androgen receptor signaling activates cyclin D-CDK4/6, driving proliferation and resistance to hormonal manipulation in prostate cancer. This study was designed to detect signals of clinical activity for abemaciclib in treatment-refractory metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had progressive mCRPC, measurable disease, and previously received ≥1 novel hormonal agent(s) and 2 lines of taxane chemotherapy. Abemaciclib 200 mg twice daily was administered on a continuous dosing schedule. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) without concurrent bone progression. This study was designed to detect a minimum ORR of 12.5%., Results: At trial entry, 40 (90.9%) of 44 patients had objective radiographic disease progression, 4 (9.1%) had prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-only progression, and 20 (46.5%) had visceral metastases (of these, 60% had liver metastases). Efficacy analyses are as follows: ORR without concurrent bone progression: 6.8%; disease control rate: 45.5%; median time to PSA progression: 6.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.2-NA]; median radiographic PFS; 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.9-3.7); and median OS, 8.4 months (95% CI, 5.6-12.7). Most frequent grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) were neutropenia (25.0%), anemia, and fatigue (11.4% each). No grade 4 or 5 AEs were related to abemaciclib., Conclusions: Abemaciclib monotherapy was well tolerated and showed clinical activity in this heavily pretreated population, nearly half with visceral metastases. This study is considered preliminary proof-of-concept and designates CDK4/6 as a valid therapeutic target in prostate cancer., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Initial TRITON2 (NCT02952534) results demonstrated the efficacy of rucaparib 600 mg BID in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) associated with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) or other DNA damage repair (DDR) gene alteration., Objective: To present the final data from TRITON2., Design, Setting, and Participants: TRITON2 enrolled patients with mCRPC who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; as per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor Version 1.1/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 criteria in patients with measurable disease by independent radiology review [IRR]); prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline [PSA50]) was a key secondary endpoint., Results and Limitations: As of July 27, 2021 (study closure), TRITON2 had enrolled 277 patients, grouped by mutated gene: BRCA (n = 172), ATM (n = 59), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 7), PALB2 (n = 11), or other DDR gene (Other; n = 13). ORR by IRR was 46% (37/81) in the BRCA subgroup (95% confidence interval [CI], 35-57%), 100% (4/4) in the PALB2 subgroup (95% CI, 40-100%), and 25% (3/12) in the Other subgroup (95% CI, 5.5-57%). No patients within the ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2 subgroups had an objective response by IRR. PSA50 response rates (95% CI) in the BRCA, PALB2, ATM, CDK12, CHEK2, and Other subgroups were 53% (46-61%), 55% (23-83%), 3.4% (0.4-12), 6.7% (0.2-32%), 14% (0.4-58%), and 23% (5.0-54%), respectively., Conclusions: The final TRITON2 results confirm the clinical benefit and manageable safety profile of rucaparib in patients with mCRPC, including those with an alteration in BRCA or select non-BRCA DDR gene., Patient Summary: Almost half of TRITON2 patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer had a complete or partial tumor size reduction with rucaparib; clinical benefits were also observed with other DNA damage repair gene alterations., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence., Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022., Design, Setting, and Participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions., Results and Limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer., Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer., Twitter Summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer., Take-Home Message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Aurelis Omlin: Advisory role (compensated, institutional): Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Molecular Partners, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis. Research support (institutional): TEVA, Janssen. Travel support: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Sanofi Aventis. Speakers Bureau (compensated, institutional): Bayer, Astellas, Janssen. Fizazi Karim: Participation to advisory boards or talks for: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi. Honoraria are provided to Gustave Roussy, my institution. Participation to advisory boards with personal honorarium for: CureVac, Orion. Bossi Alberto: Honoraria: Astellas, Ipsen, Janssen, Myovant. Consulting or advisory role: Astellas, Ipsen, Janssen, Myovant. Speakers’ bureau: Astellas, Ipsen, Elketa. Research funding: Astellas, Ipsen, Myovant. Travel, accommodations, expenses: Janssen. Tombal Bertrand: Advisor for Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, Curium, Ferring, Myovant, Janssens, MSD, Novartis (AAA), Pfizer, Sanofi. Gillessen Silke: SG received personal honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Sanofi, Orion, Roche, Amgen, MSD; other honoraria from RSI (Televisione Svizzera Italiana); invited speaker for ESMO, Swiss group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary oncology (SAMO), Orikata academy research group, China Anti-Cancer Association Genitourinary Oncology Committee (CACA-GU); Speaker’s bureau for Janssen Cilag; travel grant from ProteoMEdiX; institutional honoraria for advisory boards for Bayer, Janssen Cilag, Roche, AAA International including Indipendent Data Monitoring Committee and IDMC and Steering Committee member for Amgen, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Astellas Pharma, Tolero Pharmaceutcials, MSD, Pfizer, Telixpharma, BMS and Orion; patent royalties and other intellectual property for a research method for biomarker WO2009138392. Ian Davis: Research Funding: Company: Astellas Pharma, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Pfizer, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Roche/Genentech, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: MSD Oncology, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: AstraZeneca, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Janssen Oncology, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Eisai, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Bayer, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Amgen, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Movember Foundation, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Exelixis, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Ipsen, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Medivation, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Seagen, Recipient: Your Institution. Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Please describe: International Patent Application No: PCT /US2004/032147 (NY-ESO-1) through Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research; Recipient: You. Christopher Sweeney: Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Dendreon; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Lilly, Genentech. Eric J. Small: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Jannsen, Johnson & Johnson; Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Jannsen, Fortis, Teon, Ulgragenyx, Fortis, Harpoon Johann de Bono: Receipt of grants/research supports: Professor De Bono is an employee of The Institute of Cancer Research, which has received funding or other support for his research work from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Genentech Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and which has a commercial interest in abiraterone, PARP inhibition in DNA repair defective cancers and PI3K/AKT pathway inhibitors (no personal income); Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Professor De Bono has served on advisory boards and received fees from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bioxcel Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, Janssen, Menarini Silicon. Biosystems, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Qiagen, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Terumo, Vertex Pharmaceuticals; Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: AstraZeneca, MSD. Matthew Smith: Receipt of grants/research supports: Clinical trial funding to my institution from: Amgen, Bayer, ESSA, Janssen, ORIC, Pfizer; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Janssen, ORIC, Pfizer. Neal Shore: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boston Scientific, Clovis Oncology, Cold Genesys, Dendreon, Exact Imaging, Exact Sciences, FerGene, Foundation Medicine, Genesis Care, Invitae, Janssen, MDxhealth, Merck, Myvovant, Myriad, Nymox, Pacific Edge, Pfizer, Phosphorous, Propella, Sanofi, Genzyme, Sesen Bio, Tolmar, Urogen; Partecipation in a company sponsored speaker's bureau: Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Foundation Medicina, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Guardant Health. Nicholas James: Receipt of grants/research supports: • Funding for STAMPEDE trial – Coordinating PI – financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: Astellas. • Funding for RADIO trial bladder cancer – Coordinating. PI – financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: AstraZeneca. • Funding for STAMPEDE trial – Coordinating PI – No. financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: Janssen; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: • Advisory Board – Advice around PARP inhibitors, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: AstraZeneca dvisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Clovis. Expert Testimony – Assisted with submissions. regarding licensing for abiraterone, Institutional>€100,001. Name of commercial company: Janssen. Advisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal, €5001–€10,000. Name of commercial company: Janssen. Advisory Board – Bladder cancer therapy, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Merck. Advisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Novartis Expert Testimony – Providing STAMPEDE trial data to facilitate licence extensions internationally for docetaxel, Institutional,>€100,001. Name of commercial company: Sanofi. Advisory Board - Docetaxel, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Sanofi. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Bayer, Novartis. Nicolas MOTTET: Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Sanofi Pasteur, Pierre Fabre; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Jansen, BMS, Bayer, IPSEN, Ferring, Sanofi, Steba, Astra Zeneca, Carrik, Arquer. diagnostics, GE, Takeda. Thomas ZILLI. AFFILIATION: Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Varian Medical Systems International AG; Debiopharm. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Janssen, Astellas, Debiopharm, Ferring, Varian Medical Systems International AG. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Janssen, Astellas, Debiopharm. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Geneva 07.02.2022. Christopher Logothetis. AFFILIATION: MD Anderson Cancer Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Aragon Pharmaceuticals. