Morgans, Alicia K.

5005 Background: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) may have distinct central nervous system (CNS) penetration and differential effects on cognition or quality of life (QOL). AFT-47, “ARACOG” is a prospective, randomized open-label phase 2 trial comparing objective and patient-reported cognitive and QOL outcomes between patients with metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) or non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treated with darolutamide (DAR) or enzalutamide (ENZ). Methods: Between 8/17/2021 and 3/11/2025, 111 pts were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to treatment with ENZ or DAR. CANTAB, a validated computer-based platform evaluating 5 cognitive domains (PALFAM-memory recall, SWM- spatial working memory, SSP-short-term visual memory, working memory, RVP-rapid visual processing, and OTSMCC- executive function), was performed at baseline, 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Crossover (Xover) was allowed at 12 or 24 weeks for significant pre-specified decline in cognitive testing or patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), or for CNS-associated adverse events, including falls. The primary endpoint was the percent change in the maximally changed cognitive domain (MCCD) from baseline to 24 weeks and was compared between groups with the Wilcoxon rank sum statistic. Patients crossing over prior to 24 weeks were evaluated at the time of Xover and analyzed with their randomized arm. Secondary endpoints included comparison of Xover rates. Results: Among 111 pts, 55 received DAR and 56 received ENZ; median age was 71, 83% White. 95 pts (48 DAR, 47 ENZ) were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Baseline CANTAB was similar between groups. Median cognitive change in MCCD between baseline and 24 weeks was -15.8% and -36.1% for the DAR and ENZ pts, respectively (p = 0.009) (Table). Individual cognitive domains suggest possible learning effect (increased scores) for DAR and are stable or show mild decline for ENZ treated patients at 24 weeks. 32 DAR (58%) and 33 ENZ (59%) participants were eligible for Xover by 24 weeks, and 23 pts crossed over by 24 weeks. All Xover was pts randomized to ENZ (crossed to DAR), with the most common causes being decline in objective (N = 14) or subjective (N = 11) cognitive testing. Conclusions: In this US randomized trial comparing DAR to ENZ, the primary endpoint of differential cognitive effects was met. ENZ showed significantly greater cognitive score decline than DAR at 24 weeks in the MCCD after treatment initiation. Learning effect was seen with DAR but not ENZ. Longer term follow-up of cognitive change and PROM analyses are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT04335682 . Percent change in maximally changed cognitive domain by treatment. DAR (N=48) ENZ (N=47) Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test Result CANTAB domain PALFAM SWM Degree of change -15.8 (-38.8, -2.6) -36.1 (-59.3, -16.7) P=0.009

10610 Background: The role for genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients (pts) has expanded to find pts with germline pathogenic variants (PV) for therapeutic opportunities given FDA-approvals for PARP inhibitors in metastatic PCa as well as understanding familial cancer risk and opportunities for tailored screening and risk reduction. The PROMISE Registry (NCT04995198) was set up as a genetic registry to partner with PCa pts for rapid access to a new standard of care given insurance coverage and clinical implementation were initially major barriers. A second goal is to characterize disease features and treatment outcomes to inform management and provide updates about novel therapeutic clinical trials, both of which remain important to rare genetic variant carriers. Methods: PROMISE is a US decentralized prospective PCa genetic registry initiated in 2021 with initial phase to enroll and provide clinical-grade germline genetic testing (30 gene cancer-specific panel) to 5,000 PCa pts to identify ~500 PCa pts with variants of interest (pathogenic variants, PV, and variants of uncertain significance, VUS) in DNA repair genes for long-term clinical follow-up of 15 years (LTFU). Here, we report the initial phase testing results and identification of the LTFU cohort. Study design and enrollment strategy have been reported separately. Results: Between 2021-2026, 7,275 pts with any stage PCa across 50 US states self-consented to PROMISE, of which 5,674 (78%) of pts completed genetic testing, indicating feasibility of patient-directed, decentralized enrollment. We have identified 495 (8.7%) pts for LTFU. Baseline data is reported for n=367 (Table 1, will be updated at time of presentation). The most frequently observed PV/LPV variants being in CHEK2 (25%) , BRCA2 (23%) , ATM (12%) , and BRCA1 (4.6%). At the time of PCa diagnosis, the majority of LTFU pts had non-metastatic disease, with 47% of pts with Gleason>7, median PSA of 5 ng/mL, and median time from diagnosis to PROMISE GT of 25 months. Conclusions: PROMISE is a nationwide decentralized PCa genetic registry that has completed initial goal to recruit 5,000 PCa pts to offer germline genetic testing and recruit a cohort of 500 for LTFU. Data about diagnosis characteristics are reported, and analysis of ongoing disease course, treatment response/outcomes and overall survival is being collected. Clinical trial information: NCT04995198 . Long-term follow-up participant demographics. Characteristic Overall, N = 367 Age at Diagnosis (yrs) 63 (57, 69) Race N = 361 (6, nr) Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Multiracial, Other 22 (6.0%) Black or African American 22 (6.0%) White 317 (86%) Disease State at Diagnosis N = 348 (19, nr) Metastatic 46 (13%) Non-metastatic 302 (87%) Time from Diagnosis to PROMISE GT (months) 25 (4, 82) Gleason Score N = 280 (87, nr) </= 7 148 (53%) >7 132 (47%) PSA At Diagnosis (ng/mL) 5 (0, 10) (88, nr) Subjects with baseline data entered. nr=not reported. Median (Q1, Q3); n (%).

