Search

Background: Treatment of high-risk localized prostate cancer remains inadequate. The authors performed a phase 2 multicenter trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel plus bevacizumab before radical prostatectomy.Methods: Eligibility included any of the following: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/mL or PSA velocity >2 ng/mL/y, cT3 disease, any biopsy Gleason score 8 to 10, and Gleason score 7 with T3 disease by endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 1.5 T. Also, those with ≥50% biopsy cores involved and either Gleason score 7, PSA >10, or cT2 disease were eligible. Patients were treated with docetaxel 70 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles and bevacizumab 15 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 5 cycles. The primary endpoint was partial response by endorectal MRI.Results: Forty-one patients were treated. Median age was 55 years (range, 40-66 years). Baseline characteristics included: median PSA, 10.1 ng/mL; cT2, 49%, cT3, 32%; and Gleason score 8 to 10, 73%. Thirty-eight of 41 (93%) patients completed all 6 cycles. Grade ≥3 adverse events were rare, although 3 of 41 (7%) experienced febrile neutropenia. Twelve patients (29%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16%-45%) achieved a >50% reduction in tumor volume, and 9 patients (22%; 95% CI, 11%-38%) achieved a >50% post-treatment decline in PSA. Thirty-seven of the 41 patients underwent radical prostatectomy; there were no complete pathologic responses.Conclusions: Neoadjuvant docetaxel and bevacizumab is safe, and results in reductions in both tumor volume and serum PSA, in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in prostate cancer, and perioperative antiangiogenic therapy in general, requires further elucidation through ongoing and planned trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mitoxantrone-based chemotherapy palliates pain without extending survival in men with progressive androgen-independent prostate cancer. We compared docetaxel plus estramustine with mitoxantrone plus prednisone in men with metastatic, hormone-independent prostate cancer.Methods: We randomly assigned 770 men to one of two treatments, each given in 21-day cycles: 280 mg of estramustine three times daily on days 1 through 5, 60 mg of docetaxel per square meter of body-surface area on day 2, and 60 mg of dexamethasone in three divided doses before docetaxel, or 12 mg of mitoxantrone per square meter on day 1 plus 5 mg of prednisone twice daily. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival, objective response rates, and post-treatment declines of at least 50 percent in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.Results: Of 674 eligible patients, 338 were assigned to receive docetaxel and estramustine and 336 to receive mitoxantrone and prednisone. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the median overall survival was longer in the group given docetaxel and estramustine than in the group given mitoxantrone and prednisone (17.5 months vs. 15.6 months, P=0.02 by the log-rank test), and the corresponding hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.67 to 0.97). The median time to progression was 6.3 months in the group given docetaxel and estramustine and 3.2 months in the group given mitoxantrone and prednisone (P<0.001 by the log-rank test). PSA declines of at least 50 percent occurred in 50 percent and 27 percent of patients, respectively (P<0.001), and objective tumor responses were observed in 17 percent and 11 percent of patients with bidimensionally measurable disease, respectively (P=0.30). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenic fevers (P=0.01), nausea and vomiting (P<0.001), and cardiovascular events (P=0.001) were more common among patients receiving docetaxel and estramustine than among those receiving mitoxantrone and prednisone. Pain relief was similar in both groups.Conclusions: The improvement in median survival of nearly two months with docetaxel and estramustine, as compared with mitoxantrone and prednisone, provides support for this approach in men with metastatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The PARP inhibitor (PARPi) olaparib is approved for homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-altered metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, there is significant heterogeneity in response to PARPi in patients with mCRPC. Better clinical biomarkers are needed to identify patients likely to benefit from PARPi., Methods: Patients with prostate adenocarcinoma and panel sequencing at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were identified. Mutational signature analysis was performed using SigMA to characterize tumors as HRR deficient (HRD). The validity of SigMA to identify patients likely to benefit from olaparib was compared to the current FDA label (presence of a deleterious alteration in one of 14 HRR genes)., Results: 546 patients were identified, of which 34% were HRD. Among patients with HRR gene alterations, only patients with BRCA2 two-copy loss (2CL) were more likely to be HRD compared to patients without HRR gene alterations (74% vs 31%; P = 9.1 × 10 -7 ). 28 patients with mCRPC received olaparib, of which 13 were HRD and 9 had BRCA2 2CL. SigMA improved upon the current FDA label for predicting PSA50 (sensitivity: 100% vs 90%; specificity: 83% vs 44%; PPV: 77% vs 47%; NPV: 100% vs 89%) and rPFS > 6 months (sensitivity: both 92%; specificity: 93% vs 53%; PPV: 92% vs 63%; NPV: 93% vs 89%). On multivariate analysis, incorporating prognostic clinical factors and HR gene alterations, SigMA-predicted HRD independently associated with improved PSA-PFS (HR = 0.086, p = 0.00082) and rPFS (HR = 0.078, p = 0.0070)., Conclusions: SigMA-predicted HRD may better identify patients likely to benefit from olaparib as compared to the current FDA label. Larger studies are needed for further validation., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background and Objective: BRCA2 mutations in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) confer sensitivity to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. However, additional factors predicting PARP inhibitor efficacy in mCRPC are needed. Preclinical studies support a relationship between speckle-type POZ protein (SPOP) inactivation and PARP inhibitor sensitivity. We hypothesized that SPOP mutations may predict enhanced PARP inhibitor response in BRCA2-altered mCRPC., Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study involving 13 sites. We identified 131 patients with BRCA2-altered mCRPC treated with PARP inhibitors, 14 of which also carried concurrent SPOP mutations. The primary efficacy endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% PSA decline). The secondary endpoints were biochemical progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical/radiographic progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). These were compared by multivariable Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for age, tumor stage, baseline PSA level, Gleason sum, prior therapies, BRCA2 alteration types, and co-occurring mutations., Key Findings and Limitations: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. PSA responses were observed in 60% (70/117) of patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPwt disease and in 86% (12/14) of patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPmut disease (p = 0.06). The median time on PARP inhibitor treatment was 24.0 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.2 mo to not reached) in this group versus 8.0 mo (95% CI 6.1-10.9 mo) in patients with BRCA2 mutation alone (p = 0.05). In an unadjusted analysis, patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPmut disease experienced longer PSA-PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33 [95% CI 0.15-0.72], p = 0.005) and clinical/radiographic PFS (HR 0.4 [95% CI 0.18-0.86], p = 0.02), and numerically longer OS (HR 0.4 [95% CI 0.15-1.12], p = 0.08). In a multivariable analysis including histology, Gleason sum, prior taxane, prior androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, stage, PSA, BRCA2 alteration characteristics, and other co-mutations, patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPmut disease experienced longer PSA-PFS (HR 0.16 [95% CI 0.05-0.47], adjusted p = 0.001), clinical/radiographic PFS (HR 0.28 [95% CI 0.1-0.81], adjusted p = 0.019), and OS (HR 0.19 [95% CI 0.05-0.69], adjusted p = 0.012). In a separate cohort of patients not treated with a PARP inhibitor, there was no difference in OS between patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPmut versus BRCA2mut/SPOPwt disease (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.40-2.4], p = 0.94). In a genomic signature analysis, Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) SBS3 scores predictive of homologous recombination repair (HRR) defects were higher for BRCA2mut/SPOPmut than for BRCA2mut/SPOPwt disease (p = 0.04). This was a retrospective study, and additional prospective validation cohorts are needed., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: In this retrospective analysis, PARP inhibitors appeared more effective in patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPmut than in patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPwt mCRPC. This may be related to an increase in HRR defects in coaltered disease., Patient Summary: In this study, we demonstrate that co-alteration of both BRCA2 and SPOP predicts superior clinical outcomes to treatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors than BRCA2 alteration without SPOP mutation., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a