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Amgen. Participation in a company sponsored speakers bureau: None. Stock shareholder: None. Spouse/partner: None. Other support (please specify): None. Signature: Date: February 7, 2022. William Oh. AFFILIATION: Chief Medical Officer at Sema4 and Clinical Professor of Medicine, Div. of Hematology/Medical Oncology at Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speakers bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 7, 2022. Himisha Beltran. AFFILIATION: Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, AbbVie/Stemcentrx, Eli Lilly, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Janssen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Amgen, Oncorus, LOXO. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: NONE. Stock shareholder: NONE. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 7, 2022. Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen. AFFILIATION: Tampere University and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Only directly to my hospital; Lilly, Merck and Finnish Cancer Society. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: BMS, Merck. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: NONE. Stock shareholder: NONE. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify):reimbursement of expenses to attend conference; Sanofi. Signature: Date: Feb 7, 2022. Prof. Mark A. Rubin, MD. AFFILIATION: University of Bern, Department for BioMedical Research (DBMR). Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, Roche, Novartis. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: NeoGenomics Labs. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 8, 2022. Prof. Dr. Thomas Steuber. AFFILIATION: Martini-Klinik, Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: NONE. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, ProteoMedix, Sanofi, Merck, Astra Zeneca. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 8, 2022. Prof. Rob Bristow. AFFILIATION: University of Manchester. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. IGNACIO DURAN. AFFILIATION: HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO MARQUES DE VALDECILLA. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Roche and Astra-Zeneca. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Ipsen, Roche- Genentech, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, EUSA Pharma, Bayer, Novartis. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. FERNANDO MALUF. AFFILIATION: ONCOLOGIST. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Hiroyoshi Suzuki. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology, Toho University Sakura Medical Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Takeda, AsahiKasei, Taiho, Ono, Chugai, Sanofi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Nihon, Nippon Shinyaku. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Chuga-Roche, MSD. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Takeda, Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Sanofi. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Danny M. Rabah. AFFILIATION: King Saud University and king Faisal specialist hospital and research centre. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. LEVENT TÜRKERİ. AFFILIATION: ACIBADEM M.A. AYDINLAR UNIVERSITY, ISTANBUL, TURKEY. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Mark Frydenberg. AFFILIATION: ACIBADEM M.A. AYDINLAR UNIVERSITY, ISTANBUL, TURKEY. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Anders Bjartell. AFFILIATION: Dept. Of Urology, Skane University Hospital Malmö, Sweden. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Ferring, Bayer, Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, Recordati, Sandoz. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Bayer, IPSEN, Janssen, Recordati, Sandoz. Stock shareholder: LIDDS Pharma, Glactone Pharma, WntResearch. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Dingwei Ye. AFFILIATION: Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Ros Eeles. AFFILIATION: ………………………………………. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: GU-ASCO, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, University of Chicago, ESMO, AstraZeneca UK Limited. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Honorarium as speaker. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): January 2016. Signature: Date: February 15th 2022. Inge van Oort. AFFILIATION: Urology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Bayer, MSD-Astra Zeneca, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Bayer, Astellas. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 22nd 2022. Ravindran Kanesvaran. AFFILIATION: Urology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Sanofi, Eisai. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 22nd 2022. Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Nicola Fossati. AFFILIATION: Urology, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Lugano, CH. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 1st March 2022. Hiroji Uemura. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Yokohama City University Medical Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bayer, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Dai-ichi Sankyo, Pfizer, MSD, Chugai. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: none. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): none. Signature: Date: March 7th 2022. Lisa Horvath. AFFILIATION: Chris O′Brien Lifehouse. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Janssen, Bayer, Imagion Biosystems. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Janssen, Bayer. Stock shareholder: Imagion Biosystems. Spouse/partner: Connected Medicine Solutions (Employee, stocks). Other support (please specify): none. Signature: Date: March 9th 2022. Robert Reiter. AFFILIATION: UCLA Urology. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 11th 2022. Daniel Castellano. AFFILIATION: MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST HEAD GU UNIT HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO 12 DE OCTUBRE. MADRID-UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: JANSSEN. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:ASTELLAS, ROCHE, MERCK, PFIZER, NOVARTIS, MSD, BMS, IPSEN, GILEAD, JANSSEN, BAYER. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: none. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): none. Signature: 28th March 2022. Sandy Srinivas. AFFILIATION: Stanford University, CA. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:BAYER, JANSSEN, MERCK, NOVARTIS. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31ST March 2022. Matthew Sydes. AFFILIATION: MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:ASTELLAS, CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, JANSSEN, NOVARTIS, PFIZER, SANOFI AVENTIS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:ELI LILLY, JANSSEN. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Ekeke, Onyanunam Ngozi. AFFILIATION: DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY, UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT TEACHING HOSPITAL, PORT HARCOUT, NIGERIA. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 30 h 2022. Susan Halabi, PhD. AFFILIATION: Duke University. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:ASCO TAPUR, Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Sanofi, Aveo Oncology. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Cora N. Sternberg, MD, FACP. AFFILIATION: Eeill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas Pharma, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Genzyme, Gilead, Incyte, Medscape, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Msd, Pfizer, Roche, Impact Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, Urotoday, Cco Clinical, Nci. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Hirotsugu Uemura. AFFILIATION:. Kindai University Faculty of Medicine. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:AstraZeneca, Janssen, Takeda, Astellas, Sanofi, Taiho, Ono pharm, Kissei. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, MSD, Ono, BMS, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, MSD, Ono, BMS, Pfizer. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Orazio Caffo. AFFILIATION: Santa Chiara Hospital – Trento (Italy). Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AAA, Astella, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Valérie Fonteyne. AFFILIATION:Ghent University Hospital. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Ipsen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Ipsen, Astellas, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Muhammad Bulbul. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 31st 2022. Claire Vale. AFFILIATION: MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 31st 2022. MRABTI Hind. AFFILIATION: Institut National d′oncologie, Mohamed V University. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Sanofi, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Deborah Mukherji. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Janssen, MSD, Ipsen, BMS. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. AIQ Pharma. Epic Sciences. Janssen. Menarini Silicon Biosystems. ThermoFisher. Howard I. Scher, MD, FASCO. AFFILIATION: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Howard I. Scher, MD, FASCO - Disclosure Form. March 31, 2022. Honoraria. Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Jefferson Health. Elsevier, LTD. Arsenal Capital. Consultancy/Advisory Board. Ambry Genetics Corporation, Konica Minolta,Inc. Amgen. Bayer. Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Pfizer Inc. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. WCG Oncology. Research Funding to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. AIQ Pharma. Epic Sciences. Janssen. Menarini Silicon Biosystems. ThermoFisher. Evan Y. Yu, M.D. AFFILIATION: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and University of Washington. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Bayer, Blue Earth, Daiichi-Sankyo, Dendreon, Lantheus, Merck, Seagen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Abbvie, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Bayer, Clovis, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, Sanofi. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Gedske Daugaard. AFFILIATION: Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Bayer, Sanofi, Astellas, MSD, Bristol Myers. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 30th March 2022. Celestia S. Higano, MD, FACP. AFFILIATION: University of Columbia. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:None last 24 months. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AstraZeneca, Astellas, Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myovant, Tolmar, Vaccitech, Verity. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: CTI Biopharma. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): Expert testimony, Ferring. Signature: 31st March 2022. Dr. Vedang Murthy. AFFILIATION: Radiotion Oncology. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Varian Medical Systems. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Gero Kramer. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:None. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Ferring. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Niven Mehra. AFFILIATION: Radboudumc. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas, Astrazeneca, BMS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Juan Pablo Sade. AFFILIATION: Instituto Alexnder Fleming, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Janssen, Astellas, AtraZeneca, MSD, BMS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Janssen, Bayer, Pfizer, Astellas. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3rd April 2022. Dr Maria De Santis. AFFILIATION: Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Urology. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AAA, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Bioclin, BMS, EISAI, Ferring, Immunomedics, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, SeaGen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Iwona Skoneczna. AFFILIATION: Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Szpital Grochowski, Warsaw, Poland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Roche. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Laurence Klotz. AFFILIATION: University of Toronto. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:miR Scientific, Exact Imaging. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:miR Scientific, Antev. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 30th March 2022. Yüksel Ürün. AFFILIATION: Ankara University School of Medicine. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, AtraZeneca, BMS, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Pfizer, Roche. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Amgen, AtraZeneca, BMS, Janssen Oncology, Pfizer, Roche. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 01st April 2022. Howard R. Soule. AFFILIATION: Prostate Cancer Foundation. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Compugen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 4th April 2022. Simon Chowdhury. AFFILIATION:. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Janssen Oncology, Beigene, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer,. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Janssen Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Sandoz. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): Janssen Oncology (Advisory board). Novartis (advisory board, consultancy). Bayer (Advisory board). Astellas (advisory board, consultancy). Athenex (advisory board). Beigene (advisory board). Clovis Oncology (Advisory board). Telix (advisory board, consultancy). Curve.Life (founder and stock). Huma (consulting fees and Stock). Remedy Bio: consulting fees, Stock. Signature: 4th April 2022. Daniel Heinrich. AFFILIATION: Innlandet Hospital, Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Gjøvik, Norway. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: 28th February 2022. Raya Leibowitz. AFFILIATION: Shamir Medical Center, Zerifin, Be’er Yaakov, Israel. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:MSD, BMS, Isotopia, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 05th April 2022. Raja Khauli. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut Medical Ctr Clinical. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): honoraria: Astellas, Janssen, Algorithm SAL. Signature: 06th April 2022. Axel Merseburger. AFFILIATION: Campus Lübeck, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Lectures/Speaker/Honoraria:. Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ferring, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Janssen, Takeda, TEVA, Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer, Recordati and Roche. Consultant:. AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, EUSAPharm, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Takeda, Teva, Pfizer, Recordati and Roche. Research and clinical trials:. AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, EUSAPharm, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Takeda, Teva, Pfizer und Roche. Signature: 06th April 2022. Carmel Pezaro. AFFILIATION: Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Advanced Accelerator Applications, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): Bayer, Ipsen (travel support). Signature: 06th April 2022. All remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a considerable need to incorporate biomarkers of resistance to new antiandrogen agents in the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)., Methods: We conducted a phase II trial of enzalutamide in first-line chemo-naïve asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC and analyzed the prognostic value of TMPRSS2-ERG and other biomarkers, including circulating tumor cells (CTCs), androgen receptor splice variant (AR-V7) in CTCs and plasma Androgen Receptor copy number gain (AR-gain). These biomarkers were correlated with treatment response and survival outcomes and developed a clinical-molecular prognostic model using penalized cox-proportional hazard model. This model was validated in an independent cohort., Results: Ninety-eight patients were included. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion gene was detected in 32 patients with no differences observed in efficacy outcomes. CTC detection was associated with worse outcome and AR-V7 in CTCs was associated with increased rate of progression as best response. Plasma AR gain was strongly associated with an adverse outcome, with worse median prostate specific antigen (PSA)-PFS (4.2 vs. 14.7 m; p < 0.0001), rad-PFS (4.5 vs. 27.6 m; p < 0.0001), and OS (12.7 vs. 38.1 m; p < 0.0001). The clinical prognostic model developed in PREVAIL was validated (C-Index 0.70) and the addition of plasma AR (C-Index 0.79; p < 0.001) increased its prognostic ability. We generated a parsimonious model including alkaline phosphatase (ALP); PSA and AR gain (C-index 0.78) that was validated in an independent cohort., Conclusions: TMPRSS2-ERG detection did not correlate with differential activity of enzalutamide in first-line mCRPC. However, we observed that CTCs and plasma AR gain were the most relevant biomarkers., (© 2022 The Authors. The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management., Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022., Design, Setting, and Participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement., Results and Limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis., Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are approved in the USA for the treatment of patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutated (BRCA+) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). BRCA reversion mutations are a known mechanism of acquired resistance to PARP inhibitors in multiple cancer types, although their impact and prevalence in mCRPC remain unknown., Objective: To examine the prevalence of BRCA reversion mutations in the plasma of patients with BRCA+ mCRPC after progression on rucaparib., Design, Setting, and Participants: Men with BRCA+ mCRPC enrolled in Trial of Rucaparib in Prostate Indications 2 (TRITON2) were treated with rucaparib after progressing on one to two lines of androgen receptor-directed and one taxane-based therapy. Cell-free DNA from the plasma of 100 patients, collected at the end of treatment after confirmed progression before May 5, 2020, was queried for BRCA reversion mutations using next-generation sequencing (NGS)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The association of clinical efficacy and postprogression genomics was measured in 100 patients with BRCA+ mCRPC treated with rucaparib., Results and Limitations: No baseline BRCA reversion mutations were observed in 100 BRCA+ patients. NGS identified somatic BRCA reversion mutations in 39% (39/100) of patients after progression. Reversion rates were similar for BRCA2 and BRCA1, irrespective of germline or somatic status, but higher in samples with a high tumor DNA fraction. Most patients with reversions (74%, 29/39) had two or more reversion mutations occurring subclonally at lower allele frequencies than the original BRCA mutations. The incidence of BRCA reversion mutations increased with the duration of rucaparib treatment. The frequency of reversion mutations was higher in patients with an objective (58%) or a prostate-specific antigen (69%) response compared with those without either (39% and 29%, respectively)., Conclusions: These findings suggest that BRCA reversion mutations are a significant mechanism of acquired resistance to rucaparib in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC, with evidence of subclonal convergence promoting systemic resistance., Patient Summary: Men with BRCA mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer enrolled in TRITON2 were treated with rucaparib after progressing on one to two lines of androgen receptor-directed and one taxane-based therapy. Cell-free DNA from the plasma of 100 patients, collected after radiographic or prostate-specific antigen progression before May 5, 2020, was analyzed by next-generation sequencing and queried for BRCA reversion mutations., (Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of maintaining or withdrawing abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had experienced cancer progression to this treatment and were beginning a docetaxel-based therapy., Patients and Methods: Phase II, randomised, open-label study conducted in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. After open-label treatment with AAP, patients who had experienced cancer progression to AAP were randomised to 75 mg/m 2 of docetaxel plus AAP or to receive 75 mg/m 2 of docetaxel plus 10 mg of prednisone orally daily. The primary outcome was the radiographic progression-free survival rate at 12 months as evaluated by the investigators in all randomised patients., Results: A total of 148 patients were included in open-label treatment with AAP, and of them, 94 patients were randomised to receive either docetaxel plus AAP (intervention group; n = 47) or docetaxel plus prednisone (control group; n = 47). The 12-month radiographic progression-free survival rates did not differ between the intervention group (34.9%; 95% CI 20.7-49.2) and the control group (33.9%; 95% CI 19.5-48.3). There were no significant differences in the time to radiographic progression and the overall survival between the intervention and control groups. Grade 3-5 neutropenia with the combination of docetaxel plus prednisone and AA was more frequent than with docetaxel plus prednisone (59.6% versus 27.7%)., Conclusion: Our results indicate that the therapeutic strategy of maintaining AAP added to docetaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients who have experienced cancer progression to AAP treatment should not be further evaluated and should be avoided in clinical practice., Clinical Trials: NCT02036060 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02036060., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: M-AC: advisory role from BMS, MSD, Bayer, EUSA, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Janssen, Ipsen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca; has received honoraria from Ipsen, Astella, Janssen, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, EUSA, AstraZeneca. AF: research grants from Astra-Zeneca, Pierre-Fabre; consulting honorarium from Astellas; advisory honorarium from Janssen, Eusa, Astellas, Sanofi, Roche, Astra-Zeneca; and travel grants from Roche, Sanofi, Astellas. ID: Astellas, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in compensated educational activities for this company in the last two years. ASTELLAS, Advisory Board, Personal, I have participated in different compensated advisory boards over the last two years. Bristol Myers Squibb, Advisory Board, Personal, I have served as an advisor for this company in the last two years. Bristol Myers