Search

BACKGROUNDMetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) is androgen dependent, and its treatment includes androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with gonadal testosterone suppression. Since 2014, overall survival (OS) has been prolonged with addition of other systemic therapies, such as adrenal androgen synthesis blockers, potent androgen receptor blockers, or docetaxel, to ADT. HSD3B1 encodes the rate-limiting enzyme for nongonadal androgen synthesis, 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1, and has a common adrenal-permissive missense-encoding variant that confers increased synthesis of potent androgens from nongonadal precursor steroids and poorer prostate cancer outcomes.METHODSOur prespecified hypothesis was that poor outcome associated with inheritance of the adrenal-permissive HSD3B1 allele with ADT alone is reversed in patients with low-volume (LV) mHSPC with up-front ADT plus addition of androgen receptor (AR) antagonists to inhibit the effect of adrenal androgens. HSD3B1 genotype was obtained in 287 patients with LV disease treated with ADT + AR antagonist only in the phase III Enzalutamide in First Line Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer (ENZAMET) trial and was associated with clinical outcomes.RESULTSPatients who inherited the adrenal-permissive HSD3B1 allele had more favorable 5-year clinical progression-free survival and OS when treated with ADT plus enzalutamide or ADT plus nonsteroidal antiandrogen compared with their counterparts who did not have adrenal-permissive HSD3B1 inheritance. HSD3B1 was also associated with OS after accounting for known clinical variables. Patients with both genotypes benefited from early enzalutamide.CONCLUSIONThese data demonstrated an inherited physiologic driver of prostate cancer mortality is associated with clinical outcomes and is potentially pharmacologically reversible.FUNDINGNational Cancer Institute, NIH; Department of Defense; Prostate Cancer Foundation, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Importance: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a substantial adverse effect of anticancer treatments. As such, the assessment of CIPN remains critically important in both research and clinic settings., Objective: To compare the validity of various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with neurophysiological and sensory functional measures as the optimal method of CIPN assessment., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated participants treated with neurotoxic chemotherapy across 2 cohorts using a dual-study design. Participants commencing treatment were assessed prospectively at beginning of neurotoxic treatment, midtreatment, and at the end of treatment. Participants who completed treatment up to 5 years prior were assessed cross-sectionally and completed a single assessment time point. Participants were recruited from oncology centers in Australia from August 2015 to November 2022. Data analysis occurred from February to November 2023., Exposures: Neurotoxic cancer treatment including taxanes, platinums, vinca-alkaloids, proteasome inhibitors, and thalidomide., Main Outcomes and Measures: CIPN was assessed via PROMs (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC-CIPN20], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecological Cancer Group Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (FACT/GOG-Ntx), and the patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [PRO-CTCAE]), neurological and neurophysiological assessment (Total Neuropathy Score and sural and tibial compound nerve amplitudes), and sensory measures (Grating orientation, Von Frey monofilament, and 2-point discrimination tasks). Core measurement properties of CIPN outcome measures were evaluated. Convergent and known-groups validity was assessed cross-sectionally following treatment completion, and responsiveness was evaluated prospectively during treatment. Neurological, neurophysiological, and sensory outcome measure scores were compared between those who reported high and low levels of CIPN symptoms using linear regressions., Results: A total of 1033 participants (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-59] years; 676 female [65.4%]) were recruited to this study, incorporating 1623 assessments. PROMs demonstrated best ability to accurately assess CIPN (convergent validity), especially the PRO-CTCAE composite score (r = 0.85; P < .001) and EORTC-CIPN20 (r = 0.79; P < .001). PROMS also demonstrated the best ability to discriminate between CIPN severity (known-groups validity) and to detect changes at onset of CIPN development (responsiveness), especially for EORTC-CIPN20 (d = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.83), FACT/GOG-Ntx (d = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81) and the PRO-CTCAE (d = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02). Other measures did not achieve threshold for convergent validity (α < 0.7). Neurophysiological and sensory measures did not demonstrate acceptable responsiveness. In regression models, neurological, neurophysiological, and sensory outcome measures were significantly impaired in participants who reported high levels of CIPN symptoms compared with those who reported low levels of CIPN symptoms., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 1033 cancer patients, PROMs were the only measures to satisfy all 3 core measurement property criteria (convergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness). These findings suggest that adoption of PROMs in clinical practice can equip clinicians with valuable information in assessing CIPN morbidity.