front-line treatment for prostate cancer. In some men, their tumors can become refractory leading to the development of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). This causes tumors to regrow and metastasize, despite ongoing treatment, and impacts negatively on patient survival. ADT is known to stimulate the accumulation of immunosuppressive cells like protumoral tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), myeloid-derived suppressor cells and regulatory T cells in prostate tumors, as well as hypofunctional T cells. Protumoral TAMs have been shown to accumulate around tumor blood vessels during chemotherapy and radiotherapy in other forms of cancer, where they drive tumor relapse. Our aim was to see whether such perivascular (PV) TAMs also accumulate in ADT-treated prostate tumors prior to CRPC, and, if so, whether selectively inducing them to express a potent immunostimulant, interferon beta (IFNβ), would stimulate antitumor immunity and delay CRPC., Methods: We used multiplex immunofluorescence to assess the effects of ADT on the distribution and activation status of TAMs, CD8+T cells, CD4+T cells and NK cells in mouse and/or human prostate tumors. We then used antibody-coated, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to selectively target a STING agonist, 2'3'-cGAMP (cGAMP), to PV TAMs in mouse prostate tumors during ADT., Results: TAMs accumulated at high density around blood vessels in response to ADT and expressed markers of a protumoral phenotype including folate receptor-beta (FR-β), MRC1 (CD206), CD169 and VISTA. Additionally, higher numbers of inactive (PD-1-) CD8+T cells and reduced numbers of active (CD69+) NK cells were present in these PV tumor areas. LNPs coated with an antibody to FR-β selectively delivered cGAMP to PV TAMs in ADT-treated tumors, where they activated STING and upregulated the expression of IFNβ. This resulted in a marked increase in the density of active CD8+T cells (along with CD4+T cells and NK cells) in PV tumor areas, and significantly delayed the onset of CRPC. Antibody depletion of CD8+T cells during LNP administration demonstrated the essential role of these cells in delay in CRPC induced by LNPs., Conclusion: Together, our data indicate that targeting a STING agonist to PV TAMs could be used to extend the treatment window for ADT in prostate cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No, there are no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer (PCa) has been associated with development of insulin resistance. However, the predominant site of insulin resistance remains unclear., Methods: The ADT & Metabolism Study was a single-center, 24-week, prospective observational study that enrolled ADT-naive men without diabetes who were starting ADT for at least 24 weeks (ADT group, n = 42). The control group comprised men without diabetes with prior history of PCa who were in remission after prostatectomy (non-ADT group, n = 23). Prevalent diabetes mellitus was excluded in both groups using all three laboratory criteria defined in the American Diabetes Association guidelines. All participants were eugonadal at enrollment. The primary outcome was to elucidate the predominant site of insulin resistance (liver or skeletal muscle). Secondary outcomes included assessments of body composition, and hepatic and intramyocellular fat. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 12, and 24 weeks., Results: At 24 weeks, there was no change in hepatic (1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.10 to 4.43; p = .47) or skeletal muscle (-3.2; 95% CI, -7.07 to 0.66; p = .10) insulin resistance in the ADT group. No increase in hepatic or intramyocellular fat deposition or worsening of glucose was seen. These changes were mirrored by those observed in the non-ADT group. Men undergoing ADT gained 3.7 kg of fat mass., Conclusions: In men with PCa and no diabetes, 24 weeks of ADT did not change insulin resistance despite adverse body composition changes. These findings should be reassuring for treating physicians and for patients who are being considered for short-term ADT., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

The checkpoint immunotherapeutic pembrolizumab induces responses in a small minority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Radium-223 (R223) may increase immunogenicity of bone metastases and increase pembrolizumab (P) activity. In a randomized phase II study, we assessed the effect of R223+P compared with R223 on tumor immune infiltration, safety, and clinical outcomes in patients with mCRPC. The primary endpoint was differences in CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell infiltrate in 8-week versus baseline bone metastasis biopsies; secondary endpoints were safety, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS). Of the 42 treated patients (29 R223+P, 13 R223), 18 R223+P and 8 R223 patients had evaluable paired tumor biopsies. Median fold-change of CD4+ T cells was -0.7 (range: -9.3 to 4.7) with R223+P and 0.1 (-11.1 to 3.7) with R223 (P = 0.66); for CD8+ T cells, median fold-change was -0.6 (-7.4 to 5.3) with R223+P and -1.3 (-3.1 to 4.8) with R223 (P = 0.66). Median rPFS and OS was 6.1 (95% confidence interval: 2.7-11.0) and 16.9 months [12.7-not reached (NR)], respectively, with R223+P and 5.7 (2.6-NR) and 16.0 (9.0-NR), respectively, with R223. Although R223+P was well tolerated with no unexpected toxicity, the combination did not improve efficacy. High-dimensional flow cytometry demonstrated minimal immune modulation with R223, whereas R223+P induced CTLA-4 expression on circulating CD4+ T cells. Clinical responders possessed lower circulating frequencies of Ki67+ T and myeloid cells at baseline and higher circulating frequencies of TIM-3+ T and myeloid cells by week 9. Although R223+P did not induce T-cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment, exhaustion of induced peripheral T-cell immune responses may dampen the combination's clinical activity., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Patients with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer have an increased risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). The authors previously reported on part 1 of this phase 2 trial testing neoadjuvant apalutamide, abiraterone, prednisone, plus leuprolide (AAPL) or abiraterone, prednisone, and leuprolide (APL) for 6 months followed by RP. The results demonstrated favorable pathologic responses (tumor <5 mm) in 20.3% of patients (n = 24 of 118). Herein, the authors report the results of part 2., Methods: For part 2, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either AAPL for 12 months (arm 2A) or observation (arm 2B), stratified by neoadjuvant therapy and pathologic tumor classification. The primary end point was 3-year biochemical progression-free survival. Secondary end points included safety and testosterone recovery (>200 ng/dL)., Results: Overall, 82 of 118 patients (69%) enrolled in part 1 were randomized to part 2. A higher proportion of patients who were not randomized to adjuvant therapy had a favorable prostatectomy pathologic response (32.3% in nonrandomized patients compared with 17.1% in randomized patients). In the intent-to-treat analysis, the 3-year biochemical progression-free survival rate was 81% for arm 2A and 72% for arm 2B (hazard ratio, 0.81; 90% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49). Of the randomized patients, 81% had testosterone recovery in the AAPL group compared with 95% in the observation group, with a median time to recovery of <12 months in both arms., Conclusions: In this study, because 30% of patients declined adjuvant treatment, part B was underpowered to detect differences between arms. Future perioperative studies should be biomarker-directed and include strategies for investigator and patient engagement to ensure compliance with protocol procedures., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) after radical prostatectomy and a short PSA doubling time are at risk for distant metastases. Apalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) prolong survival in the metastatic setting. We evaluated whether intensification of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in BRPC., Patients and Methods: PRESTO is a randomized phase III, open-label trial in patients with BRPC and PSA doubling time ≤9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03009981). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT control, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + apalutamide + AAP. The primary end point was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), defined as serum PSA >0.2 ng/mL after treatment completion., Results: Five hundred three patients were enrolled. The median PSA was 1.8 ng/mL (IQR, 1.0-3.6). At the first planned interim analysis, both experimental arms significantly prolonged PSA-PFS compared with the control arm (median, 24.9 months for ADT + apalutamide v 20.3 months for ADT; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.77]; P = .00047; median, 26.0 months for ADT + apalutamide + AAP v 20.0 months for ADT; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.71]; P = .00008). Median time to testosterone recovery did not differ across treatment arms. The most common grade ≥3 adverse event was hypertension (7.5%, 7.4%, and 18% in ADT, ADT + apalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide + AAP arms, respectively)., Conclusion: Intensified AR blockade for a finite duration prolongs PSA-PFS with a manageable safety profile, without adversely affecting time to testosterone recovery. The addition of apalutamide to ADT should be considered in patients with high-risk BRPC.