Abstract Purpose: This multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of cabazitaxel and carboplatin followed by abiraterone, plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), in patients with high-volume metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had high-volume mCSPC and ≤3 months of prior ADT. Patients received six 21-day cycles of cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 4) with continuous ADT, followed by maintenance abiraterone (1,000 mg daily) and prednisone (5 mg daily). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients free of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or radiographic progression at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included complete PSA response (≤0.2 ng/mL), objective response, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Overall survival (OS) was also reported. Results: Sixty-one participants were enrolled at eight sites. The median age was 64 years, median baseline PSA was 6.6 ng/mL (0.07–745.7 ng/mL), 73.3% had Gleason grade group 5, 69.5% had 10 or more metastases, and 19.6% had a homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutation. PSA PFS at 12 months was 84.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 72.5%–91.7%], and OS at 12 months was 94.8% (84.7%–98.3%). Complete PSA response was 66.7%, and complete objective response was 30.7%. Contrary to our hypothesis, relative to HRR wild-type patients, HRR-mutated patients (19.6%) had numerically fewer complete PSA responses (33.3% vs. 70.3%) and inferior PFS (HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 0.93–6.39). Common side effects of this quadruplet regimen included fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea. Conclusions: Cabazitaxel and carboplatin followed by abiraterone, together with ADT, were feasible, safe, and efficacious in patients with high-volume mCSPC and warrant further study in larger randomized trials.

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

162 Background: Clinical trial conduct in advanced prostate cancer has changed dramatically with the continued development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotypes and genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states. This created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trials. Methods: We convened PCWG4, an international expert committee of multidisciplinary working groups, between 2016 and 2025 to update and expand PCWG2-3 recommendations based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in an innovative biomarker and imaging context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and endpoint assessments. Results: PCWG4 redefines terminology around disease states and prior therapies in a patient-centric context, considering imaging modalities, with a particular focus on PET-defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, imaging and non-imaging-based responses. We define delay/prevent endpoints including responses by pathology, ctDNA, circulating tumor cells, and PSA declines, and specify intervals for re-assessments including imaging, biomarker assessments, and patient reported outcomes. We propose new imaging-specific rPFS criteria including guidance with serial PSMA PET/CT imaging (Table). We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context for the 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. Conclusions: PCWG4 expands guidance on patient and tumor profiling, as well as therapy development, to include both androgen deprivation therapy sensitive and resistant settings, reflecting today’s more heterogeneous and diverse patient population to optimize outcomes. PCWG4-defined radiographic progression by imaging modality for patients with metastatic disease. Pretreatment Scan On-treatment Scan #1(≥week 8) On-treatment Scan #2 All Subsequent Scans Bone scintigraphy Comparator Comparator for subsequent scansPOD never called here POD:PCWG3 criteria (2+2 additional new lesions) POD:≤5 new lesions: PCWG3 criteria 2 new lesions confirmed≥6 new lesions CT/MRI Any measurable disease Comparator PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PSMA PET Bones, and lymph nodes and lung metastases (non-RECIST qualifying by + on PET only) Comparator POD:≤5 new lesions: 2 new lesions confirmed on a subsequent scan≥6 new lesions Same as prior Same as prior Liver and non-pulmonary viscera Comparator POD:Any single new lesion that represents disease Same as prior Same as prior

