Alumkal, Joshi J.

57 Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading non-cancer cause of death among men with prostate cancer (PC), particularly during androgen-deprivation therapy. While CVD risk-prediction models are well established in the general population, barriers to integration within oncology workflows remain poorly defined. Guided by the PRISM and RE-AIM frameworks, this study evaluated multilevel determinants influencing adoption, feasibility, and sustainability of CVD risk-assessment tools in PC care. Methods: A national, cross-sectional survey of 45 physicians (medical oncology 49%, urology 38%, radiation oncology 13%) from 18 U.S. states was conducted. Respondents represented early- (27%), mid- (36%), and late-career (38%) clinicians across academic (87%) and community (13%) settings. Quantitative items mapped to PRISM/RE-AIM domains assessed adaptability, cost/resource feasibility, effectiveness, equity, and sustainability; open-ended responses explored contextual barriers and facilitators. Descriptive statistics summarized quantitative data. Results: Physicians reported moderate-to-high readiness to adopt a CVD risk-assessment tool, emphasizing workflow alignment and EHR integration over algorithmic complexity. Table 1 summarizes domain-specific findings. Ninety-three percent of respondents favored lab-independent models that minimize workflow disruption. Conclusions: Pre-implementation analysis highlighted that structural barriers, rather than algorithmic or statistical limitations, remain the primary obstacles to adopting CVD risk-assessment tools in prostate-cancer care. Physicians emphasized the need for EHR-integrated, non-laboratory-based, and time-efficient tools that align with routine oncology workflows and minimize cross-specialty friction. Addressing these practical and organizational determinants may be pivotal to achieving equitable, scalable, and sustainable cardio-oncology implementation across diverse practice settings. PRISM and RE-AIM constructs evaluation results. Construct Likely/Very Likely (%) Interpretation Perceived Effectiveness 87% Broad confidence in clinical utility Equity in Patient Reach 75% Strong perceived equity in reach Equity in Effectiveness 73% Expected to perform consistently across populations Adaptability to Workflow 71% High compatibility with existing clinic workflows Cost/Resource Feasibility 65% Feasible for resource-constrained settings Likelihood of Adoption 60% Moderate readiness for implementation Equity in Adoption 58% Equitable uptake possible despite resource differences Reach to Target Population 57% Moderate likelihood of reaching most patients Sustainability Over Time 51% Moderate long-term feasibility Consistency of Implementation 42% Need for standardized protocols

PURPOSE The continuous development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotyping, genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states has created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trial conduct in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Methods We convened an international expert committee of diverse working groups, the Prostate Cancer Working Group 4 (PCWG4), between 2016 and 2025. Our objective was to formulate updated criteria based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in a biomarker context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and end point assessments for patients with advanced prostate cancer. RESULTS PCWG4 redefines terminology around the disease state and previous therapies in a patient-centric context and terminology focused on androgen pathway modulation. We consider imaging, with a particular focus on positron emission tomography (PET)–defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, response and delay/prevent end points, intervals for reassessments including imaging, and patient-reported outcome determination. We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context of use for the intended indication, reflective of patient benefit for specific interventions. We emphasize the need for development of validated PET imaging and molecular and phenotypic criteria as well as trial designs to appropriately risk stratify patients, predict and assess benefit, and measure post-treatment outcomes reliably in a trial framework. CONCLUSION PCWG4 updates recommendations on patient and tumor characterization, therapy development, and imaging criteria and extends guidance into earlier androgen pathway modulator–naïve/sensitive disease states to reflect an evolving, heterogeneous, and diverse patient population to optimize treatment benefits for all patients.