Background: We sought to describe patterns of delivery of adjuvant (aRT) and salvage RT (sRT) in patients who underwent RP after receiving neoadjuvant androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) before radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC)., Methods: Two hundred eighteen patients treated on phase 2 neoadjuvant trials between 2006 and 2018 at two academic centers were evaluated. aRT and sRT were defined as receipt of RT with a PSA of ≤0.1 or >0.1 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes were biochemical recurrence (BCR), defined as time from aRT/sRT to a PSA rising to >0.1 ng/mL, and metastasis-free survival (MFS) after RT., Results: Twenty-three (11%) and 55 (25%) patients received aRT and sRT respectively. Median PSA at start of aRT and sRT was 0.01 and 0.16 ng/mL, and median duration from RP to RT was 5 and 14 months, respectively. All aRT patients had NCCN high-risk disease, 30% were pN1 and 43% had positive surgical margins; 52% had prostate bed RT. Fifty-one percent of sRT patients had biopsy Gleason 9-10, 29% were pT2 and 9% had positive surgical margins; 63% had RT to the prostate bed/pelvis. At a median follow-up of 5.3 and 3.0 years after aRT and sRT, 3-year freedom from BCR was 55% and 47%, and 3-year MFS was 56% and 53%, respectively., Conclusions: aRT was infrequently used in patients who received neoadjuvant ARPI before RP for HRLPC. Outcomes of aRT and sRT were similar but generally poor. Studies evaluating intensified systemic therapy approaches with postoperative RT in this high-risk population are needed., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The phase 3 CALGB 90203 (Alliance) trial evaluated neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy for high-risk localized prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy. We dissected the molecular features of post-treated tumors with long-term clinical outcomes to explore mechanisms of response and resistance to chemohormonal therapy., Methods: We evaluated 471 radical prostatectomy tumors, including 294 samples from 166 patients treated with 6 cycles of docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy before radical prostatectomy and 177 samples from 97 patients in the control arm (radical prostatectomy alone). Targeted DNA sequencing and RNA expression of tumor foci and adjacent noncancer regions were analyzed in conjunction with pathologic changes and clinical outcomes., Results: Tumor fraction estimated from DNA sequencing was significantly lower in post-treated tumor tissues after chemohormonal therapy compared with controls. Higher tumor fraction after chemohormonal therapy was associated with aggressive pathologic features and poor outcomes, including prostate-specific antigen-progression-free survival. SPOP alterations were infrequently detected after chemohormonal therapy, while TP53 alterations were enriched and associated with shorter overall survival. Residual tumor fraction after chemohormonal therapy was linked to higher expression of androgen receptor-regulated genes, cell cycle genes, and neuroendocrine genes, suggesting persistent populations of active prostate cancer cells. Supervised clustering of post-treated high-tumor-fraction tissues identified a group of patients with elevated cell cycle-related gene expression and poor clinical outcomes., Conclusions: Distinct recurrent prostate cancer genomic and transcriptomic features are observed after exposure to docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy. Tumor fraction assessed by DNA sequencing quantifies pathologic response and could be a useful trial endpoint or prognostic biomarker. TP53 alterations and high cell cycle transcriptomic activity are linked to aggressive residual disease, despite potent chemohormonal therapy., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Cyclic high-dose testosterone administration, known as bipolar androgen therapy (BAT), is a treatment strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we report the results of a multicenter, single arm Phase 2 study (NCT03554317) enrolling 45 patients with heavily pretreated mCRPC who received BAT (testosterone cypionate, 400 mg intramuscularly every 28 days) with the addition of nivolumab (480 mg intravenously every 28 days) following three cycles of BAT monotherapy. The primary endpoint of a confirmed PSA 50 response rate was met and estimated at 40% (N = 18/45, 95% CI: 25.7-55.7%, P = 0.02 one-sided against the 25% null hypothesis). Sixteen of the PSA 50 responses were achieved before the addition of nivolumab. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), median PSA progression-free survival, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety/tolerability. The ORR was 24% (N = 10/42). Three of the objective responses occurred following the addition of nivolumab. After a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the median rPFS was 5.6 (95% CI: 5.4-6.8) months, and median OS was 24.4 (95% CI: 17.6-31.1) months. BAT/nivolumab was well tolerated, resulting in only five (11%) drug related, grade-3 adverse events. In a predefined exploratory analysis, clinical response rates correlated with increased baseline levels of intratumoral PD-1 + T cells. In paired metastatic tumor biopsies, BAT induced pro-inflammatory gene expression changes that were restricted to patients achieving a clinical response. These data suggest that BAT may augment antitumor immune responses that are further potentiated by immune checkpoint blockade., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Improved biomarkers are needed for early cancer detection, risk stratification, treatment selection, and monitoring treatment response. Although proteins can be useful blood-based biomarkers, many have limited sensitivity or specificity for these applications. Long INterspersed Element-1 (LINE-1) open reading frame 1 protein (ORF1p) is a transposable element protein overexpressed in carcinomas and high-risk precursors during carcinogenesis with negligible expression in normal tissues, suggesting ORF1p could be a highly specific cancer biomarker. To explore ORF1p as a blood-based biomarker, we engineered ultrasensitive digital immunoassays that detect mid-attomolar (10-17 mol/L) ORF1p concentrations in plasma across multiple cancers with high specificity. Plasma ORF1p shows promise for early detection of ovarian cancer, improves diagnostic performance in a multianalyte panel, provides early therapeutic response monitoring in gastroesophageal cancers, and is prognostic for overall survival in gastroesophageal and colorectal cancers. Together, these observations nominate ORF1p as a multicancer biomarker with potential utility for disease detection and monitoring., Significance: The LINE-1 ORF1p transposon protein is pervasively expressed in many cancers and is a highly specific biomarker of multiple common, lethal carcinomas and their high-risk precursors in tissue and blood. Ultrasensitive ORF1p assays from as little as 25 μL plasma are novel, rapid, cost-effective tools in cancer detection and monitoring. See related commentary by Doucet and Cristofari, p. 2502. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 2489., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent., Methods: Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons., Results: Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result ( BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4)., Conclusion: Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

Purpose: Enzalutamide and abiraterone both target androgen receptor signaling but via different mechanisms. The mechanism of action of one drug may counteract the resistance pathways of the other. We sought to determine whether the addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) to enzalutamide prolongs overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the first-line setting., Patients and Methods: Men with untreated mCRPC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive first-line enzalutamide with or without AAP. The primary end point was OS. Toxicity, prostate-specific antigen declines, pharmacokinetics, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were also examined. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and the stratified log-rank statistic were used to compare OS between treatments., Results: In total, 1,311 patients were randomly assigned: 657 to enzalutamide and 654 to enzalutamide plus AAP. OS was not statistically different between the two arms (median, 32.7 [95% CI, 30.5 to 35.4] months for enzalutamide v 34.2 [95% CI, 31.4 to 37.3] months for enzalutamide and AAP; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; one-sided P = .03; boundary nominal significance level = .02). rPFS was longer in the combination arm (median rPFS, 21.3 [95% CI, 19.4 to 22.9] months for enzalutamide v 24.3 [95% CI, 22.3 to 26.7] months for enzalutamide and AAP; HR, 0.86; two-sided P = .02). However, pharmacokinetic clearance of abiraterone was 2.2- to 2.9-fold higher when administered with enzalutamide, compared with clearance values for abiraterone alone., Conclusion: The addition of AAP to enzalutamide for first-line treatment of mCRPC was not associated with a statistically significant benefit in OS. Drug-drug interactions between the two agents resulting in increased abiraterone clearance may partly account for this result, although these interactions did not prevent the combination regimen from having more nonhematologic toxicity.