Squibb, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in different compensated educational activities sponsored by this company over the last two years. EUSA PHARMA, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in educational activities sponsored by this company in the last two years. Immunomedics, Inc., Advisory Board, Personal, I have collaborated as an advisor for this company over the last two years. IPSEN, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in different compensated educational activities sponsored by this company over the last two years. Ipsen, Advisory Board, Personal, I have collaborated as an advisor in different occasions over the last two years. Jansen, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in different compensated educational activities sponsored by Jansen over the last two years. Merck, Advisory Board, Personal, I have collaborated as an advisor for this company in the last two year. MSD, Advisory Board, Personal, I have served as an advisor for this company in the last two years. MSD, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in educational activities sponsored by this company in the last two years. Novartis, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in educational activities sponsored by Novartis in the last 2 years. PFIZER, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in different compensated educational activities sponsored by Pfizer over the last two years. Roche Genentech, Advisory Board, Personal, I have served as an advisor for this company in the last two years. Astra Zeneca, Research Grant, Personal and Institutional, Financial interest, AZ has funded research conducted in my institution related to a project where I am the PI. Immunomedics, Inc., Steering Committee Member, Personal, Financial interest, I serve as a member of a SC for a trial sponsored by this company. ROCHE GENENTECH, Research Grant, Personal and Institutional, Financial interest, Roche has funded research in my institution to projects under my coordination. Non-Financial Interests ASEICA, Member of Board of Directors, I belong as a external advisor to the board of directors of the Spanish Association of cancer research since 2021. GO NORTE, Leadership Role, I am the president of an independent cooperative group of GU Oncologist from the north of Spain. JP: Honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory roles or continuous medical education: Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, MSD, Bayer, Pfizer, Eisai, Ipsen, Sanofi, Roche, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Merck; Research Funding: Astellas, Pfizer; Consultant: Astellas, Roche. MJM-V: Invited speaker from Janssen-Cilag, Bayer healthcare, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Medivation, Roche, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD; Advisory role from Janssen-Cilag, Bayer healthcare, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Medivation, Roche, Ipsen, EISAI, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD; Travel support from Roche, Ipsen. JAAA: Advisory board: Janssen, Merck, MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Astellas; Speaker Honoraria: Merck, Pfizer, BMS; Travel accommodation: Merck, MSD, Janssen, Astellas. AG-D-A: has received research funding from Astellas, travel grants from Astellas, Jansen, Sanofi, BMS, Roche, Pfizer and Ipsen and honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory boards and continuous medical education from Janssen, Astellas, Sanofi, Bayer, Roche, Ipsen, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Eusa Pharma, Eisai and Astra Zeneca. AS-H: Honoraria from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly and Novartis; Consulting or advisory accommodations and expenses from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly and Novartis; Speakers’ bureau from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly and Novartis. MJJF: Advisory member from Janssen, BMS; Speaker honorarium from Janssen, Sanofi, BMS, GPPharm, Pierre-Fabre; Advisory honorarium from Novartis, Janssen, BMS. TA-G: Scientific Consultancy Role (speaker and advisory role) and travel grant: IPSEN, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Eisai, Adacap, Lilly, Novartis, BMS; Research grants: Roche, Pfizer, IPSEN. BMG: Speakers’ Bureau: Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ipsen; Research Funding: Roche, Bayer and Janssen. PM: Research grant from Roche, Bayer; Speaker honorarium from Janssen; Advisory honorarium from Janssen, Bayer, Astellas, Pfizer, BMS. ML-Q: Consultant or Advisory Role: BMS, MSD, Takeda, Roche, Pfizer, Roche, Ipsen, Astra-Zéneca, Boehringer, Pierre-Fabré, Bayer; Speaking: Roche, Ipsen, Lilly, Astellas, Janssen, Novartis, Boehringer, BMS; Grant or travel support: MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Astellas, Pierre-Fabré; Participation in clinical trials: Merck, Astellas, Pfizer, Ipsen, Roche, Mirati. JC-E: Advisory board member for ASTELLAS, JANSSEN, ASTRAZÉNECA, BRISTOL-MYERS, MSD; Speaker honorarium from ASTELLAS, JANSSEN, ASTRAZÉNECA, BRISTOL-MYERS, MSD IPSEN, PFIZER. BP-V: Consultancy from Astellas Parma; honoraria from Pierre Fabre; travel/accommodations expenses covered or reimbursed from Janssen-Cilag and Pfizer. CG: Speaker honorarium from Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, Astellas, Bayer; Consulting honorarium from Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, Astellas, Bayer; Advisory honorarium from Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Sanofi, Roche; Travel grants from Pfizer, Roche. DC: ASTELLAS, Advisory Board, Personal; ASTRA ZENECA, Advisory Board, Personal; BMS, Advisory Board, Personal; GSK, Advisory Board, Personal; IPSEN, Advisory Board, Personal; JANSSEN, Advisory Board, Personal; MSD, Advisory Board, Personal; NOVARTIS, Advisory Board, Personal; Pfizer, Advisory Board, Personal; ROCHE, Advisory Board, Personal. ASTELLAS, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; ASTRA ZENECA, Local PI, institutional, No financial interest; BAYER, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; BMS, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; CLOVIS, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; EISAI, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; EXELISIS, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; GSK, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; IPSEN, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; JANSSEN, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest. LILLY, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; MSD, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; PFIZER, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; QED Therapeutics, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; ROCHE, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest. MIS, CSL and EE report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) is a non-randomized, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivolumab plus other anticancer treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report results from cohorts A1 and A2 of CheckMate 9KD, specifically evaluating nivolumab plus rucaparib., Methods: CheckMate 9KD enrolled adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Cohort A1 included patients with postchemotherapy mCRPC (1-2 prior taxane-based regimens) and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide); cohort A2 included patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and prior novel hormonal therapy. Patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks plus rucaparib 600 mg two times per day (nivolumab dosing ≤2 years). Coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA 50 -RR; ≥50% PSA reduction) in all-treated patients and patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Outcomes (95% CI) among all-treated, HRD-positive, and BRCA1/2 -positive populations for cohort A1 were confirmed ORR: 10.3% (3.9-21.2) (n=58), 17.2% (5.8-35.8) (n=29), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA 50 -RR: 11.9% (5.9-20.8) (n=84), 18.2% (8.2-32.7) (n=44), and 41.7% (15.2-72.3) (n=12); median rPFS: 4.9 (3.7-5.7) (n=88), 5.8 (3.7-8.4) (n=45), and 5.6 (2.8-15.7) (n=12) months; and median OS: 13.9 (10.4-15.8) (n=88), 15.4 (11.4-18.2) (n=45), and 15.2 (3.0-not estimable) (n=12) months. For cohort A2 they were confirmed ORR: 15.4% (5.9-30.5) (n=39), 25.0% (8.7-49.1) (n=20), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA 50 -RR: 27.3% (17.0-39.6) (n=66), 41.9 (24.5-60.9) (n=31), and 84.6% (54.6-98.1) (n=13); median rPFS: 8.1 (5.6-10.9) (n=71), 10.9 (6.7-12.0) (n=34), and 10.9 (5.6-12.0) (n=15) months; and median OS: 20.2 (14.1-22.8) (n=71), 22.7 (14.1-not estimable) (n=34), and 20.2 (11.1-not estimable) (n=15) months. In cohorts A1 and A2, respectively, the most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (40.9% and 40.8%) and anemia (20.5% and 14.1%). Discontinuation rates due to TRAEs were 27.3% and 23.9%, respectively., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus rucaparib is active in patients with HRD-positive postchemotherapy or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Safety was as expected, with no new signals identified. Whether the addition of nivolumab incrementally improves outcomes versus rucaparib alone cannot be determined from this trial., Trial Registration Number: NCT03338790., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KF reports advisory board fees (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Sanofi, CureVac, and Orion. MR reports research grants (all institutional) from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Janssen; speakers bureau fees from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board fees from Astellas, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche. DPP reports consulting fees from Ada Cap, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Lilly, Mirati, Monopteros, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and UroGen; stock ownership in Bellicum Pharmaceuticals and Tyme; payment for expert testimony from Sanofi and Celgene; research grants from Ada Cap, Agensys, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Endocyte, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Innocrin, Lilly, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Progenics, Replimune, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Seattle Genetics; local principal investigator (PI) nonfinancial interests (all institutional) in Ada Cap, Agensys, Inc., Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Endocyte, Genentech, Innocrin, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, and Pfizer; medical writing support from Bioscript; study funding from Astellas; and editing support from Complete HealthVizion. JCG reports consulting fees from Eisai; honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, and MSD Australia, advisory board fees from BMS and Janssen (J&J); and stock ownership in ICON Cancer Care. JP-G reports research funding (all institutional) from BMS, Amgen, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; travel expenses from Roche, BMS, and MSD; and advisory board fees from BMS, Roche, Ipsen, Seattle Genetics, and MSD. LL reports local PI nonfinancial (all institutional) from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Myovant, Pfizer, Sanofi and Telix. SZ reports research grants (institutional) from Eisai; speakers bureau fees from Eisai (personal) and Merck (institutional); honoraria for educational events from Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, and