PURPOSE Preclinical studies suggest the combination of the poly(adenosine diphosphate[ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib and the ataxia telangiectasia–mutated and Rad3-related (ATR) inhibitor ceralasertib has synergistic antitumor activity in homologous recombination proficient (HRP) and homologous recombination repair gene mutation (HRRm) patients. This study aims to determine the efficacy of olaparib plus ceralasertib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with and without HRRm. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty-five HRP and 12 HRRm PARP inhibitor–naïve patients with mCRPC progressing on ≥1 line of therapy or previous androgen receptor pathway inhibitor were enrolled. Patients received olaparib (300 mg twice daily) and ceralasertib (160 mg once daily, days 1-7) in 28-day cycles. HRRm was defined as biallelic inactivation of BRCA2 or BRCA1 , monoallelic inactivation of ATM , or germline inactivation of any of these genes. The primary end point was disease response rate (dRR; confirmed prostate-specific antigen decline ≥50% and/or complete/partial radiographic response by RECIST v1.1) in HRP patients. Secondary end points included dRR in HRRm patients, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety/toxicity. Two-stage designs were used. RESULTS Four of 35 (11%; 95% CI, 3.2 to 26.7) HRP and four of 12 HRRm patients responded. Median PFS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.3 to not reached) for HRP patients. Thirty-six percent of patients had ≥grade 3 toxicity, most commonly from anemia. Limitations include small, single-arm, nonrandomized trial design. CONCLUSION Combining ceralasertib with olaparib had limited activity in patients with HRP mCRPC. HRRm response rate was not greater than previous single-agent PARP inhibitor clinical trials.

Purpose. This randomized phase 2 study sought to assess the treatment effect of a finite duration of apalutamide with and without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR PC). Materials and Methods. Patients with BCR PC after primary definitive therapy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time ≤12 months were randomized to open-label apalutamide (240 mg/d) alone, apalutamide plus ADT, or ADT alone (1 : 1:1 ratio) for 12 months followed by a 12-month observation period (NCT01790126). Mean changes from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) at 12 months (primary endpoint) and other prespecified assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), PSA nadir, time to PSA progression, time to testosterone recovery, recovered testosterone >150 ng/dL without PSA progression at 24 months, and molecular markers were evaluated. Results. In 90 enrolled patients (apalutamide plus ADT (n = 31), apalutamide (n = 29), ADT (n = 30)), FACT-P at 12 months was not significantly different between apalutamide, ADT and apalutamide, and ADT groups. Addition of apalutamide to ADT prolonged time to PSA progression but this change did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio (HR): 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23–1.36, P = 0.196 ); time to testosterone recovery was similar in the ADT-containing groups. In apalutamide plus ADT, apalutamide, and ADT groups, 37.9%, 37.0%, and 19.2% of patients, respectively, had testosterone >150 ng/dL at 24 months without confirmed PSA progression. Of the few biomarkers expressed in blood, EPHA3 was significantly associated with shorter time to PSA progression ( P = 0.02 ) in the overall population. Conclusions. HRQoL was similar in patients treated with apalutamide alone, ADT alone, or their combination, although apalutamide plus ADT did not demonstrate statistically significant noninferiority in change from baseline in overall HRQoL. The aggregated efficacy and safety outcomes support further evaluation of apalutamide plus ADT in BCR PC.

Abstract Decades of research into the molecular mechanisms of cancer and the development of novel therapeutics have yielded a number of remarkable successes. However, our ability to broadly assign effective, rationally targeted therapies in a personalized manner remains elusive for many patients, and drug resistance persists as a major problem. This is in part due to the well-documented heterogeneity of cancer, including the diversity of tumor cell lineages and cell states, the spectrum of somatic mutations, the complexity of microenvironments, and immune-suppressive features and immune repertoires, which collectively require numerous different therapeutic approaches. Here, we describe a framework to understand the types and biological causes of resistance, providing translational opportunities to tackle drug resistance by rational therapeutic strategies.

The substantial biological heterogeneity of metastatic prostate cancer has hindered the development of personalized therapeutic approaches. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the course of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), with some men remaining on first-line androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for several years while others progress more rapidly. Improving our ability to risk-stratify patients would allow for the optimization of systemic therapies and support the development of stratified prospective clinical trials focused on patients likely to have the greatest potential benefit. Here, we applied a liquid biopsy approach to identify clinically relevant, blood-based prognostic biomarkers in patients with mHSPC. Gene expression indicating the presence of CTCs was greater in CHAARTED high-volume (HV) patients (52% CTChigh) than in low-volume (LV) patients (23% CTChigh; * p = 0.03). HV disease (p = 0.005, q = 0.033) and CTC presence at baseline prior to treatment initiation (p = 0.008, q = 0.033) were found to be independently associated with the risk of nonresponse at 7 months. The pooled gene expression from CTCs of pre-ADT samples found AR, DSG2, KLK3, MDK, and PCA3 as genes predictive of nonresponse. These observations support the utility of liquid biomarker approaches to identify patients with poor initial response. This approach could facilitate more precise treatment intensification in the highest risk patients.