Purpose: Intense androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) before radical prostatectomy (RP) produced favorable pathologic responses in approximately 20% of patients. The molecular reason for the low rate of response remains unclear. Lipid metabolism is known to influence androgen receptor signaling and ARPI efficacy. The aim of the study was to identify circulating lipid profiles associated with ADT/ARPI resistance in localized prostate cancer., Materials and Methods: Two independent experimental approaches were used. Experiment 1: Post hoc analysis of the association between plasma lipidomic profiles and ADT/ARPI response was performed on patients (n = 104) from two phase II trials of neoadjuvant ADT/ARPI. Response to ADT/ARPI was defined by pathologic response. Experiment 2: Patient-derived tumor explants from RP (n = 105) were cultured in enzalutamide for 48 hours. Explant response to enzalutamide was evaluated against pre-RP plasma lipidomic profiles (n = 105) and prostate tissue lipidomic profiles (n = 36). Response was defined by Ki67 (cell proliferation marker) fold difference between enzalutamide and vehicle-treated explants. In both experiments, associations between lipid profiles and ADT/ARPI response were analyzed by latent class analysis., Results: Pretreatment plasma lipid profiles classified each experimental cohort into two groups with differences in ADT/ARPI response rates. The response rates of the groups were 9.6% versus 29% in experiment 1 (chi-squared test P = .012) and 49% versus 70% in experiment 2 (chi-squared test P = .037). In both experiments, the group with a higher incidence of ADT/ARPI resistance had higher plasma levels of sphingomyelin, glycosylceramides, free fatty acids, acylcarnitines, cholesterol esters, and alkyl/alkenyl-phosphatidylcholine and lower plasma levels of triacylglycerols, diacylglycerols, and phosphoethanolamine (t-test P < .05)., Conclusion: Pretreatment circulating lipid profiles are associated with ADT/ARPI resistance in localized cancer in both human cohorts and explant models.

Background: Elevated circulating growth differentiation factor (GDF15/MIC-1), interleukin 4 (IL4), and IL6 levels were associated with resistance to docetaxel in an exploratory cohort of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study aimed to establish level 2 evidence of cytokine biomarker utility in mCRPC., Methods: IntVal: Plasma samples at baseline (BL) and Day 21 docetaxel (n = 120). ExtVal: Serum samples at BL and Day 42 of docetaxel (n = 430). IL4, IL6, and GDF15 levels were measured by ELISA. Monocytes and dendritic cells were treated with 10% plasma from men with high or low GDF15 or recombinant GDF15., Results: IntVal: Higher GDF15 levels at BL and Day 21 were associated with shorter overall survival (OS) (BL; p = 0.03 and Day 21; p = 0.004). IL4 and IL6 were not associated with outcomes. ExtVal: Higher GDF15 levels at BL and Day 42 predicted shorter OS (BL; p < 0.0001 and Day 42; p < 0.0001). Plasma from men with high GDF15 caused an increase in CD86 expression on monocytes (p = 0.03), but was not replicated by recombinant GDF15., Conclusions: Elevated circulating GDF15 is associated with poor prognosis in men with mCRPC receiving docetaxel and may be a marker of changes in the innate immune system in response to docetaxel resistance. These findings provide a strong rationale to consider GDF15 as a biomarker to guide a therapeutic trial of drugs targeting the innate immune system in combination with docetaxel in mCRPC., (© 2024 The Authors. The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: Safety and efficacy of acapatamab, a prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) x CD3 bispecific T-cell engager were evaluated in a first-in-human study in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with mCRPC refractory to androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy received target acapatamab doses ranging from 0.003 to 0.9 mg in dose exploration (seven dose levels) and 0.3 mg (recommended phase II dose) in dose expansion intravenously every 2 weeks. Safety (primary objective), pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity (secondary objectives) were assessed., Results: In all, 133 patients (dose exploration, n = 77; dose expansion, n = 56) received acapatamab. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event seen in 97.4% and 98.2% of patients in dose exploration and dose expansion, respectively; grade ≥ 3 was seen in 23.4% and 16.1%, respectively. Most CRS events were seen in treatment cycle 1; incidence and severity decreased at/beyond cycle 2. In dose expansion, confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses (PSA50) were seen in 30.4% of patients and radiographic partial responses in 7.4% (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1). Median PSA progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.0-4.9], radiographic PFS per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 was 3.7 months (95% CI: 2.0-5.4). Acapatamab induced T-cell activation and increased cytokine production several-fold within 24 hours of initiation. Treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies were detected in 55% and impacted serum exposures in 36% of patients in dose expansion., Conclusions: Acapatamab was safe and tolerated and had a manageable CRS profile. Preliminary signs of efficacy with limited durable antitumor activity were observed. Acapatamab demonstrated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic activity., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a dose-limiting side effect of cytotoxic cancer treatment, often necessitating dose reduction (DR) or chemotherapy discontinuation (CD). Studies on peripheral neuropathy related to chemotherapy, obesity, and diabetes have implicated lipid metabolism. This study examined the association between circulating lipids and CIPN., Methods: Lipidomic analysis was performed on plasma samples from 137 patients receiving taxane-based treatment. CIPN was graded using Total Neuropathy Score-clinical version (TNSc) and patient-reported outcome measure European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-CIPN (EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20)., Results: A significant proportion of elevated baseline lipids were associated with high-grade CIPN defined by TNSc and EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 including triacylglycerols (TGs). Multivariable Cox regression on lipid species, adjusting for BMI, age, and diabetes, showed several elevated baseline TG associated with shorter time to DR/CD. Latent class analysis identified two baseline lipid profiles with differences in risk of CIPN (hazard ratio, 2.80 [95% CI, 1.50 to 5.23]; P = .0013). The higher risk lipid profile had several elevated TG species and was independently associated with DR/CD when modeled with other clinical factors (diabetes, age, BMI, or prior numbness/tingling)., Conclusion: Elevated baseline plasma TG is associated with an increased risk of CIPN development and warrants further validation in other cohorts. Ultimately, this may enable therapeutic intervention.