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: 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.)

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a cornerstone of treatment for patients with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer, is associated with many adverse effects, including osteoporosis, sexual dysfunction, fatigue, and vasomotor symptoms. It is also associated with loss of muscle mass and increased adiposity. This change in body composition is likely the inciting event in the development of insulin resistance, an independent risk factor for diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Although the occurrence of insulin resistance during ADT has been reported, it remains unclear whether this insulin resistance is primarily hepatic or muscular. Similarly, the mechanisms that lead to insulin resistance also remain unknown. The ADT & Metabolism Study was designed to address these knowledge gaps, as the elucidation of the predominant site of insulin resistance will allow prevention strategies and the use of targeted, tissue-specific insulin-sensitizing agents in patients undergoing ADT. This prospective, mechanistic, single-center, 24-week, observational cohort study will enroll treatment-naïve adult men with prostate cancer about to undergo surgical or medical ADT for at least 24 weeks (ADT group; n = 50) and a control group of men who had undergone radical prostatectomy and are in remission (non-ADT group, n = 25). The primary outcome is to determine the site of insulin resistance (skeletal muscle or liver) using frequent sampling oral glucose tolerance test at baseline and 12 and 24 weeks after commencement of ADT (ADT group) or after enrollment in the study (non-ADT group). Secondary outcomes will assess changes in hepatic and intramyocellular fat (using magnetic resonance spectroscopy), inflammatory markers, adipokines, free fatty acids, and changes in body composition (assessed using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) and their correlation with the development of insulin resistance. Exploratory outcomes will include changes in muscle performance, physical function, physical activity, vitality, and sexual drive., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: PLN has consulted for Boston Scientific, Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Theranano, Nanocan, and Blue Earth. PLN has received research funding from Janssen, Bayer, and Astellas (all outside of the current work). DCS is a stockholder/shareholder of GI Windows and spouse is owner of Phase V Technologies (neither related to current study)., (Copyright: © 2023 Braga-Basaria et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: PARP (poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) are now standard of care in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with select mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, but patients with ATM- and BRCA2 mutations may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist in response to taxanes, which may inform treatment sequencing decisions., Methods: mCRPC patients (N = 158) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were retrospectively identified from 11 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed and Cox hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for progression-free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy., Results: Fifty-eight patients with ATM mutations and 100 with BRCA2 mutations were identified. Fourty-four (76%) patients with ATM mutations received taxane only or taxane before PARPi, while 14 (24%) received PARPi only or PARPi before taxane. Patients with ATM mutations had longer PFS when taxane was given first versus PARPi given first (HR: 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-1.50]; p = 0.40). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with ATM mutations who received taxane first (HR: 0.56 [CI: 0.20-1.54]; p = 0.26). Among patients with BRCA2 mutations, 51 (51%) received taxane first and 49 (49%) received PARPi first. In contrast, patients with BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS when PARPi was given first versus taxane given first (HR: 0.85 [CI: 0.54-1.35]; p = 0.49). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with BRCA2 mutations who received PARPi first (HR: 0.75 [CI: 0.41-1.37]; p = 0.35)., Conclusions: Our retrospective data suggest differential response between ATM and BRCA2 mutated prostate cancers in terms of response to PARPi and to taxane chemotherapy. When considering the sequence of PARPi versus taxane chemotherapy for mCRPC with DDR mutations, ATM, and BRCA2 mutation status may be helpful in guiding choice of initial therapy., (© 2022 The Authors. The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: Cediranib, a pan-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, suppresses expression of homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and increases sensitivity to poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition in preclinical models. We investigated whether cediranib combined with olaparib improves the clinical outcomes of patients with prostate cancer., Methods: Patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were randomly assigned 1:1 to arm A: cediranib 30 mg once daily plus olaparib 200 mg twice daily or arm B: olaparib 300 mg twice daily alone. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in the intention-to-treat patients. The secondary end points were rPFS in patients with HRR-deficient and HRR-proficient mCRPC., Results: In the intention-to-treat set of 90 patients, median rPFS was 8.5 (95% CI, 5.4 to 12.0) and 4.0 (95% CI, 3.2 to 8.5) months in arms A and B, respectively. Cediranib/olaparib significantly improved rPFS versus olaparib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.617; 95% CI, 0.392 to 0.969; P = .0359). Descriptive analyses showed a median rPFS of 10.6 (95% CI, 5.9 to not assessed [NA]) and 3.8 (95% CI, 2.33 to NA) months (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.272 to 1.504) among patients with HRR-deficient mCRPC, and 13.8 (95% CI, 3.3 to NA) and 11.3 (95% CI, 3.8 to NA) months (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.321 to 2.988) among patients with BRCA2 -mutated mCRPC in arms A and B, respectively. The incidence of grades 3-4 adverse events was 61% and 18% in arms A and B, respectively., Conclusion: Cediranib combined with olaparib improved rPFS compared with olaparib alone in men with mCRPC. This combination was associated with an increased incidence of grades 3-4 adverse events. BRCA2 -mutated subgroups treated with olaparib with or without cediranib were associated with a numerically longer median rPFS.

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

Purpose: We sought to compare outcomes between neoadjuvant therapy with a novel hormonal agent (NHA) prior to radical prostatectomy (neo-RP) and up-front radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC)., Materials and Methods: HRPC patients treated on 3 trials of neoadjuvant NHA followed by RP formed the neo-RP cohort (112). The RP group (259) comprised an observational cohort of HRPC patients undergoing RP without neoadjuvant therapy between 2010-2016 at our institution who met key eligibility criteria for the neoadjuvant trials (ie ≥3 positive biopsy cores and Gleason ≥4+3=7). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to minimize potential confounding factors when estimating treatment effects. The primary outcomes were time to biochemical recurrence (BCR) and metastasis-free survival (MFS)., Results: Before IPTW, the neo-RP cohort had higher rates of Gleason 9-10 cancer (46% vs 24%), cT3 disease (22% vs 5%), and PSA ≥20 ng/ml (14% vs 7%); after IPTW, the 2 cohorts were balanced. Overall, after IPTW, time to BCR (HR=0.25 [95% CI 0.18-0.37]) and MFS (HR=0.26 [0.15-0.46]) were significantly longer in the neo-RP compared to the RP cohort. Rates of adjuvant (7% vs 24%) and salvage therapy (34% vs 46%) were lower in the neo-RP cohort., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy with an NHA prior to RP was associated with longer time to BCR and superior MFS compared to up-front RP in men with HRPC. These findings are hypothesis-generating but suggest benefit with neoadjuvant therapy with an NHA in HRPC, an approach which is currently being studied in the phase 3 PROTEUS trial (NCT03767244).