PURPOSEThere remains a lack of clarity regarding the influence of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) on outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). Herein, we evaluate the optimal sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT in localized PCa.METHODSMEDLINE (1966-2018), Embase (1982-2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings (1990-2018) were searched to identify randomized trials evaluating the sequencing, but not duration, of ADT with RT. Two randomized phase III trials were identified, and individual patient data were obtained: Ottawa 0101 and NRG Oncology's Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. Ottawa 0101 randomly assigned patients to neoadjuvant or concurrent versus concurrent or adjuvant short-term ADT. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413, a 2 × 2 factorial trial, included a random assignment of neoadjuvant or concurrent versus adjuvant short-term ADT. The neoadjuvant or concurrent ADT arms of both trials were combined into the neoadjuvant group, and the arms receiving adjuvant ADT were combined into the adjuvant group. The primary end point of this meta-analysis was progression-free survival (PFS).RESULTSThe median follow-up was 14.9 years. Overall, 1,065 patients were included (531 neoadjuvant and 534 adjuvant). PFS was significantly improved in the adjuvant group (15-year PFS, 29% v 36%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.25 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.47], P = .01). Biochemical failure (subdistribution HR [sHR], 1.37 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68], P = .002), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.95], P = .04), and metastasis-free survival (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.37], P = .050) were all significantly improved in the adjuvant group. There were no differences in late grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal (2% v 3%, P = .33) or genitourinary toxicity (5% v 5%, P = .76) between groups.CONCLUSIONThe sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT has significant association with long-term PFS and MFS in localized PCa. Our findings favor use of an adjuvant over a neoadjuvant approach, without any increase in long-term toxicity.

320 Background: While there is no standard therapy for BCR PC following local therapy, intermittent ADT is widely used. We evaluated utility of APA alone, ADT (luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist [LHRHa]) alone, or APA + LHRHa in ADT-naïve BCR PC pts. Methods: Pts with BCR PC after primary definitive local therapy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 12 mo were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label 240 mg APA daily, LHRHa alone, or APA + LHRHa for 12 mo, followed by a 12-mo observation period off therapy. Pts were stratified by PSADT (< 6 vs 6-12 mo) and age (≤ 70 vs > 70 y). Primary end point: mean change from baseline (BL) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) per Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate total score at 12 mo. Secondary end points included PSA nadir < 0.2 ng/mL by 7 mo, time to PSA progression (TTPpsa), and time to testosterone (T) recovery. Results: 90 pts (APA, n = 29; LHRHa, n = 30; APA + LHRHa, n = 31) were treated for median of 12 mo with similar distribution of BL characteristics across groups: 67% age ≤ 70 y; 67% PSADT < 6 mo. There was no significant difference in HRQoL in APA vs LHRHa at 12 mo, or between LHRHa vs APA + LHRHa groups. At median follow-up of 30-33 mo, TTPpsa in APA, LHRHa, and APA + LHRHa groups was 26 mo, 31 mo, and 36 mo, respectively. Compared to LHRHa alone, APA + LHRHa resulted in a trend toward improved TTPpsa (HR [95% CI] 0.56 [0.23-1.36], p = 0.196), and APA alone resulted in a trend for shorter TTPpsa (HR 1.09 [0.49-2.43], p = 0.824). PSA nadir < 0.2 ng/mL was reached in 89%, 89%, and 97% in APA, LHRHa, and APA + LHRHa pts. Median time to T recovery was similar in LHRHa and APA + LHRHa groups (23 mo vs 24 mo). Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 17% of APA, 14% of LHRHa, and 29% of APA + LHRHa pts. The only grade 3-4 AE reported in > 1 pt per group was hypertension (APA, 3%; LHRHa, 0; APA + LHRHa, 13%). Conclusions: Addition of APA to LHRHa resulted in a trend for longer TTPpsa and a higher proportion of pts achieving optimal PSA nadir without significant difference in HRQoL or time to T recovery. Observed AEs were consistent with known safety profiles. Results support further evaluation of APA + LHRHa for a specified duration in BCR PC. Clinical trial information: NCT01790126.