Background: Using comprehensive plasma lipidomic profiling from men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), we have previously identified a poor-prognostic lipid profile associated with shorter overall survival (OS). In order to translate this biomarker into the clinic, these men must be identifiable via a clinically accessible, regulatory-compliant assay., Methods: A single regulatory-compliant liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry assay of candidate lipids was developed and tested on a mCRPC Discovery cohort of 105 men. Various risk-score Cox regression prognostic models of OS were built using the Discovery cohort. The model with the highest concordance index (PCPro) was chosen for validation and tested on an independent Validation cohort of 183 men., Results: PCPro, the lipid biomarker, contains Cer(d18:1/18:0), Cer(d18:1/24:0), Cer(d18:1/24:1), triglycerides and total cholesterol. Within the Discovery and Validation cohorts, men who were PCPro positive had significantly shorter OS compared to those who were PCPro negative (Discovery: median OS 12.0 months vs 24.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) 3.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.29-6.15], p < 0.001, Validation: median OS 13.0 months vs 25.7 months, HR = 2.13 [95% CI 1.46-3.12], p < 0.001)., Conclusions: We have developed PCPro, a lipid biomarker assay capable of prospectively identifying men with mCRPC with a poor prognosis. Prospective clinical trials are required to determine if men who are PCPro positive will benefit from therapeutic agents targeting lipid metabolism., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) affects the quality of life of cancer survivors. However, the impact of pain on symptom burden remains undefined. This study aimed to define differences in the clinical symptom profile of patients with painful and nonpainful CIPN., Patients and Methods: A total of 579 participants (median age, 59 years [IQR, 19 years]; F=66%) were assessed cross-sectionally 6 months posttreatment. CIPN severity was graded using multiple methods, including patient-reported outcome measures, a clinically graded scale (NCI-CTCAE), and a neurologic examination score. Participants were classified into subgroups based on patient symptom report, with painful CIPN characterized by the presence of shooting/burning pain, and nonpainful CIPN characterized by the presence of numbness or tingling without shooting/burning pain. Behavioral changes were assessed via structured patient interview regarding symptom impact on sleep, exercise, and treatment-seeking., Results: Among 579 participants, 24% (n=140) reported painful CIPN, 48% (n=280) reported nonpainful CIPN, and 28% (n=159) had no CIPN. Participants with painful CIPN demonstrated higher CIPN severity than those with nonpainful CIPN across multiple measures, including NCI-CTCAE, neurologic grading, and patient report (all P<.05). Participants with painful CIPN were more likely to report that their symptoms affected their ability to exercise (P=.007), produced sleep impairment, and increased treatment-seeking behavior due to their symptoms (both P<.001) compared with participants with nonpainful CIPN., Conclusions: Overall, participants with painful CIPN reported higher scores across all CIPN severity measures, including behavioral changes. This study underlines the need for accurate identification of different CIPN subgroups in hopes of informing better treatment and rehabilitation options for cancer survivors with painful CIPN.