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.

Abstract Introduction: The standard of care for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved with the expanded approval of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) alongside androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). ADT alone has been shown to affect cognitive function. However, the cognitive impact of distinct treatment combinations remains unclear. We investigated the association between first-line systemic treatments and the trajectory of subjective cognitive function among mHSPC survivors in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN). Methods: This analysis included 2435 newly diagnosed mHSPC patients enrolled across 15 countries between July 2017 and August 2024. Treatments were reported by site personnel and physicians. For this analysis, we focused on first-line systemic treatment and classified treatment groups at enrollment as ADT monotherapy (referent), ADT + ARPIs, or ADT + chemotherapy. Subjective cognitive function was assessed via the EORTC QLQ-C30 Cognitive Function subscale, with patient-reported scores (range 0-100) collected at enrollment and every 3 months for up to 5 years; higher scores reflect better cognitive function. Associations were estimated using linear mixed effects models with clustering by study site and country to examine differences at enrollment and across trajectories of subjective cognitive function by first-line treatment, adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. Results: Median age at enrollment was 70 years, with a median follow-up of 1.7 years. 724 (30%) participants were treated with ADT monotherapy, 1317 (54%) with ADT + ARPIs, and 394 (16%) with ADT + chemotherapy. Mean cognitive function scores at enrollment were 85.4 (Standard Deviation [SD] 19.5) for participants treated with ADT monotherapy, 86.7 (SD 17.3) for ADT + ARPIs, and 86.7 (SD 18.0) for ADT + chemotherapy. Cognitive function scores decreased by -0.60 points (95% Confidence Interval [CI] -0.72, -0.48) per year among those treated with ADT monotherapy, with similar rates observed for those treated with ADT + chemotherapy. Participants treated with ADT + ARPIs had a slower decline in cognitive function, with scores decreasing by -0.36 points (95% CI -0.60, -0.08) per year. Conclusion: In this international cohort of mHSPC survivors, subjective cognitive function scores were generally high at enrollment but declined over time. There was no evidence of worse cognitive function in those treated with ADT + ARPIs nor ADT + chemotherapy over time compared to ADT monotherapy. Cognitive functioning is a key component of survivorship, and defining cognitive trajectories associated with first-line treatment can inform supportive interventions, patient treatment decision-making, and clinical guidelines. Citation Format: Michelle O. Sodipo, Alicia K. Morgans, Erica T. Warner, Emily M. Rencsok, Lauren E. Howard, Colleen B. McGrath, Anna Siefkas, Konrad H. Stopsack, Christopher Sauer, Robert Drecier, Emilio Esteban, Hassan M. Dogo, Ademola Popoola, Charles Waihenya, Anders Bjartell, Kim Chi, Sebastien Hotte, Richard Cathomas, Deborah Enting, Scott Tagawa, Michael Ong, David Lorente, Elisabeth Heath, Rana McKay, Stefanie Fischer, Heather H. Cheng, Young E. Whang, Frederic Pouliot, Simon Crabb, Monica Chatwal, Miguel A. Climent, Raymond McDermott, Ian D. Davis, Camille Ragin, Folakemi Odedina, Natalie Greaves, Simone Badal, Simon Anderson, Sharon Harrison, Karen Autio, Laurel Cannon, Marie Grant, Alyssa Chan-Cuzydlo, Travis Gerke, Hannah D. McManus, Philip W. Kantoff, Daniel George, Sebastien Haneuse, Lorelei A. Mucci, on behalf of the IRONMAN Registry. First-line therapies and subjective cognitive function trajectories among international metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer survivors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 3630.