The complex genomic landscape of prostate cancer evolves across disease states under therapeutic pressure directed toward inhibiting androgen receptor (AR) signaling. While significantly altered genes in prostate cancer have been extensively defined, there have been fewer systematic analyses of how structural variation shapes the genomic landscape of this disease across disease states. We uniformly characterized structural alterations across 531 localized and 143 metastatic prostate cancers profiled by whole genome sequencing, 125 metastatic samples of which were also profiled via whole transcriptome sequencing. We observed distinct significantly recurrent breakpoints in localized and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPC), with pervasive alterations in noncoding regions flanking the AR, MYC, FOXA1, and LSAMP genes enriched in mCRPC and TMPRSS2-ERG rearrangements enriched in localized prostate cancer. We defined 9 subclasses of mCRPC based on signatures of structural variation, each associated with distinct genetic features and clinical outcomes. Our results comprehensively define patterns of structural variation in prostate cancer and identify clinically actionable subgroups based on whole genome profiling.

Purpose: Guidelines recommend somatic and germline testing for men with advanced prostate cancer (PCa). Barriers to widespread implementation result in underutilization of germline testing. Somatic testing alone risks missing pathogenic germline variants (PGVs). We sought to determine whether the addition of germline testing to tumor-only sequencing improves detection of PGVs in men with advanced PCa. Secondarily, we sought to define the added value of combining somatic and germline testing to optimize detection of clinically actionable alterations., Patients and Methods: We analyzed results of independent germline testing and tumor-only sequencing from 100 men with advanced PCa from a prospective clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03328091). The primary outcome was the proportion of PGVs not reported with tumor-only sequencing. The secondary outcome was the association of locus-specific loss of heterozygosity for PGVs in homologous recombination genes with clinical-genomic features., Results: In the 100 men who underwent germline testing and tumor-only sequencing, 24 PGVs were identified, 17 of which were clinically actionable, in 23 patients. Tumor-only sequencing failed to report four (17%) of the PGVs. One additional PGV (4.2%) had variant allele frequency on tumor-sequencing below the threshold for follow-up germline testing. When integrating tumor-only sequencing with germling testing results, 33% of patients harbored clinically actionable alterations. Rates of locus-specific loss of heterozygosity were higher for BRCA2 PGVs in castration-resistant PCa than PGVs in other homologous recombination genes in hormone-sensitive PCa ( P = .029)., Conclusion: Tumor-only sequencing failed to report more than 20% of PGVs in men with advanced PCa. These findings strongly support guideline recommendations for universal germline and somatic testing in this population. Combining tumor and germline sequencing doubled the chance of detecting a clinically actionable alteration.

Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence., Objective: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021., Design, Setting, and Participants: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process., Results and Limitations: The voting reflected the opinions of 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 reported in the Supplementary material., Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Inherited genetic mutations can significantly increase the risk for prostate cancer (PC), may be associated with aggressive disease and poorer outcomes, and can have hereditary cancer implications for men and their families. Germline genetic testing (hereditary cancer genetic testing) is now strongly recommended for patients with advanced/metastatic PC, particularly given the impact on targeted therapy selection or clinical trial options, with expanded National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and endorsement from multiple professional societies. Furthermore, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend genetic testing for men with PC across the stage and risk spectrum and for unaffected men at high risk for PC based on family history to identify hereditary cancer risk. Primary care is a critical field in which providers evaluate men at an elevated risk for PC, men living with PC, and PC survivors for whom germline testing may be indicated. Therefore, there is a critical need to engage and educate primary care providers regarding the role of genetic testing and the impact of results on PC screening, treatment, and cascade testing for family members of affected men. This review highlights key aspects of genetic testing in PC, the role of clinicians, with a focus on primary care, the importance of obtaining a comprehensive family history, current germline testing guidelines, and the impact on precision PC care. With emerging evidence and guidelines, clinical pathways are needed to facilitate integrated genetic education, testing, and counseling services in appropriately selected patients. There is also a need for providers to understand the field of genetic counseling and how best to collaborate to enhance multidisciplinary patient care., (© 2022 The Authors. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: B7 homolog 3 (B7-H3) is an immunomodulatory molecule that is highly expressed in prostate cancer (PCa) and belongs to the B7 superfamily, which includes PD-L1. Immunotherapies (antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, and chimeric antigen receptor T cells) targeting B7-H3 are currently in clinical trials; therefore, elucidating the molecular and immune microenvironment correlates of B7-H3 expression may help to guide trial design and interpretation. The authors tested the interconnected hypotheses that B7-H3 expression is associated with genetic racial ancestry, immune cell composition, and androgen receptor signaling in PCa., Methods: An automated, clinical-grade immunohistochemistry assay was developed by to digitally quantify B7-H3 protein expression across 2 racially diverse cohorts of primary PCa (1 with previously reported transcriptomic data) and pretreatment and posttreatment PCa tissues from a trial of intensive neoadjuvant hormonal therapy., Results: B7-H3 protein expression was significantly lower in self-identified Black patients and was inversely correlated with the percentage African ancestry. This association with race was independent of the significant association of B7-H3 protein expression with ERG/ETS and PTEN status. B7-H3 messenger RNA expression, but not B7-H3 protein expression, was significantly correlated with regulatory (FOXP3-positive) T-cell density. Finally, androgen receptor activity scores were significantly correlated with B7-H3 messenger RNA expression, and neoadjuvant intensive hormonal therapy was associated with a significant decrease in B7-H3 protein expression., Conclusions: The current data underscore the importance of studying racially and molecularly diverse PCa cohorts in the immunotherapy era. This study is among the first to use genetic ancestry markers to add to the emerging evidence that PCa in men of African ancestry may have a distinct biology associated with B7-H3 expression., Lay Summary: B7-H3 is an immunomodulatory molecule that is highly expressed in prostate cancer and is under investigation in clinical trials. The authors determined that B7-H3 protein expression is inversely correlated with an individual's proportion of African ancestry. The results demonstrate that B7-H3 messenger RNA expression is correlated with the density of tumor T-regulatory cells. Finally, in the first paired analysis of B7-H3 protein expression before and after neoadjuvant intensive hormone therapy, the authors determined that hormone therapy is associated with a decrease in B7-H3 protein levels, suggesting that androgen signaling may positively regulate B7-H3 expression. These results may help to guide the design of future clinical trials and to develop biomarkers of response in such trials., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Tumor-only genomic testing can uncover somatic and germline pathogenic variants [pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP)] in cancer predisposition genes. We describe the prevalence of P/LPs in BRCA1/2 and PALB2 (B1B2P2) across malignancies and the frequency of clinical germline testing (CGT) in patients with P/LPs in B1B2P2 identified on tumor-only testing., Experimental Design: Among 7,575 patients with cancer tested between 2016 and 2018 with the OncoPanel tumor-only sequencing assay, we characterized P/LP frequencies by tumor type, receipt of CGT prior to or within 12 months after OncoPanel, and factors associated with CGT., Results: 272 (3.6%) patients had OncoPanel-detected P/LPs in B1B2P2: 37.5% of P/LPs were in BRCA-related cancers; the remainder were in non-BRCA tumors. P/LPs were detected in ≥5% of breast, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, nonmelanoma skin, endometrial, small cell lung, and colorectal cancers. 37.9% of patients with P/LPs received CGT prior to OncoPanel; an additional 10.7% underwent CGT within 12 months of OncoPanel. Among 132 with CGT, 88.6% had ≥1 clinical factor for CGT compared with 47.1% who did not undergo CGT. Patients with BRCA tumors were more likely to have CGT compared with those without (81.4% vs. 29.0%, P < 0.0001). Among patients with CGT, 70.5% (93/132) of P/LPs were germline., Conclusions: Tumor-only genomic testing identified P/LPs in B1B2P2 in 3.6% of patients. 