Pfizer; travel expenses from Celgene (institutional); advisory board fees from Amgen, Bayer, and Sanofi (personal), and Astellas, BMS, EUSA, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche, (all institutional); receipt of drugs (institutional) from KURA; local PI nonfinancial interests from Astellas, Bayer, Calithera Biosciences, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Sanofi/Aventis, and SEAGEN; and coordinating PI nonfinancial interests from AVEO Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche. MB reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech; and speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD Oncology, and Roche/Genentech. HM reports travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche, advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and PI nonfinancial interests from BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. GG reports research funding (institutional) from BMS; speakers bureau fees (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, and Sanofi/Aventis; travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, and Sanofi; and advisory board fees (all institutional) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Aventis. DAB reports research grants (all institutional) from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. SLM reports speakers bureau fees from BMS; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from BMS, Merck, and Roche/Genentech. JCVL reports employment from Hospital Civil de Guadalajara 'Fray Antonio Alcalde'; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all personal and institutional) from AstraZeneca, BMS, Europharma, Janssen, MSD, and Novartis. EMK reports speakers bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, and Janssen; writing engagement fees from Research Review; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck KGaA, and Pfizer. DC reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; travel expenses from AstraZeneca Spain, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche; and research funding (institutional) from Janssen. AF reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis; and travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis. FS reports research grants (all institutional) from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Myovant, Novartis, and Pfizer; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. M-OG reports trial funding and medical writing funding from BMS, research funding (institutional) from BMS and Intuitive Surgical; consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, and Takeda; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, and Pfizer; and travel expenses from BMS and Merck Serono. DRS has no competing interest to report. AJA reports research funding and writing grant (institutional) from BMS; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, Exelixis, Forma, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis/AAA, and Pfizer; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Merck, Myovant, Novartis/AAA, and Pfizer; local PI nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Merck, Forma, and AstraZeneca; coordinating PI nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, and Pfizer; and steering committee member nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Dendreon. PB reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. NPA reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. KU-K reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS at the time of the study. KU-K is now employed by BioNTech US. XW reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS at the time of the study, and stock ownership in AstraZeneca. XW is no longer employed by BMS. JL reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. AL reports employment from and stock ownership in Clovis Oncology. RKP reports research funding (institutional) from Janssen and Pharmacyclics; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi; advisory board fees from Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, EMD Serono, Genomic Health, Janssen, Jounce, and Pfizer; PI nonfinancial interests from BMS, ESSA, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer/EMD Serono; steering committee member nonfinancial interests from BMS; and licensed technology to Tempus Labs., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The PROfound study showed significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and disease progression on a previous next-generation hormonal drug who received olaparib then those who received control. We aimed to assess pain and patient-centric health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures in patients in the trial., Methods: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and gene alterations to one of 15 genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM [cohort A] and BRIP1, BARD1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, and RAD54L [cohort B]) and disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg orally twice daily) or a control drug (enzalutamide tablets [160 mg orally once daily] or abiraterone tablets [1000 mg orally once daily] plus prednisone tablets [5 mg orally twice daily]), stratified by previous taxane use and measurable disease. The primary endpoint (radiographical progression-free survival in cohort A) has been previously reported. The prespecified secondary endpoints reported here are on pain, HRQOL, symptomatic skeletal-related events, and time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain in cohort A. Pain was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and HRQOL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). All endpoints were analysed in patients in cohort A by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02987543., Findings: Between Feb 6, 2017, and June 4, 2019, 245 patients were enrolled in cohort A and received study treatment (162 [66%] in the olaparib group and 83 [34%] in the control group). Median duration of follow-up at data cutoff in all patients was 6·2 months (IQR 2·2-10·4) for the olaparib group and 3·5 months (1·7-4·9) for the control group. In cohort A, median time to pain progression was significantly longer with olaparib than with control (median not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] with olaparib vs 9·92 months [5·39-not reached] with control; HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·22-0·91]; p=0·019). Pain interference scores were also better in the olaparib group (difference in overall adjusted mean change from baseline score -0·85 [95% CI -1·31 to -0·39]; p nominal =0·0004). Median time to progression of pain severity was not reached in either group (95% CI not reached-not reached for both groups; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·25-1·34]; p nominal =0·17). In patients who had not used opiates at baseline (113 in the olaparib group, 58 in the control group), median time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain was 18·0 months (95% CI 12·8-not reached) in the olaparib group versus 7·5 months (3·2-not reached) in the control group (HR 0·61; 95% CI 0·38-0·99; p nominal =0·044). The proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvement in FACT-P total score during treatment was higher for the olaparib group than the control group: 15 (10%) of 152 evaluable patients had a response in the olaparib group compared with one (1%) of evaluable 77 patients in the control group (odds ratio 8·32 [95% CI 1·64-151·84]; p nominal =0·0065). Median time to first symptomatic skeletal-related event was not reached for either treatment group (olaparib group 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group 7·8-not reached; HR 0·37 [95% CI 0·20-0·70]; p nominal =0·0013)., Interpretation: Olaparib was associated with reduced pain burden and better-preserved HRQOL compared with the two control drugs in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations who had disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug. Our findings support the clinical benefit of improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival identified in PROfound., Funding: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FS reports grants from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme for the submitted work; grants from Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and is an advisory board member for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. GR reports an advisory board role for Gilead; meeting support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, and Janssen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Sanofi; and consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. GP reports consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Janssen, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Janssen, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer. NS reports support for research site and medical writing from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme for the submitted work; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Merck; and is an advisory board member for AstraZeneca and Merck. KF reports consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Novartis, Orion, and Sanofi; and honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi. AT-V reports medical writing support from and holds an advisory role with AstraZeneca, associated with the submitted work; grants from Bayer, Ipsen, and Pfizer; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche; meetings support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; is a data safety monitoring board member for the BIONIKK trial (NCT02960906); and is a member of the steering committee of the French Genitourinary Tumour Group academic group. GG reports honoraria from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, Sanofi/Aventis; meetings support from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Pfizer, Janssen Oncology, and Sanofi; and is an advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Aventis. NM holds an advisory board role for Chugai, Janssen, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria from Janssen and Sanofi; grant and institution funding from Astellas, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, and Taiho. DC reports consulting or advisory roles for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; research funding by Janssen Oncology; and travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Roche. MH reports funding and medical writing support from AstraZeneca for the submitted work; and grants, consulting fees, and honoraria from AstraZeneca. AD, CG, JK, and AK are employees of and have stock ownership with AstraZeneca. CP is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck and holds stock ownership in Merck. JdB reports funding and medical writing support from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme for the submitted work; grants from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, Bioxcel Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, ImCheck Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Serono, Menarini/Silicon Biosystems, Orion, Pfizer, Qiagen, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Terumo, Vertex Pharmaceuticals; royalties or licences (no personal income) from abiraterone, poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibition, and P13K/AKT; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Genentech, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Menarini/Silicon Biosystems, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Pfizer, Vertex; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca during the study; personal fees and non-financial support from Astellas Pharma; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca; personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, and Pfizer; personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi; non-financial support from Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Orion, Qiagen, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Vertex; and personal fees from Cellcentric, Daiichi, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini/Silicon Biosystems, and Sierra Oncology outside the submitted work. In addition, JdB has a patent for abiraterone and steroids for the treatment of prostate cancer with royalties paid to Janssen, and a patent for PARP inhibitors and DNA repair defects with royalties paid to AstraZeneca. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Docetaxel has immunostimulatory effects that may promote an immunoresponsive prostate tumour microenvironment, providing a rationale for combination with nivolumab (programmed death-1 inhibitor) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Methods: In the non-randomised, multicohort, global phase II CheckMate 9KD trial, 84 patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (NHTs) received nivolumab 360 mg and docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks with prednisone 5 mg twice daily (≤10 cycles) and then nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks (≤2 years). The co-primary end-points were objective response rate (ORR) and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA 50 -RR; ≥50% decrease from baseline)., Results: The confirmed ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 40.0% (25.7-55.7), and the confirmed PSA 50 -RR (95% CI) was 46.9% (35.7-58.3). The median (95% CI) radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were 9.0 (8.0-11.6) and 18.2 (14.6-20.7) months, respectively. In subpopulations with versus without prior NHT, the ORR was 38.7% versus 42.9%, the PSA 50 -RR was 39.6% versus 60.7%, the median rPFS was 8.5 versus 12.0 months and the median OS was 16.2 months versus not reached. Homologous recombination deficiency status or tumour mutational burden did not appear to impact efficacy. The most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (39.3%) and neutropenia (16.7%), respectively. Three treatment-related deaths occurred (1 pneumonitis related to nivolumab; 2 pneumonias related to docetaxel)., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus docetaxel has clinical activity in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Safety was consistent with the individual components. These results support further investigation in the ongoing phase III CheckMate 7DX trial. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Registration: NCT03338790., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had previously received docetaxel and progressed ≤12 mo on the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide)., Objective: To assess cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in older (≥70 yr) and younger (<70 yr) patients in CARD., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to cabazitaxel (25 mg/m 2 plus prednisone and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg plus prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Analyses of rPFS (primary endpoint) and safety by age were prespecified; others were post hoc. Treatment groups were compared using stratified log-rank or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests., Results and Limitations: Of the 255 patients randomized, 135 were aged ≥70 yr (median 76 yr). Cabazitaxel, compared with abiraterone/enzalutamide, significantly improved median rPFS in older (8.2 vs 4.5 mo; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.89; p = 0.012) and younger (7.4 vs 3.2 mo; HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; p < 0.001) patients. The median OS of cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide was 13.9 versus 9.4 mo in older patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.06; p = 0.084), and it was 13.6 versus 11.8 mo in younger patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.08; p = 0.093). Progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen, and tumor and pain responses favored cabazitaxel, regardless of age. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 58% versus 49% of older patients receiving cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide and 48% versus 42% of younger patients. In older patients, cardiac adverse events were more frequent with abiraterone/enzalutamide; asthenia and diarrhea were more frequent with cabazitaxel., Conclusions: Cabazitaxel improved efficacy outcomes versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC after prior docetaxel and abiraterone/enzalutamide, regardless of age. TEAEs were more frequent among older patients. The cabazitaxel safety profile was manageable across age groups., Patient Summary: Clinical trial data showed that cabazitaxel improved survival versus abiraterone/enzalutamide with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide), irrespective of age., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: There is growing evidence that a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is associated with poor overall survival (OS) for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and OS versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-receptor-targeted agent (ARTA). Here, we investigated NLR as a biomarker., Patients and Methods: CARD was a multicenter, open-label study that randomized patients with mCRPC to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks) versus abiraterone (1000 mg/day) or enzalutamide (160 mg/day). The relationships between baseline NLR [< versus ≥ median (3.38)] and rPFS, OS, time to prostate-specific antigen progression, and prostate-specific antigen response to cabazitaxel versus ARTA were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Multivariable Cox regression with stepwise selection of covariates was used to investigate the prognostic association between baseline NLR and OS., Results: The rPFS benefit with cabazitaxel versus ARTA was particularly marked in patients with high NLR {8.5 versus 2.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.67]; P < 0.0001}, compared with low NLR [7.5 versus 5.1 months, respectively; HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.45-1.06); P = 0.0860]. Higher NLR (continuous covariate, per 1 unit increase) independently associated with poor OS [HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.02-1.08); P = 0.0003]. For cabazitaxel, there was no OS difference between patients with high versus low NLR (15.3 versus 12.9 months, respectively; P = 0.7465). Patients receiving an ARTA with high NLR, however, had a worse OS versus those with low NLR (9.5 versus 13.3 months, respectively; P = 0.0608)., Conclusions: High baseline NLR predicts poor outcomes with an ARTA in patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative ARTA. Conversely, the activity of cabazitaxel is retained irrespective of NLR., Competing Interests: Disclosure RdW provided an advisory role for Sanofi, Janssen, Merck, Bayer, and Astellas, and received institutional grants from Sanofi and Bayer. DC has received personal fees from Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, and Lilly. GK received personal fees from Sanofi, Astellas, Takeda, Bayer, Janssen, Novartis, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca, and has received grants from Sanofi and Bayer. J-CE has received honoraria from and provided an advisory role for Astellas, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi Aventis, and has received travel and accommodation fees from Pfizer and BMS. CNS has received honoraria from Janssen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Astellas, received consultancy fees from Sanofi, Bayer, and Pfizer, and received institutional funding from Genentech/Roche, Bayer, Sanofi Genzyme, Janssen, Medivation, MSD, and Exelixis. KF has received honoraria and provided an advisory role for Astellas, AAA Pharmaceutical Inc, Bayer, Essa, Janssen, Orion, CureVac, Clovis, Sanofi, and Endocyte. BT has received personal fees and research grants from Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Amgen, and Ferring, and received non-financial support from Sanofi Genzyme. AB has received honoraria and research support from and provided an advisory role to Astellas, Janssen, and Sanofi. JC has provided an advisory role for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, MSD Oncology, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, Roche, and Pfizer, and has attended speaker bureaus for Asofarma, Astellas, Bayer, and Johnson & Johnson. RI received honoraria and provided an advisory role for Sanofi, Janssen, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis, BMS, and MSD. BM received travel fees, honoraria, and provided an advisory role for BMS and Merck Serono, and received honoraria and provided an advisory role for MSD, Sanofi, Roche, Janssen, Bayer, Astellas, Amgen, Novartis, Servier, AstraZeneca, Eisai, E. Lilly, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer. CH has received consultancy fees from Sanofi, Janssen, and Astellas. MCF and CG-R are employees of Sanofi. AO is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi. JdB has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Janssen Oncology, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Daiichi Sankyo, Sierra Oncology, and BioXcel Therapeutics, and provided an advisory role for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Genentech/Roche, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Pfizer, MSD, Merck Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sierra Oncology, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Celgene, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Oncology, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Orion Pharma GmbH, Eisai, and BioXcel Therapeutics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved clinical outcomes versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor. However, some patients received docetaxel or the prior alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor in the metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC) setting. Therefore, the CARD results cannot be directly translated to a Japanese population., Methods: Patients (N = 255) received cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 IV Q3W, prednisone, G-CSF) versus abiraterone (1000 mg PO, prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg PO) after prior docetaxel and progression ≤12 months on the alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor. Patients who received combination therapy for mHSPC were excluded (n = 33) as docetaxel is not approved in this setting in Japan., Results: A total of 222 patients (median age 70 years) were included in this subanalysis. Median number of cycles was higher for cabazitaxel versus androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitors (7 versus 4). Clinical outcomes favoured cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide including, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; median 8.2 versus 3.4 months; P < 0.0001), overall survival (OS; 13.9 versus 11.8 months; P = 0.0102), PFS (4.4 versus 2.7 months; P < 0.0001), confirmed prostate-specific