Introduction: Upper-limb symptoms are often reported in the context of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN), but objective quantification of functional deficits is often lacking. We examined and compared a range of neurophysiological and functional assessments of the upper-limb in the assessment of CIPN severity., Methods: Cross-sectional assessment of neurotoxic chemotherapy-treated patients was undertaken using patient-reported and clinically-graded CIPN measures. Upper-limb functional assessments comprised of assessing fine motor skills, sensory perception, and neurophysiological measures of the median nerve. Group comparisons between participants who reported absence or presence of upper-limb functional deficits were investigated., Results: 60 participants who were 11.5 (IQR = 4.0-26.0) months post-neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment reported CIPN. 65% (n = 39) reported upper-limb CIPN symptoms. Reduction in fine motor skills, sensory perception and median nerve SNAP amplitudes were associated with higher CIPN severity. Participants who self-reported presence of upper-limb functional deficits had worse CIPN severity across all measures, compared to participants who reported no upper-limb functional deficits., Conclusions: Participants who reported upper-limb symptoms and functional deficits had worse CIPN severity and quality-of-life. There is a high burden of upper-limb dysfunction long after neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment cessation. Focus on research into supportive care and rehabilitation options to improve upper-limb function is warranted to improve patient quality-of-life., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Xaluritamig (AMG 509) is a six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of the prostate 1 (STEAP1)-targeted T-cell engager designed to facilitate lysis of STEAP1-expressing cancer cells, such as those in advanced prostate cancer. This first-in-human study reports monotherapy dose exploration for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), primarily taxane pretreated. Ninety-seven patients received ≥1 intravenous dose ranging from 0.001 to 2.0 mg weekly or every 2 weeks. MTD was identified as 1.5 mg i.v. weekly via a 3-step dose. The most common treatment-related adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 72%), fatigue (45%), and myalgia (34%). CRS occurred primarily during cycle 1 and improved with premedication and step dosing. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and RECIST responses across cohorts were encouraging [49% PSA50; 24% objective response rate (ORR)], with greater frequency at target doses ≥0.75 mg (59% PSA50; 41% ORR). Xaluritamig is a novel immunotherapy for prostate cancer that has shown encouraging results supporting further development., Significance: Xaluritamig demonstrated encouraging responses (PSA and RECIST) compared with historical established treatments for patients with late-line mCRPC. This study provides proof of concept for T-cell engagers as a potential treatment for prostate cancer, validates STEAP1 as a target, and supports further clinical investigation of xaluritamig in prostate cancer. See related commentary by Hage Chehade et al., p. 20. See related article by Nolan-Stevaux et al., p. 90. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 5., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to explore whether a community nursing intervention for outpatients receiving systemic therapy reduced unplanned hospital presentations and improved physical and psychosocial health outcomes over the first three cycles of treatment compared to a control group receiving standard care., Methods: The number of and reasons for unplanned presentations were obtained for 170 intervention and 176 control group adult patients with solid tumours starting outpatient chemotherapy. Poisson regression was used to compare the number of presentations between the intervention and control groups. Patients self-completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Cancer Behavior Inventory and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at the start of the first four cycles. Linear regression techniques were used to compare quality of life outcomes., Results: The reduction in unplanned presentations in the intervention group relative to the control group was 12% (95% CI, - 25%, 37%; P = 0.48). At the start of cycle 4, there was no difference in anxiety (difference = 0.47 (95% CI, - 0.28, 1.22; P = 0.22)), depression (difference = 0.57 (95% CI, - 0.18, 1.31; P = 0.13)) or EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score (difference = 0.16 (95% CI, - 2.67, 3.00; P = 0.91)). Scores for self-efficacy as measured by the Cancer Behavior Inventory were higher in the intervention group (difference = 4.3 (95% CI, 0.7, 7.9; P = 0.02))., Conclusion: This RCT did not demonstrate a benefit in reducing unplanned presentations to hospital. The trial identified improved cancer-based self-efficacy in patients receiving the intervention., Trial Registration: Registered at Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614001113640, registered 21/10/2014., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Sleep problems are commonly reported by cancer survivors; however, knowledge of the impact of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) on sleep quality remains limited. In this study, we explored the impact of CIPN on sleep quality, as well as identified clinical characteristics associated with poor sleep quality., Methods: Participants were assessed cross-sectionally post-neurotoxic chemotherapy. CIPN severity was graded using a range of questionnaires that assessed CIPN severity and quality of life, as well as neurological grading scales. Sleep quality was assessed using a self-rated questionnaire (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, PSQI). Participants with poor sleep quality were further grouped according to whether sleep impairment was due to CIPN or other factors., Results: Among 77 participants who reported CIPN, 75% (n = 58) reported poor sleep quality. Of those, 41% (n = 24) reported CIPN as contributing to sleep impairment, while 59% (n = 34) reported other causes. Participants with CIPN-induced sleep impairments had higher CIPN severity across all outcome measures, as well as greater neuropathic pain (all p < 0.05). Furthermore, participants with CIPN-induced sleep impairments reported worse impact of neuropathy on physical and social functioning, as well as emotional well-being (all p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Participants with CIPN-induced poor sleep quality reported worse scores across all CIPN severity measures. This emphasises the negative impacts of CIPN symptoms on quality of life of chemotherapy-treated patients and highlights the importance of sleep quality assessment in cancer survivors., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Genomic alterations in DNA damage response (DDR) genes are common in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Understanding how these genomic events impact prognosis and/or treatment response is vital for optimising clinical outcomes., Methods: Targeted sequencing was performed on 407 plasma samples from 375 men with mCRPC. Using the CLIA-certified PredicineCARE™ cell-free DNA (cfDNA) assay, pathogenic alterations in 152 key genes (including 27 DDR-related genes) were assessed, as was the presence and mechanisms of biallelic loss in BRCA2., Findings: At least one DDR alteration was present in 34.5% (129/375) of patients (including monoallelic alterations). The most frequently altered DDR genes were BRCA2 (19%), ATM (13%), FANCA (5%), CHEK2 (5%) and BRCA1 (3%). Patients with BRCA alterations, especially BRCA2, had significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS) (Hazard ratio (HR) 3.3 [95% CI 1.9-6.0]; Cox regression p < 0.001), overall survival (HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.1-4.5]; Cox regression p = 0.02) and PSA response rates to androgen receptor (AR) pathway inhibitors (32% vs 60%, chi-square p = 0.02). BRCA-deficient tumours were also enriched for alterations within multiple genes including in the AR and PI3K pathways. Zygosity of BRCA2 alterations had no discernible impact on clinical outcomes, with similarly poor PFS for monoallelic vs biallelic loss (median 3.9 months vs 3.4 months vs copy neutral 9.8 months)., Interpretation: These data emphasise that the BRCA genes, in particular BRCA2, are key prognostic biomarkers in mCRPC. The clinical utility of BRCA2 as a marker of poor outcomes may, at least in cfDNA assays, be independent of the zygosity state detected. Enrichment of actionable genomic alterations in cfDNA from BRCA-deficient mCRPC may support rational co-targeting strategies in future clinical trials., Funding: Several funding sources have supported this study. A full list is provided in the Acknowledgments. No funding was received from Predicine, Inc. during the conduct of the study., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests M.K received travel/accommodation from Celgene; D.C, T.Z, P.D and S.J are stockholders in Predicine, Inc.; L.G.H received research funding from Astellas Pharma, travel/accommodation from Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, honoraria from Janssen and Astellas and is on the scientific advisory board from Imagion; Kate Mahon received travel/accommodation from Astellas Pharma; E.M.K received honoraria from Janssen, research funding from Astellas Pharma and AstraZeneca, and travel/accommodations from Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, and Ipsen; A.A.A is a consultant for Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Novartis and Aculeus Therapeutics, is on the speakers bureau for Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono and Bayer, received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Novartis, Tolmar, Amgen, Pfizer, Telix, Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Bayer, Pfizer, Noxopharm, Merck Sharpe Dohme, and Aculeus Therapeutics, is on the Scientific Advisory Board for Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Tolmar, Pfizer, Telix, Merck Serono, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Bayer, Merck Sharpe Dome, Amgen, and Noxopharm, travel/accommodations from Astellas, Merck Serono, Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, Tolmar, Pfizer and Bayer, and received research funding from Astellas (investigator), Merck Serono (investigator), Astra Zeneca (investigator), Bristol Myers Squibb (institutional), Astra Zeneca (institutional), Aptevo Therapeutics (institutional), Glaxo Smith Kline (institutional), Pfizer (institutional), MedImmune (institutional), Astellas (institutional), SYNthorx (institutional), Bionomics (institutional), Sanofi Aventis (institutional), Novartis (institutional), Ipsen (institutional), Exelixis (institutional), Merck Sharpe Dome (institutional), Janssen (institutional), Eli Lilly (institutional), Gilead Sciences (institutional), Merck Serono (institutional), Hinova (institutional)., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The CD300 glycoproteins are a family of related leucocyte surface molecules that regulate the immune response via their paired triggering and inhibitory receptors. Here we studied CD300f, an apoptotic cell receptor, and how it modulates the function of human monocytes and macrophages. We showed that CD300f signalling by crosslinking with anti-CD300f mAb (DCR-2) suppressed monocytes causing upregulation of the inhibitory molecule, CD274 (PD-L1) and their inhibition of T cell proliferation. Furthermore, CD300f signalling drove macrophages preferentially towards M2-type with upregulation of CD274, which was further enhanced by IL-4. CD300f signalling activates the PI3K/Akt pathway in monocytes. Inhibition of PI3K/Akt signalling resulting from CD300f crosslinking leads to downregulation of CD274 expression on monocytes. These findings highlight the potential use of CD300f blockade in cancer immune therapy to target immune