52.9% of patients with tumor-detected P/LPs and without CGT did not meet personal or family history criteria for CGT. In addition, some patients with tumor-detected P/LPs were not referred for CGT, especially those with non-BRCA tumors. Given implications for treatment selection and familial cancer risk, processes to reliably trigger CGT from tumor-genomic findings are needed., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Treatment-induced tumor dormancy is a state in cancer progression where residual disease is present but remains asymptomatic. Dormant cancer cells are treatment-resistant and responsible for cancer recurrence and metastasis. Prostate cancer treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) often enters a dormant state. ADT-induced prostate cancer dormancy remains poorly understood due to the challenge in acquiring clinical dormant prostate cancer cells and the lack of representative models. In this study, we aimed to develop clinically relevant models for studying ADT-induced prostate cancer dormancy. Dormant prostate cancer models were established by castrating mice bearing patient-derived xenografts (PDX) of hormonal naïve or sensitive prostate cancer. Dormancy status and tumor relapse were monitored and evaluated. Paired pre- and postcastration (dormant) PDX tissues were subjected to morphologic and transcriptome profiling analyses. As a result, we established eleven ADT-induced dormant prostate cancer models that closely mimicked the clinical courses of ADT-treated prostate cancer. We identified two ADT-induced dormancy subtypes that differed in morphology, gene expression, and relapse rates. We discovered transcriptomic differences in precastration PDXs that predisposed the dormancy response to ADT. We further developed a dormancy subtype-based, predisposed gene signature that was significantly associated with ADT response in hormonal naïve prostate cancer and clinical outcome in castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with ADT or androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors., Implications: We have established highly clinically relevant PDXs of ADT-induced dormant prostate cancer and identified two dormancy subtypes, leading to the development of a novel predicative gene signature that allows robust risk stratification of patients with prostate cancer to ADT or androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Primary and metastatic prostate cancers have low mutation rates and recurrent alterations in a small set of genes, enabling targeted sequencing of prostate cancer-associated genes as an efficient approach to characterizing patient samples (compared to whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing). For example, targeted sequencing provides a flexible, rapid, and cost-effective method for genomic assessment of patient-derived cell lines to evaluate fidelity to initial patient tumor samples., Methods: We developed a prostate cancer-specific targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel to detect alterations in 62 prostate cancer-associated genes as well as recurring gene fusions with ETS family members, representing the majority of common alterations in prostate cancer. We tested this panel on primary prostate cancer tissues and blood biopsies from patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We generated patient-derived cell lines from primary prostate cancers using conditional reprogramming methods and applied targeted sequencing to evaluate the fidelity of these cell lines to the original patient tumors., Results: The prostate cancer-specific panel identified biologically and clinically relevant alterations, including point mutations in driver oncogenes and ETS family fusion genes, in tumor tissues from 29 radical prostatectomy samples. The targeted panel also identified genomic alterations in cell-free DNA and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) from patients with metastatic prostate cancer, and in standard prostate cancer cell lines. We used the targeted panel to sequence our set of patient-derived cell lines; however, no prostate cancer-specific mutations were identified in the tumor-derived cell lines, suggesting preferential outgrowth of normal prostate epithelial cells., Conclusions: We evaluated a prostate cancer-specific targeted NGS panel to detect common and clinically relevant alterations (including ETS family gene fusions) in prostate cancer. The panel detected driver mutations in a diverse set of clinical samples of prostate cancer, including fresh-frozen tumors, cell-free DNA, CTCs, and cell lines. Targeted sequencing of patient-derived cell lines highlights the challenge of deriving cell lines from primary prostate cancers and the importance of genomic characterization to credential candidate cell lines. Our study supports that a prostate cancer-specific targeted sequencing panel provides an efficient, clinically feasible approach to identify genetic alterations across a spectrum of prostate cancer samples and cell lines., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: The clinical impact of concurrent corticosteroid use (CCU) on enzalutamide-treated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unknown. We investigated the association of CCU with overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and time to prostate-specific antigen progression (TTPP) in post-chemotherapy, enzalutamide-treated patients with mCRPC., Patients and Methods: Post hoc analysis of AFFIRM (NCT00974311) with patients (n = 1,199) randomized 2:1 to enzalutamide 160 mg/day or placebo. Treatment group, CCU, and known prognostic factors were evaluated for impact on OS, rPFS, and TTPP using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. CCU was defined as "baseline" (use started at baseline) or "on-study" (baseline plus use that was started during the trial)., Results: Enzalutamide significantly improved OS, rPFS, and TTPP independent of baseline CCU but was associated with inferior clinical outcomes when compared with no baseline CCU, including a shorter OS [10.8 months vs. not reached (NR); HR for use vs. no use, 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.79-2.54], rPFS (5.2 months vs. 8.0 months; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29-1.72], and TTPP (4.6 months vs. 5.7 months; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81). These findings held in a multivariate analysis adjusting for baseline prognostic factors wherein baseline CCU was independently associated with decreased OS (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43-2.04; P < 0.0001) and rPFS (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48; P = 0.0007)., Conclusions: Patients with mCRPC benefited from enzalutamide treatment independent of CCU, but CCU was associated with worse baseline prognostic factors and outcomes., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is a resistance phenotype that emerges in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate adenocarcinoma (CR-PRAD) and has important clinical implications, but is challenging to detect in practice. Herein, we report a novel tissue-informed epigenetic approach to noninvasively detect NEPC., Experimental Design: We first performed methylated immunoprecipitation and high-throughput sequencing (MeDIP-seq) on a training set of tumors, identified differentially methylated regions between NEPC and CR-PRAD, and built a model to predict the presence of NEPC (termed NEPC Risk Score). We then performed MeDIP-seq on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from two independent cohorts of men with NEPC or CR-PRAD and assessed the accuracy of the model to predict the presence NEPC., Results: The test cohort comprised cfDNA samples from 48 men, 9 with NEPC and 39 with CR-PRAD. NEPC Risk Scores were significantly higher in men with NEPC than CR-PRAD (P = 4.3 × 10-7) and discriminated between NEPC and CR-PRAD with high accuracy (AUROC 0.96). The optimal NEPC Risk Score cutoff demonstrated 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity for detecting NEPC. The independent, multi-institutional validation cohort included cfDNA from 53 men, including 12 with NEPC and 41 with CR-PRAD. NEPC Risk Scores were significantly higher in men with NEPC than CR-PRAD (P = 7.5×10-12) and perfectly discriminated NEPC from CR-PRAD (AUROC 1.0). Applying the predefined NEPC Risk Score cutoff to the validation cohort resulted in 100% sensitivity and 95% specificity for detecting NEPC., Conclusions: Tissue-informed cfDNA methylation analysis is a promising approach for noninvasive detection of NEPC in men with advanced prostate cancer., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Interventions designed to limit the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are having profound effects on the delivery of health care, but data showing the impact on oncology clinical trial enrollment, treatment, and monitoring are limited. We prospectively tracked relevant data from oncology clinical trials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2020, including the number of open trials, new patient enrollments, in-person and virtual patient visits, dispensed investigational infusions, dispensed or shipped oral investigational agents, research biopsies, and blood samples. We ascertained why patients came off trials and determined on-site clinical research staffing levels. We used 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests to assess the statistical significance of the reported