antigen response (37.0 versus 14.4%; P = 0.0006) and objective tumour response (38.9 versus 11.4%; P = 0.0036). For cabazitaxel versus androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 55% versus 44% of patients, with adverse events leading to death on study in 2.7% versus 5.7%., Conclusions: Cabazitaxel significantly improved outcomes including rPFS and OS versus abiraterone or enzalutamide and are reflective of the Japanese patient population. Cabazitaxel should be considered the preferred treatment option over abiraterone or enzalutamide in this setting., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study., Methods: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m 2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling., Findings: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060)., Interpretation: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor., Funding: Sanofi., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients, observational studies have reported that statins may boost the antitumor activity of abiraterone (AA) and data suggest an improvement in efficacy; conclusions with vitamin D are less clear but an eventual benefit has been pointed. We conducted a post hoc analysis of individual patient data of CRPC patients treated with prednisone and/or AA with or without statins/vitamin D on randomized clinical trials. In the COU-AA-301 trial, use of AA with statin and vitamin D reduced the risk of death by 38% (p = 0.0007) while AA alone was associated with a decrease of 10% (p = 0.025), compared to prednisone alone. Meanwhile, in the COU-AA-302 trial, use of AA plus statin plus vitamin D was associated with a reduced risk of death of 26% (p = 0.0054). In this data analysis from two prospective randomized clinical trials, statin and vitamin D use was associated with superior overall survival in metastatic CRPC patients treated with AA and prednisone. To our knowledge, this is the first report suggesting the impact of statin plus vitamin D in this population. New strategies using big data may help to clarify these questions easily and in a most cost-effective approach.

Background: The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear., Methods: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed., Results: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Introduction: Platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α (PDGFRα) is expressed in primary prostate adenocarcinoma and in associated skeletal metastases. Olaratumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds PDGFRα and blocks downstream signalling. This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of olaratumab in combination with mitoxantrone and prednisone (M/P) versus M/P alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who progressed after docetaxel., Methods: Patients were randomised to receive 21-d cycles of olaratumab (15 mg/kg, Days 1 and 8) plus mitoxantrone (12 mg/m 2 , Day 1) and prednisone (5 mg, twice daily) or M/P alone. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end-point. Secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), safety, and circulating tumour cell (CTC) counts., Results: A total of 123 patients were randomised, 63 to olaratumab + M/P and 60 to M/P. Median PFS was 2.3 months for olaratumab + M/P and 2.4 months for M/P (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87-1.90). Median OS was 14.2 months for olaratumab + M/P and 12.8 months for M/P (HR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.72-1.61). Both treatment arms had similar toxicity profiles; neutropenia (24% versus 15%), anaemia (13% versus 14%) and fatigue (11% versus 9%) (olaratumab + M/P versus M/P, respectively) were the most common grade ≥3 events. High CTC count was associated with poorer OS in both arms. Patients with very high cell counts (>37 cells/7.5 ml) exhibited improved OS with olaratumab + M/P (interaction P = 0.043)., Conclusions: Olaratumab + M/P had an acceptable safety profile but did not improve the efficacy of M/P chemotherapy. Further study with selected patient populations and earlier in the disease course might be considered., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Although increasing numbers of therapies with proven survival benefits have become available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), including radium-223, there is still a need for reliable biomarkers that provide information about clinically meaningful outcomes and treatment responses., Materials and Methods: This study was a translational study that was conducted prospectively by the Spanish Oncology Genito-Urinary Group and included 45 patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC who were treated with radium-223. The primary response outcome was defined by a decline in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) of > 50% from baseline or a CTC count of ≤ 5 cells/7.5 mL at cycle 3 of radium-223. We also assessed response according to prostate-specific antigen and alkaline phosphatase levels. CTCs were evaluated as prognostic factor for treatment completion with radium-223 treatment. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival were calculated for the global population and were correlated with biomarker response outcomes., Results: Significantly, more patients with baseline CTC counts ≤ 5/7.5 mL, which are indicative of better prognoses, completed the 6 injections of therapy than those with CTC counts > 5 (16/22; 73% vs. 6/20; 30%, respectively; P = .012). The median overall survival was 16 months. Survival was significantly decreased in patients with baseline CTC counts > 5 cells/7.5 mL (7 months; P = .026) and baseline alkaline phosphatase levels ≥ 220 U/L (8 months; P = .028)., Conclusions: CTCs hold significant promise as a prognostic factor for survival and completing treatment prior to the initiation of bone-targeted radium-223 therapy. These findings may help to guide the use of radium-223 in patients with mCRPC., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To report results from the Spanish subset included in the radium-223 international early access program (iEAP)., Patients & Methods: Ninety patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases received radium-223 55 kBq/kg every 4 weeks for six cycles., Results: The median time to disease progression was 8 months and to prostate-specific antigen progression was 4 months. The percentage of patients with ≥50% confirmed declines in prostate-specific antigen was 9%. The median overall survival was 14 months. Grade 3 or 4 treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 34% of patients (serious TEAEs 28%, TEAEs leading to discontinuation 27%)., Conclusion: Outcomes of the Spanish subset are consistent with the iEAP. Radium-223 was generally well tolerated with no safety concerns.

Aim: Cabazitaxel (CBZ), a novel tubulin-binding taxane, improves overall survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that progresses during or after docetaxel treatment. We have designed a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CBZ as a weekly schedule for 'unfit' mCRPC patients after docetaxel failure., Methods: In this single arm phase II study. CBZ was weekly administered in 1-hour infusion on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, every 5 weeks at 10 mg/m 2 to eligible 'unfit' patients; oral prednisone (5 mg) was administered twice a day. Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) were also collected. New treatment scheme was considered effective if at least 65% of patients met a clinical benefit criteria based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-progression-free survival (PFS) values at week 12., Results: Seventy patients (median age: 73.9 years) were enrolled; overall, 71.4% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) of 2; and 84%, 16% and 11% had bone, liver and lung metastases, respectively. Objective partial response or stable disease was achieved in 61% of patients, while PSA responses of ≥50% and ≥80% were observed in 34.8% and 10.6%, respectively. The median PSA-PFS was 4.8 months; and 68.6% of patients had no progression at week 12. The most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (2.8%), leukopenia (5.7%) and thrombocytopaenia (9%); no cases of febrile neutropenia were reported. Early CTC response was significantly correlated with PSA-PFS., Conclusions: CBZ/prednisone administered weekly to 'unfit' mCRPC patients appears to be as effective as classical standard 3-week scheme (TROPIC study) but with significantly lower toxicities and better tolerance. Early CTC response appears to be valuable as an early end-point of therapeutic efficacy., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), overall survival (OS) is significantly improved with cabazitaxel versus mitoxantrone after prior docetaxel treatment. FIRSTANA ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel 20 mg/m 2 (C20) or 25 mg/m 2 (C25) is superior to docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 (D75) in terms of OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients and Methods Patients with mCRPC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive C20, C25, or D75 intravenously every 3 weeks plus daily prednisone. The primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included safety; progression-free survival (PFS); tumor, prostate-specific antigen, and pain response; pharmacokinetics; and health-related quality of life. Results Between May 2011 and April 2013, 1,168 patients were randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were similar across cohorts. Median OS was 24.5 months with C20, 25.2 months with C25, and 24.3 months with D75. Hazard ratio for C20 versus D75 was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.20; P = .997), and hazard ratio for C25 versus D75 was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.16; P = .757). Median PFS was 4.4 months with C20, 5.1 months with C25, and 5.3 months with D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms. Radiographic tumor responses were numerically higher for C25 (41.6%) versus D75 (30.9%; nominal P = .037, without multiplicity test adjustment). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were 41.2%, 60.1%, and 46.0% for C20, C25, and D75, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and hematuria were more frequent with C25; peripheral neuropathy, peripheral edema, alopecia, and nail disorders were more frequent with D75. Conclusion C20 and C25 did not demonstrate superiority for OS versus D75 in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Tumor response was numerically higher with C25 versus D75; pain PFS was numerically improved with D75 versus C25. Cabazitaxel and docetaxel demonstrated different toxicity profiles, with overall less toxicity with C20.

