Search

PURPOSE We sought to investigate whether enzalutamide (ENZA), without concurrent androgen deprivation therapy, increases freedom from prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (FFPP) when combined with salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in men with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after RP were enrolled into a randomized, double‐blind, phase II, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of SRT plus ENZA or placebo (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02203695 ). Random assignment (1:1) was stratified by center, surgical margin status (R0 v R1), PSA before salvage treatment (PSA ≥ 0.5 v < 0.5 ng/mL), and pathologic Gleason sum (7 v 8‐10). Patients were assigned to receive either ENZA 160 mg once daily or matching placebo for 6 months. After 2 months of study drug therapy, external-beam radiation (66.6‐70.2 Gy) was administered to the prostate bed (no pelvic nodes). The primary end point was FFPP in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points were time to local recurrence within the radiation field, metastasis‐free survival, and safety as determined by frequency and severity of adverse events. RESULTS Eighty-six (86) patients were randomly assigned, with a median follow-up of 34 (range, 0-52) months. Trial arms were well balanced. The median pre-SRT PSA was 0.3 (range, 0.06-4.6) ng/mL, 56 of 86 patients (65%) had extraprostatic disease (pT3), 39 of 86 (45%) had a Gleason sum of 8-10, and 43 of 86 (50%) had positive surgical margins (R1). FFPP was significantly improved with ENZA versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.92; P = .031), and 2-year FFPP was 84% versus 66%, respectively. Subgroup analyses demonstrated differential benefit of ENZA in men with pT3 (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.69) versus pT2 disease (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 5.47; Pinteraction = .019) and R1 (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.64) versus R0 disease (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.36 to 2.76; Pinteraction = .023). There were insufficient secondary end point events for analysis. The most common adverse events were grade 1-2 fatigue (65% ENZA v 53% placebo) and urinary frequency (40% ENZA v 49% placebo). CONCLUSION SRT plus ENZA monotherapy for 6 months in men with PSA-recurrent high-risk prostate cancer after RP is safe and delays PSA progression relative to SRT alone. The impact of ENZA on distant metastasis or survival is unknown at this time.

Figure S1

Figure legends and Supplementary Table

Purpose:To investigate whether radium-223 increases peripheral immune responses to sipuleucel-T in men with bone-predominant, minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).Patients and Methods:A total of 32 patients were randomized 1:1 in this open-label, phase II multicenter trial. Patients in the control arm received three sipuleucel-T treatments, 2 weeks apart. Those in the combination arm received six doses of radium-223 monthly, with sipuleucel-T intercalated between the second and fourth doses of radium-223. The primary endpoint was a comparison of peripheral antigen PA2024-specific T-cell responses (measured by proliferation index). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and PSA responses.Results:We enrolled 32 patients, followed for a median of 1.6 years. Six weeks after the first sipuleucel-T dose, participants in the control arm had a 3.2-fold greater change in PA2024-specific T-cell responses compared with those who received combination treatment (P = 0.036). Patients in the combination arm were more likely to have a >50% PSA decline [5 (31%) vs. 0 patients; P = 0.04], and also demonstrated longer PFS [39 vs. 12 weeks; HR, 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14–0.76] and OS (not reached vs. 2.6 years; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08–1.23).Conclusions:Our data raise the possibility of greater clinical activity with the combination of sipuleucel-T and radium-223 in men with asymptomatic bone mCRPC, despite the paradoxically lower immune responses observed. Additional study to confirm these findings in a larger trial is warranted.

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) refers to the expansion of cells of hematopoietic lineage that carry acquired somatic alterations associated with hematologic malignancies. The most commonly altered genes giving rise to CHIP are DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1. However, advanced sequencing technologies have resulted in highly sensitive detection of clonal hematopoiesis beyond these known driver genes. In practice, CHIP is commonly identified as an incidental finding in liquid and tissue biopsies of patients with solid tumors. CHIP can have broad clinical consequences, given its association with hematologic malignancies and nonmalignant diseases. CHIP can also interfere with next-generation DNA sequencing results, so clinicians should pay careful attention when these results are being used to guide therapy. Future research is needed to determine how solid tumor malignancies and their treatments alter the progression of CHIP, and in turn, how CHIP might be used to improve treatment selection and outcomes for patients with solid tumors.

Corresponding Author

Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA(50) responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively (P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION: PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.

Background Expert knowledge is often shared among multidisciplinary academic teams at tumor boards (TBs) across the country, but these conversations exist in silos and do not reach the wider oncology community. Objective Using an oncologist-only question and answer (Q&A) website, we sought to document expert insights from TBs at National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (NCI-CCCs) to provide educational benefits to the oncology community. Methods We designed a process with the NCI-CCCs to document and share discussions from the TBs focused on areas of practice variation on theMednet, an interactive Q&A website of over 13,000 US oncologists. The faculty translated the TB discussions into concise, non–case-based Q&As on theMednet. Answers were peer reviewed and disseminated in email newsletters to registered oncologists. Reach and engagement were measured. Following each Q&A, a survey question asked how the TB Q&As impacted the readers’ practice. Results A total of 23 breast, thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary programs from 16 NCI-CCC sites participated. Between December 2016 and July 2021, the faculty highlighted 368 questions from their TBs. Q&As were viewed 147,661 times by 7381 oncologists at 3515 institutions from all 50 states. A total of 277 (75%) Q&As were viewed every month. Of the 1063 responses to a survey question on how the Q&A affected clinicians’ practices, 646 (61%) reported that it confirmed their current practice, 163 (20%) indicated that a Q&A would change their future practice, and 214 (15%) reported learning something new. Conclusions Through an online Q&A platform, academics at the NCI-CCCs share knowledge outside the walls of academia with oncologists across the United States. Access to up-to-date expert knowledge can reassure clinicians’ practices, significantly impact patient care in community practices, and be a source of new knowledge and education.