changes. Nearly all patients on interventional treatment trials were maintained, and new enrollments continued at just under one-half the prepandemic rate. The median number of investigational prescriptions shipped to patients increased from 0 to 74 (range = 22-107) per week from March to June 2020. The median number of telemedicine appointments increased from 0 to 107 (range = 33-267) per week from March to June 2020. Research biopsies and blood collections decreased dramatically after Dana-Farber Cancer Institute implemented COVID-19-related policies in March 2020. The number of research nurses and clinical research coordinators on site also decreased after March 2020. Substantial changes were required to safely continue clinical research during the pandemic, yet we observed no increases in serious adverse events or major violations related to drug dosing. Lessons learned from adapting research practices during COVID-19 can inform industry sponsors and governmental agencies to consider altering practices to increase operational efficiency and convenience for patients., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) low serum androgens prior to starting abiraterone acetate (AA) is associated with more rapid progression. We evaluated the effect of AA on androgens in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) metastases and associations of intratumoral androgens with response., Experimental Design: We performed a phase II study of AA plus prednisone in mCRPC. The primary outcome was tissue testosterone at 4 weeks. Exploratory outcomes were association of steroid levels and genomic alterations with response, and escalating AA to 2,000 mg at progression., Results: Twenty-nine of 30 men were evaluable. Testosterone in metastatic biopsies became undetectable at 4 weeks ( P < 0.001). Serum and tissue dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) remained detectable in many patients and was not increased at progression. Serum and tissue DHEAS in the lowest quartile (pretreatment), serum DHEAS in the lowest quartile (4 weeks), and undetectable tissue DHEAS (on-therapy) associated with rapid progression (20 vs. 48 weeks, P = 0.0018; 20 vs. 52 weeks, P = 0.0003; 14 vs. 40 weeks, P = 0.0001; 20 vs. 56 weeks, P = 0.02, respectively). One of 16 men escalating to 2,000 mg had a 30% PSA decline; 13 developed radiographic progression by 12 weeks. Among patients with high serum DHEAS at baseline, wild-type (WT) PTEN status associated with longer response (61 vs. 33 weeks, P = 0.02)., Conclusions: Low-circulating adrenal androgen levels are strongly associated with an androgen-poor tumor microenvironment and with poor response to AA. Patients with CRPC with higher serum DHEAS levels may benefit from dual androgen receptor (AR)-pathway inhibition, while those in the lowest quartile may require combinations with non-AR-directed therapy., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Nearly all men with prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) develop resistance via diverse mechanisms including constitutive activation of the AR pathway, driven by AR genomic structural alterations, expression of AR splice variants (AR-Vs), or loss of AR dependence and lineage plasticity termed neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Understanding these de novo acquired ARSI resistance mechanisms is critical for optimizing therapy., Materials and Methods: A novel liquid biopsy technology was used to collect mRNA from circulating tumor cells (CTCs) to measure expression of AR-Vs, AR targets, and neuroendocrine prostate cancer markers. An institutional review board-approved prospective cohort (N = 99) was used to identify patterns of gene expression. Two prospective multicenter phase II clinical trials of ARSIs for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01942837 [enzalutamide, N = 21] and NCT02025010 [abiraterone, N = 27]) were used to further validate these findings., Results: Hierarchical clustering of CTC transcripts identified two distinct clusters. Cluster 2 (C2) exhibited increased expression of AR-regulated genes and was associated with worse overall survival (median 8.6 v 22.4 months; P < .01; hazard ratio [HR] = 3.45 [1.9 to 6.14]). In multivariable analysis, C2 was prognostic independent of other clinicopathologic variables. AR-V status was not significant when accounting for C2. Upon further validation in pooled multicenter phase II trials, C2 was associated with worse overall survival (15.2 months v not reached; P < .01; HR = 8.43 [2.74 to 25.92]), prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (3.6 v 12 months; P < .01; HR = 4.64 [1.53 to 14.11]), and radiographic progression-free survival (2.7 v 40.6 months; P < .01; HR = 4.64 [1.82 to 17.41])., Conclusion: We demonstrate that a transcriptional profile detectable in CTCs obtained from liquid biopsies can serve as an independent prognostic marker beyond AR-V7 in patients with metastatic prostate cancer and can be used to identify the emergence of multiple ARSI resistance mechanisms. This is currently being investigated in additional prospective trials., Competing Interests: Hamid EmamekhooConsulting or Advisory Role: Exelixis, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Replimune, Merck, Calithera Biosciences, Roche/GenentechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: DAVA Pharmaceuticals Rana R. McKayConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Pfizer, Bayer, Tempus Xiao X. WeiHonoraria: OncLiveConsulting or Advisory Role: NovartisResearch Funding: Bristol Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Corvus Pharmaceuticals Rebecca SilverResearch Funding: Bayer Michael J. MorrisConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Endocyte, Advanced Accelerator Applications, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Curium Pharma, AthenexResearch Funding: Bayer, Sanofi, Endocyte, Progenics, Corcept Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, JanssenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Endocyte, Fujifilm Felix Y. FengConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas, Bayer, BlueEarth Diagnostics, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, Janssen, Myovant, Ryovant, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exact Sciences, Varian, Bluestar Genomics, SerimmunResearch Funding: Zenith Epigenetics Howard I. ScherConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Amgen, Janssen Research & Development, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, WIRB-Copernicus Group, ESSA, Ambry Genetics/Konica Minolta, Pfizer, Bayer, Sun PharmaResearch Funding: Janssen, Illumina, Epic Sciences, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Thermofisher Scientific BiomarkersPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: BioNTech—Intellectual Property Rights, Elucida Oncology—Intellectual Property Rights, MabVAX—Intellectual Property Rights, Y-mAbs Therapeutics Inc—Intellectual Property RightsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Asterias Biotherapeutics, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Amgen, WIRB-Copernicus Group, Konica Minolta, ESSA, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Sanofi, Bayer, Phosplatin Therapeutics Dana RathkopfConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Myovant SciencesResearch Funding: Janssen Oncology, Medivation, Celgene, Takeda, Millennium, Ferring, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, TRACON Pharma, Bayer, Phosplatin Therapeutics Scott M. DehmConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Oncternal Therapeutics, Janssen Research & DevelopmentResearch Funding: Janssen Research & Development, Medivation/AstellasPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from licensing genome-engineered prostate cancer cell lines Toni K. ChoueiriEmployment: Dana Farber Cancer HospitalLeadership: Dana Farber Cancer Hospital, NCCN, KidneyCAN, ASCOStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pionyr, Tempest TherapeuticsHonoraria: NCCN, UpToDate, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, ASCO, Harborside Press, Analysis Group, AstraZeneca, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Foundation Medicine, Eisai, PlatformQ Health, Clinical Care Options, Navinata Health, Kidney Cancer Association, Exelixis, Prometheus, Lpath, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, Cerulean Pharma, Alligent, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, Janssen Oncology, IQvia, Aveo, NCI GU Steering CommitteeConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Cerulean Pharma, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Prometheus, Alligent, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lpath, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, Peloton Therapeutics, UpToDate, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Analysis Group, Kidney Cancer Association, Clinical Care Options, PlatformQ Health, Navinata Health, Harborside Press, ASCO, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, ESMOResearch Funding: Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Exelixis, TRACON Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Peloton Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Celldex, Agensys, Eisai, Takeda, Prometheus, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Cerulean Pharma, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Bayer, Foundation Medicine, Roche, Calithera Biosciences, Analysis Group, NCI, Gateway for Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (DOD)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/058430, titled “Biomarkers of Clinical Response