Background: There is an urgent need to identify biomarkers to guide personalized therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We aimed to clinically qualify androgen receptor (AR) gene status measurement in plasma DNA using multiplex droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in pre- and post-chemotherapy CRPC., Methods: We optimized ddPCR assays for AR copy number and mutations and retrospectively analyzed plasma DNA from patients recruited to one of the three biomarker protocols with prospectively collected clinical data. We evaluated associations between plasma AR and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 73 chemotherapy-naïve and 98 post-docetaxel CRPC patients treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone (Primary cohort) and 94 chemotherapy-naïve patients treated with enzalutamide (Secondary cohort; PREMIERE trial)., Results: In the primary cohort, AR gain was observed in 10 (14%) chemotherapy-naïve and 33 (34%) post-docetaxel patients and associated with worse OS [hazard ratio (HR), 3.98; 95% CI 1.74-9.10; P < 0.001 and HR 3.81; 95% CI 2.28-6.37; P < 0.001, respectively], PFS (HR 2.18; 95% CI 1.08-4.39; P = 0.03, and HR 1.95; 95% CI 1.23-3.11; P = 0.01, respectively) and rate of PSA decline ≥50% [odds ratio (OR), 4.7; 95% CI 1.17-19.17; P = 0.035 and OR, 5.0; 95% CI 1.70-14.91; P = 0.003, respectively]. AR mutations [2105T>A (p.L702H) and 2632A>G (p.T878A)] were observed in eight (11%) post-docetaxel but no chemotherapy-naïve abiraterone-treated patients and were also associated with worse OS (HR 3.26; 95% CI 1.47-not reached; P = 0.004). There was no interaction between AR and docetaxel status (P = 0.83 for OS, P = 0.99 for PFS). In the PREMIERE trial, 11 patients (12%) with AR gain had worse PSA-PFS (sPFS) (HR 4.33; 95% CI 1.94-9.68; P < 0.001), radiographic-PFS (rPFS) (HR 8.06; 95% CI 3.26-19.93; P < 0.001) and OS (HR 11.08; 95% CI 2.16-56.95; P = 0.004). Plasma AR was an independent predictor of outcome on multivariable analyses in both cohorts., Conclusion: Plasma AR status assessment using ddPCR identifies CRPC with worse outcome to enzalutamide or abiraterone. Prospective evaluation of treatment decisions based on plasma AR is now required., Clinical Trial Number: NCT02288936 (PREMIERE trial)., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: The phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (Akt) signalling axis and androgen receptor (AR) pathways exhibit reciprocal feedback regulation in phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN)-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in preclinical models. This phase Ib study evaluated the pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) and the dual pan-PI3K/ mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor dactolisib (BEZ235) in combination with abiraterone acetate (AA) in patients with CRPC., Materials and Methods: Patients with CRPC who had progressed on AA therapy received escalating doses of either buparlisib or dactolisib, along with fixed doses of AA (1000 mg once daily (qd)) and prednisone (5 mg twice daily (bid)). The primary objective was to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or the recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of either buparlisib or dactolisib in combination with AA. Secondary objectives included safety, antitumour activity (Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 (PCWG2) criteria; 30% of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline at ≥week 12) and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile., Results: In buparlisib + AA arm, 25 patients received buparlisib + AA (median age, 67 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0/1/2 for 7/17/1 patients, respectively). At 100 mg qd; two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (grade 3 hyperglycaemia; grade 2 asthenia), and this was the maximum buparlisib dose explored. Buparlisib + AA showed a 26% lower median area under the curve from time zero to 24°h (AUC 0-24 ) and 48% lower median maximum serum concentration (Cmax) versus the single-agent buparlisib assessed in first-in-human study. No objective response and few PSA decreases were reported. In dactolisib + AA arm, 18 patients (median age, 71 years; ECOG PS of 0/1 for 6/12 patients, respectively) received dactolisib + AA at the first dose level (200 mg bid). Five patients had 9 DLTs (grades 2&3 stomatitis; grade 3 hyperglycaemia; grades 2& 3 diarrhoea; grades 1& 2 pyrexia, grade 2 vomiting, and grade 2 chills)., Conclusions: Based on the assessment of available pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy data, no further study is planned for either buparlisib or dactolisib in combination with AA in CRPC., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the final analysis of the phase 3 COU-AA-301 study, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone significantly prolonged overall survival compared with prednisone alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after chemotherapy. Here, we present the final analysis of an early-access protocol trial that was initiated after completion of COU-AA-301 to enable worldwide preapproval access to abiraterone acetate in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after chemotherapy., Methods: We did a multicentre, open-label, early-access protocol trial in 23 countries. We enrolled patients who had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after taxane chemotherapy. Participants received oral doses of abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisone (5 mg twice a day) in 28-day cycles until disease progression, development of sustained side-effects, or abiraterone acetate becoming available in the respective country. The primary outcome was the number of adverse events arising during study treatment and within 30 days of discontinuation. Efficacy measures (time to prostate-specific antigen [PSA] progression and time to clinical progression) were gathered to guide treatment decisions. We included in our analysis all patients who received at least one dose of abiraterone acetate. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01217697., Findings: Between Nov 17, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, 2314 patients were enrolled into the early-access protocol trial. Median follow-up was 5·7 months (IQR 3·5-10·6). 952 (41%) patients had a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event, and grade 3 or 4 serious adverse events were recorded in 585 (25%) people. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were hepatotoxicity (188 [8%]), hypertension (99 [4%]), cardiac disorders (52 [2%]), osteoporosis (31 [1%]), hypokalaemia (28 [1%]), and fluid retention or oedema (23 [1%]). 172 (7%) patients discontinued the study because of adverse events (64 [3%] were drug-related), as assessed by the investigator, and 171 (7%) people died. The funder assessed causes of death, which were due to disease progression (85 [4%]), an unrelated adverse experience (72 [3%]), and unknown reasons (14 [1%]). Of the 86 deaths not attributable to disease progression, 18 (<1%) were caused by a drug-related adverse event, as assessed by the investigator. Median time to PSA progression was 8·5 months (95% CI 8·3-9·7) and median time to clinical progression was 12·7 months (11·8-13·8)., Interpretation: No new safety signals or unexpected adverse events were found in this early-access protocol trial to assess abiraterone acetate for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who progressed after chemotherapy. Future work is needed to ascertain the most effective regimen of abiraterone acetate to optimise patients' outcomes., Funding: Janssen Research & Development., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Based on the TROPIC study results, cabazitaxel was approved for the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing on or after docetaxel., Methods: This multi-centre program provided early access to cabazitaxel to patients with mCRPC before its commercialization. Safety data from 153 Spanish patients receiving cabazitaxel 25 mg/m(2) i.v. Q3W, plus oral prednisone/prednisolone 10 mg daily, are reported., Results: Median age of patients was 70 years (26.8% ≥ 75 years), 94.1 and 26.8% had bone and visceral metastasis, respectively. Most had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤ 1 (88.9%) and had received a median of 8.0 cycles of last docetaxel treatment. The median of cabazitaxel cycles and cumulative dose were 6.0 (Interquartile range [IQR]: 4.0; 8.0) and 148.9 (IQR: 98.2; 201.4) mg/m(2), respectively. Adverse events (AEs) possibly related to cabazitaxel occurred in 143 (93.5%) patients. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 AEs were neutropenia (n = 25, 16.3%) and asthenia (n = 17, 11.1%). Febrile neutropenia and grade ≥ 3 diarrhea occurred in 5.2% of the patients each. There were five (3.3%) possibly treatment-related deaths, mainly infection-related. G-CSFs were used in 114 (74.5%) patients, generally as prophylaxis (n = 107; 69.9%). Grade ≥ 3 peripheral neuropathy and nail disorders were uncommon., Conclusions: Cabazitaxel administration, in a real-world setting, is tolerated by Spanish patients with mCRPC, and the AEs are manageable.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is partially characterised by overexpression of antiapoptotic proteins, such as survivin. In this phase 2 study, patients with metastatic CRPC (n=154) were randomly assigned (1:2 ratio) to receive standard first-line docetaxel/prednisone (control arm) or the combination of LY2181308 with docetaxel/prednisone (experimental arm). The primary objective was to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) for LY2181308 plus docetaxel. Secondary efficacy measures included overall survival (OS), several predefined prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-derived end points, and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) scores. The median PFS of treated patients for the experimental arm (n=98) was 8.64 mo (90% confidence interval [CI], 7.39-10.45) versus 9.00 mo (90% CI, 7.00-10.09) in the control arm (n=51; p=0.755). The median OS for the experimental arm was 27.04 mo (90% CI, 19.94-33.41) compared with 29.04 mo (90% CI, 20.11-39.26; p=0.838). The PSA responses (≥ 50% PSA reduction), BPI, and FACT-P scores were similar in both arms. In the experimental arm, patients had a numerically higher incidence of grades 3-4 neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia, and sensory neuropathy. In conclusion, this study failed to detect a difference in efficacy between the two treatment groups., (Copyright © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Controversies and uncertainties among integral management of advanced castration resistant prostate cancer continue to exist despite the number of evidence based clinical practice guidelines published with high international consensus., Objective: To develop a document that reviews the management of controversies in advanced castration resistant prostate cancer, with recommendations from the definition, to the management in hormonal maneuvers, first-line treatment and second-line with new treatments as cabazitaxel or abirarerone and the multidisciplinary approach of the pathology with the goal of finding the most efficient, best time to act and safety., Evidence Acquisition: Two meetings of a multidisciplinary group of experts involved in the management of this disease (Oncologist and Urologist) where pooled analysis of original literature and reached consensus document of recommendations on castration resistant prostate cancer, reviewing and attempting to address the current controversies of the disease., Evidence Synthesis: This document is endorsed by the corresponding Scientific Associations and Working Groups involved in the current management of Genitourinary Tumours: the Spanish Association of Urology (AEU) with the Uro-Oncoloy Group (GUO) and the Spanish Oncology of Genitourinary Group (SOGUG)., Conclusions: With the adaptation and implementation of this Document of Recommendations for clinical practice are available for the first time, a real road map for quality, efficiency and safety in the management of patients with CRPC., (Copyright © 2012 AEU. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)