Indications for and implications of germline genetic testing (GGT) in patients with prostate cancer have expanded over the past decade, particularly related to precision therapies and management. GGT has become the standard of care for many cancers such as breast, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and metastatic prostate cancer, and it is imperative that patients be offered timely and equitable access to testing as it can inform patient-physician shared decision making for management of the current cancer as well as anticipatory guidance for disease progression. Additionally, GGT guides screening for and prevention of secondary malignancies for the patient and cascade testing for at-risk family members. Here, we present data supporting the notion that clinicians should offer all patients with prostate cancer the opportunity to undergo comprehensive GGT for pathogenic germline variants known to be associated with familial cancer and/or known to have implications for treatment and management.

AbstractCurrent US clinical practice guidelines for advanced prostate cancer management contain recommendations based on high‐level evidence from randomized controlled trials; however, these guidelines do not address the nuanced clinical questions that are unanswered by prospective trials but nonetheless encountered in day‐to‐day practice. To address these practical questions, the 2024 US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC 2024) was created to generate US‐focused expert clinical decision‐making guidance for circumstances in which level 1 evidence is lacking. At the second annual USPCC meeting (USPCC 2024), a multidisciplinary panel of experts convened to discuss ongoing clinical challenges related to 5 topic areas: biochemical recurrence; metastatic, castration‐sensitive prostate cancer; poly [ADP‐ribose] polymerase inhibitors; prostate‐specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy; and metastatic, castration‐resistant prostate cancer. Through a modified Delphi process, 34 consensus recommendations were developed and are intended to provide clinicians who manage prostate cancer with guidance related to the implementation of novel treatments and technologies. In this report, the authors review the areas of consensus identified by the USPCC 2024 experts and evaluate ongoing unmet needs regarding translational application of the current clinical evidence.

12079 Background: Many troublesome symptoms experienced by men with prostate cancer are not specific to a particular disease state or treatment modality. As such, these issues' scope is neither fully appreciated nor characterized in the reporting of clinical trial data. A modern accounting of poorly controlled symptoms is needed to better inform survivorship and supportive care efforts. Methods: Data are drawn from the Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) study, a cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial examining the effectiveness of routine symptom assessment and management on patient-centered outcomes and healthcare utilization (NCT03892967). This is a population-level study supporting patients with cancer, who are cared for in medical oncology clinics across the Midwest United States. The trial utilizes an automated symptom monitoring system with EHR-enabled algorithms for symptom triage and intervention. The current analysis focuses on pre-intervention surveys. The cohort includes E2C2 participants with prostate cancer (as determined by the Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry) receiving curative or palliative-intent therapies, along with prostate cancer survivors who previously completed their treatment. The prevalence of SPPADE symptoms (sleep disturbance, pain, impaired physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue [low energy]) was assessed using 0 to 10 numerical rating scales (NRS), with scores of 4-6 indicating moderate symptoms and 7-10 indicating severe symptoms. Results: A total of 1,388 men with prostate cancer completed a pre-intervention survey between March 2019 and January 2023. The median age at completion of first survey was 74 years. The cohort includes patients living in diverse settings, including urban (n=718, 52%), micropolitan (n=250, 18%), small town (n=218, 16%), and rural (n=200, 14%) environments. The proportion of patients experiencing moderate-to-severe symptoms (NRS score ≥4) was 47% for fatigue, 40% for impaired physical function, 32% for sleep disturbance, 27% for pain, 22% for anxiety, and 20% for depression/emotional distress. The three domains with the highest prevalence of severe symptoms (NRS score ≥7) were fatigue (17%), impaired physical function (12%), and sleep disturbance (10%). Conclusions: Proactive symptom monitoring identifies a high overall burden of moderate-to-severe symptoms, particularly fatigue and impaired physical function, among prostate cancer patients and survivors. Collaborative care approaches and symptom control trials are needed to mitigate and manage these burdensome symptoms. Clinical trial information: NCT03892967 . [Table: see text]