and Benefit to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy,” and International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/12209, titled “PBRM1 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint Response”Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Cerulean Pharma, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Prometheus, Alligent, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lpath, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, UpToDate, Peloton Therapeutics, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Analysis Group, Kidney Cancer Association, Clinical Care Options, PlatformQ Health, Harborside Press, Navinata Health, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, ESMOOther Relationship: Medical writing and editorial assistance support might have been funded by Communications companies funded by pharmaceutical companies such as ClinicalThinking, Health Interactions, Envision Pharma Group, Fishawack Group of Companies, Parexel Susan HalabiEmployment: ASCO Andrew J. ArmstrongHonoraria: Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs IncConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Dendreon, Pfizer, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Dendreon, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen Oncology, Astellas Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Merck, AstraZeneca, BeiGenePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Circulating tumor cell novel capture technologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc Alexander W. WyattHonoraria: Janssen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Merck, AstraZeneca CanadaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: ESSA Mary-Ellen TaplinHonoraria: Janssen-Ortho, Clovis Oncology, Astellas Pharma, Incyte, UpToDate, Research to Practice, Pfizer, Bayer, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Progenics, Guidepoint Global, Celgene, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Myovant Sciences, Roivant, AbbVie, Arcus Biosciences, Constellation PharmaceuticalsConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen-Ortho, Bayer, Guidepoint Global, Best Doctors Inc, UpToDate, Clovis Oncology, Research to Practice, Myovant Sciences, Incyte, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Arcus VenturesResearch Funding: Janssen-Ortho, Medivation, Bayer, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Medivation, Janssen Oncology, Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, Incyte, Pfizer, Clovis Oncology, Bayer Shuang G. ZhaoEmployment: Exact Sciences (I)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent applications pending with Decipher Biosciences, Exact Sciences Joshua M. LangStock and Other Ownership Interests: Salus DiscoveryConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, Immunomedics, Janssen, Pfizer/Astellas, 4D PharmaResearch Funding: Medivation, Agensys, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Bristol Myers Squibb, JanssenPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I am listed on the patent on a technology for rare cell capture and analysis. This technology has been licensed by Salus Discovery LLC although no commercial products are availableNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

High-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC) is associated with a substantial risk of recurrence and disease mortality. Recent clinical trials have shown that intensifying anti-androgen therapies administered before prostatectomy can induce pathologic complete responses or minimal residual disease, called exceptional response, although the molecular determinants of these clinical outcomes are largely unknown. Here, we perform whole-exome and transcriptome sequencing on pre-treatment multi-regional tumor biopsies from exceptional responders (ERs) and non-responders (NRs, pathologic T3 or lymph node-positive disease) to intensive neoadjuvant anti-androgen therapies. Clonal SPOP mutation and SPOPL copy-number loss are exclusively observed in ERs, while clonal TP53 mutation and PTEN copy-number loss are exclusively observed in NRs. Transcriptional programs involving androgen signaling and TGF-β signaling are enriched in ERs and NRs, respectively. These findings may guide prospective validation studies of these molecular features in large HRLPC clinical cohorts treated with neoadjuvant anti-androgens to improve patient stratification., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests I.L. is a consultant for PACT Pharma. G.G. receives research funds from IBM and Pharmacylics and is an inventor on patent applications related to MuTect, ABSOLUTE, MutSig, MSMuTect, MSMutSig, and POLYSOLVER. E.M.V. is a consultant for Tango Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Invitae, Enara Bio, Manifold Bio, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, and Janssen. E.M.V. provides research support to Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. E.M.V. has equity in Tango Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Syapse, Enara Bio, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Manifold Bio, and Microsoft. E.M.V. receives travel reimbursement from Roche/Genentech. E.M.V. has institutional patents filed on ERCC2 mutations and chemotherapy response, chromatin mutations and immunotherapy response, and methods for clinical interpretation., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Intense neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before radical prostatectomy (RP) is an investigational approach to reduce recurrence rates in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa). The impact of germline DNA damage repair (gDDR) gene alterations on response to intense neoadjuvant ADT is not known., Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of gDDR alterations among men with localized PCa at high risk of recurrence and evaluate their impact on response to intense neoadjuvant ADT., Design, Setting, and Participants: We performed germline panel sequencing for 201 men with intermediate- and high-risk localized PCa from five randomized multicenter clinical trials of intense neoadjuvant ADT before RP., Intervention: Intense neoadjuvant ADT followed by RP., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The prevalence of pathogenic gDDR alterations and their association with exceptional pathologic response (complete response or minimal residual disease, defined as residual tumor with the largest cross-section dimension ≤5 mm) to intense neoadjuvant ADT and rates of post-RP biochemical recurrence., Results and Limitations: Pathogenic gDDR alterations were detected in 19 (9.5%) of the 201 PCa patients. The most frequently altered genes were BRCA2 (n = 6; 3.0%) and ATM (n = 4; 2.0%). Patients with gDDR alterations exhibited similar rates of exceptional pathologic response (26% vs 22%), pT3 disease (42% vs 53%), lymph node involvement (5.3% vs 10%), extraprostatic extension (35% vs 54%), and positive margins (5.3% vs 13%) to patients without gDDR alterations (all p > 0.05). The 3-yr biochemical recurrence-free survival was also similar at 45% (95% confidence interval 7.9-78%) for men with gDDR alterations and 55% (95% confidence interval 44-64%) for men without gDDR alterations., Conclusions: gDDR alterations are common among men with intermediate- and high-risk localized PCa. Men with gDDR alterations appear to have a comparable response to intense neoadjuvant ADT to that among men without gDDR alterations and should not be excluded from consideration for this treatment approach., Patient Summary: Intense therapy to inhibit the production of androgen hormones (eg, testosterone) before surgery may minimize the risk of cancer recurrence for men with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Inherited mutations in certain DNA repair genes are associated with particularly high rates of recurrence. We found that men with these mutations respond equally well to this intense androgen inhibition before surgery as men without the mutations., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

There are no biomarkers predictive of resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel validated for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We assessed the association between ABCB1 amplification and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel for patients with mCRPC, using circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Patients with ≥1 plasma sample drawn within 12 months before starting docetaxel (cohort A) or cabazitaxel (cohort B) for mCRPC were identified from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute IRB approved database. Sparse whole genome sequencing was performed on the selected cfDNA samples and tumor fractions were estimated using the computational tool ichorCNA. We evaluated the association between ABCB1 amplification or other copy number alterations and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel. Of the selected 176 patients, 45 samples in cohort A and 21 samples in cohort B had sufficient tumor content. No significant association was found between ABCB1 amplification and primary resistance to docetaxel ( p = 0.58; odds ratio (OR) = 1.49) or cabazitaxel ( p = 0.97; OR = 1.06). No significant association was found between exploratory biomarkers and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel. In this study, ABCB1 amplification did not predict primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel for mCRPC. Future studies including ABCB1 amplification in a suite of putative biomarkers and a larger cohort may aid in drawing definitive conclusions.