suppressive macrophages in the tumour microenvironment, a known resistance mechanism to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Sarcoma is a rare and complex disease comprising over 80 malignant subtypes that is frequently characterized by poor prognosis. Challenges in clinical management include uncertainties in diagnosis and disease classification, limited prognostic and predictive biomarkers, incompletely understood disease heterogeneity among and within subtypes, lack of effective treatment options, and limited progress in identifying new drug targets and novel therapeutics. Proteomics refers to the study of the entire complement of proteins expressed in specific cells or tissues. Advances in proteomics have included the development of quantitative mass spectrometry (MS)-based technologies which enable analysis of large numbers of proteins with relatively high throughput, enabling proteomics to be studied on a scale that has not previously been possible. Cellular function is determined by the levels of various proteins and their interactions, so proteomics offers the possibility of new insights into cancer biology. Sarcoma proteomics therefore has the potential to address some of the key current challenges described above, but it is still in its infancy. This review covers key quantitative proteomic sarcoma studies with findings that pertain to clinical utility. Proteomic methodologies that have been applied to human sarcoma research are briefly described, including recent advances in MS-based proteomic technology. We highlight studies that illustrate how proteomics may aid diagnosis and improve disease classification by distinguishing sarcoma histologies and identify distinct profiles within histological subtypes which may aid understanding of disease heterogeneity. We also review studies where proteomics has been applied to identify prognostic, predictive and therapeutic biomarkers. These studies traverse a range of histological subtypes including chordoma, Ewing sarcoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, myxofibrosarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, osteosarcoma, and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Critical questions and unmet needs in sarcoma which can potentially be addressed with proteomics are outlined., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Connolly, Grimison, Horvath, Robinson and Reddel.)

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: The interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial of testosterone suppression plus either enzalutamide or standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy showed an early overall survival benefit with enzalutamide. Here, we report the planned primary overall survival analysis, with the aim of defining the benefit of enzalutamide treatment in different prognostic subgroups (synchronous and metachronous high-volume or low-volume disease) and in those who received concurrent docetaxel., Methods: ENZAMET is an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 83 sites (including clinics, hospitals, and university centres) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. Eligible participants were males aged 18 years or older with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate adenocarcinoma evident on CT or bone scanning with 99 m Tc and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a centralised web-based system and stratified by volume of disease, planned use of concurrent docetaxel and bone antiresorptive therapy, comorbidities, and study site, to receive testosterone suppression plus oral enzalutamide (160 mg once per day) or a weaker standard oral non-steroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide; control group) until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Testosterone suppression was allowed up to 12 weeks before randomisation and for up to 24 months as adjuvant therapy. Concurrent docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 intravenously) was allowed for up to six cycles once every 3 weeks, at the discretion of participants and physicians. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This planned analysis was triggered by reaching 470 deaths. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02446405, ANZCTR, ACTRN12614000110684, and EudraCT, 2014-003190-42., Findings: Between March 31, 2014, and March 24, 2017, 1125 participants were randomly assigned to receive non-steroidal antiandrogen (n=562; control group) or enzalutamide (n=563). The median age was 69 years (IQR 63-74). This analysis was triggered on Jan 19, 2022, and an updated survival status identified a total of 476 (42%) deaths. After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 67-69), the median overall survival was not reached (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·58-0·84]; p<0·0001), with 5-year overall survival of 57% (0·53-0·61) in the control group and 67% (0·63-0·70) in the enzalutamide group. Overall survival benefits with enzalutamide were consistent across predefined prognostic subgroups and planned use of concurrent docetaxel. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel use (33 [6%] of 558 in the control group vs 37 [6%] of 563 in the enzalutamide group), fatigue (four [1%] vs 33 [6%]), and hypertension (31 [6%] vs 59 [10%]). The incidence of grade 1-3 memory impairment was 25 (4%) versus 75 (13%). No deaths were attributed to study treatment., Interpretation: The addition of enzalutamide to standard of care showed sustained improvement in overall survival for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and should be considered as a treatment option for eligible patients., Funding: Astellas Pharma., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CJS received institutional research grants from Bayer, Sanofi, Astellas Pharma (Pfizer), Dendreon, and Janssen and personal consulting fees from Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, CellCentric, Point Biopharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech (Roche), Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Hengrui Europe Biosciences, and AstraZeneca. MRS received institutional research grants from Astellas Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bionomics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Medivation, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tilray. KNC received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, Point Biopharma, Roche, and Janssen; personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, Point Biopharma, and Roche; institutional consulting fees from Janssen; and honoraria from Janssen and AstraZeneca. SC had stock or ownership interests in Clovis Oncology; received honoraria from Novartis and Clovis Oncology; had a consulting or advisory role for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, BeiGene, and Novartis; and received payment for speakers’ bureaus from Janssen-Cilag and Sanofi (Aventis). MF had a leadership or fiduciary role as a board director for the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. LGH received institutional research grants, honoraria, and Support for meetings or travel from Astellas Pharma. NJL was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Thoracic Oncology Group of Australia; had a leadership or fiduciary role as a deputy director for Cancer Trials New Zealand; and was a member of the executive committee for New Zealand Society for Oncology. JM had a leadership or fiduciary role as a treasurer for the Irish Society of Medical Oncology; and was a chairman for National Annual Conferences. RM had stock or ownership interests in Bayer; received honoraria from Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, and Clovis Oncology; had a consulting or advisory role for MSD Oncology; received research funding from Janssen, Bayer, and Astellas Pharma; provided expert testimony for Pfizer; and received support for meetings or travel from Janssen-Cilag, Roche, and Ipsen. SAN received honoraria from Janssen, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Advanced Accelerator Application. FP received honoraria from Bayer and AstraZeneca. DWP received institutional research funding from Medivation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Exelixis, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Symvivo, and Amgen; personal consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD, Cipla, Astellas Pharma, and MSD (Pfizer); institutional consulting fees from Pfizer and MSD; honoraria from Bayer and MSD (Pfizer); and support for meetings or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Amgen, MSD (Pfizer), and Janssen. MNR was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pfizer, Ipsen, EMD, Serono, MSD, and Bayer. SKS received research grants from Novartis/AAA, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and MSD; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myer Squibb, MSD, and Janssen; and was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board as the chair for the data safety monitoring committee at Novartis. AlvT had a leadership or fiduciary role as the head of department for the Te Whatu Ora hospital. THT received honoraria from AstraZeneca. AlvT received honoraria from Novartis and Gilead; support for meetings or travel from MSD, Lilly, Astellas Pharma, and Ipsen; and was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, Novartis, and MSD. FV-B received institutional research grants from Janssen, MSD, and Seagen and consulting fees from Janssen, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Bayer. AYZ received institutional research grants from Astellas Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bionomics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Medivation, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tilray; personal consulting fees from MSD; honoraria from MSD, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Pfizer, Mundipharma, Janssen, and AstraZeneca; and was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Astellas Pharma, and Bayer. RRZ received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. IDD is the director and chair of the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group (ANZUP); and a member or chair of advisory boards for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD (Pfizer), MSD, Pio Therapeutics, Roche, and Xennials Therapeutics (all honoraria are paid directly to ANZUP). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Reciprocal interactions between prostate cancer cells and carcinoma-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) mediate cancer development and progression; however, our understanding of the signalling pathways mediating these cellular interactions remains incomplete. To address this, we defined secretome changes upon co-culture of prostate epithelial or cancer cells with fibroblasts that mimic bi-directional communication in tumours. Using antibody arrays, we profiled conditioned media from mono- and co-cultures of prostate fibroblasts, epithelial and cancer cells, identifying secreted proteins that are upregulated in co-culture compared to mono-culture. Six of these (CXCL10, CXCL16, CXCL6, FST, PDGFAA, IL-17B) were functionally screened by siRNA knockdown in prostate cancer cell/fibroblast co-cultures, revealing a key role for follistatin (FST), a secreted glycoprotein that binds and bioneutralises specific members of the TGF-β superfamily, including activin A. Expression of FST by both cell types was required for the fibroblasts to enhance prostate cancer cell proliferation and migration, whereas FST knockdown in co-culture grafts decreased tumour growth in mouse xenografts. This study highlights the complexity of prostate cancer cell-fibroblast communication, demonstrates that co-culture secretomes cannot be predicted from individual cultures, and identifies FST as a tumour-microenvironment-derived secreted factor that represents a candidate therapeutic target., (© 2023 The Authors. Molecular Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies.)

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) is a common complication of cancer treatment that produces functional disability. Increasingly, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to assess CIPN, providing a broader symptom perspective than clinician-graded scales. Understanding when a reported change in CIPN symptoms meets the threshold for clinical significance is challenging. This study aimed to provide interpretation guidelines for validated CIPN PROMs, and thereby enable estimation of thresholds to identify clinically relevant symptoms., Methods: Patients commencing neurotoxic cancer treatments were assessed at 3 timepoints: baseline, midtreatment, and end-of-treatment. Trajectory of CIPN development was assessed by means of CIPN PROMs, EORTC Quality of Life - Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy questionnaire (QLQ-CIPN20), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group - Neurotoxicity questionnaire (FACT/GOG-NTX). Thresholds were estimated for CIPN PROMs using the NCI CTCAE sensory neuropathy scale as the clinical anchor by midtreatment and end-of-treatment. Patients were assigned to a clinical change group according to CIPN development: either no development; grade 1 neuropathy (minimally important difference [MID]); or grade 2 neuropathy (clinically important difference). Distribution-based estimates (SD, 0.5) were also evaluated as supportive evidence., Results: In total, 406 patients were recruited to the study, of whom 62% (n=199/320) developed CIPN by midtreatment and 80% (n=274/343) by end-of-treatment. Anchor-based MID estimates by midtreatment were 5.06 (95% CI, 4.26-5.86) for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 3.54 (95% CI, 2.87-4.20) for the FACT/GOG-NTX. End-of-treatment MIDs were estimated to be 7.32 (95% CI, 6.23-8.40) for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 4.84 (95% CI, 3.98-5.70) for the FACT/GOG-NTX. Distribution-based MID estimations yielded lower values than anchor-based methods, at 3.73 for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 2.64 for the FACT/GOG-NTX at midtreatment and 5.52 for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 3.64 for the FACT/GOG-NTX at end-of-treatment., Conclusions: Findings from the present series aid meaningful interpretation for commonly used validated CIPN PROMs and provide thresholds that serve as guidance on how to interpret score changes, which will be useful for design and evaluation of clinical trials and clinical practice.

Despite key advances in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa), a proportion of men have de novo resistance, and all will develop resistance to current therapeutics over time. Aberrant lipid metabolism has long been associated with prostate carcinogenesis and progression, but more recently there has been an explosion of preclinical and clinical data which is informing new clinical trials. This review explores the epidemiological links between obesity and metabolic syndrome and PCa, the evidence for altered circulating lipids in PCa and their potential role as biomarkers, as well as novel therapeutic strategies for targeting lipids in men with PCa, including therapies widely used in cardiovascular disease such as statins, metformin and lifestyle modification, as well as novel targeted agents such as sphingosine kinase inhibitors, DES1 inhibitors and agents targeting FASN and beta oxidation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s), 2023.)

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in males. A greater understanding of cell signalling events that occur within the prostate cancer tumour microenvironment (TME), for example, between cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and prostate epithelial or cancer cells, may identify novel biomarkers and more effective therapeutic strategies for this disease. To address this, we used cell-type-specific labelling with amino acid precursors (CTAP) to define cell-type-specific (phospho)proteomic changes that occur when prostate epithelial cells are co-cultured with normal patient-derived prostate fibroblasts (NPFs) versus matched CAFs. We report significant differences in the response of BPH-1 benign prostate epithelial cells to CAF versus NPF co-culture. Pathway analysis of proteomic changes identified significant upregulation of focal adhesion and cytoskeleton networks, and downregulation of metabolism pathways, in BPH-1 cells cultured with CAFs. In addition, co-cultured CAFs exhibited alterations in stress, DNA damage, and cytoskeletal networks. Functional validation of one of the top differentially-regulated proteins in BPH-1 cells upon CAF co-culture, transglutaminase-2 (TGM2), demonstrated that knockdown of this protein significantly reduced the proliferation and migration of prostate epithelial cells. Overall, this study provides novel insights into intercellular communication in the prostate cancer TME that may be exploited to improve patient management.

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is an adverse event of cancer treatment that can affect sensory, motor, or autonomic nerves. Assessment of autonomic neuropathy is challenging, with limited available tools. Accordingly, it is not routinely assessed in chemotherapy-treated patients. In this study, we aimed to examine whether electrochemical skin conductance (ESC) via Sudoscan, a potential measure of autonomic function, associates with subjective and objective measures of CIPN severity and autonomic neuropathy., Methods: A cross-sectional assessment of patients who completed neurotoxic chemotherapy 3-24 months prior was undertaken using CIPN patient-reported outcomes (EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20), clinically graded scale (NCI-CTCAE), neurological examination score (TNSc), autonomic outcome measure (SAS), and Sudoscan. Differences in CIPN severity between participants with or without ESC dysfunction were investigated. Linear regression analyses were used to identify whether ESC values could predict CIPN severity., Results: A total of 130 participants were assessed, with 93 participants classified with CIPN according to the clinically graded scale (NCI-CTCAE/grade ≥ 1), while 49% demonstrated hands or feet ESC dysfunction (n = 46). Participants with ESC dysfunction did not significantly differ from those with no dysfunction on multiple CIPN severity measures (clinical-grade, patient-report, neurological examination), and no differences on the autonomic outcome measure (SAS) (all p > 0.0063). Linear regression analyses showed that CIPN could not be predicted by ESC values., Conclusions: The inability of ESC values via Sudoscan to predict clinically-graded and patient-reported CIPN or autonomic dysfunction questions its clinical utility for chemotherapy-treated patients. The understanding of autonomic neuropathy with chemotherapy treatment remains limited and must be addressed to improve quality of life in cancer survivors., (© 2022. The Author(s).)