Dahut, William L.

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 Approximately 50% of prostate cancer (PCa) patients harbor fusions involving the TMPRSS2 and ERG genes. Despite this, tailored therapies targeting the fused gene, tERG , remain undeveloped. Our study analyzed biopsy samples from two clinical trials assessing the efficacies of androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors (ARSIs). The results revealed that tERG promotes resistance to ARSIs and is associated with elevated levels of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR). Subsequent assays showed that GR directly interacts with tERG, alleviates allosteric autoinhibition and prevents chemotherapy-induced tERG degradation. In PCa models, either inhibiting GR or lowering cortisol levels suppressed tumor growth in tERG-positive models, but not in fusion-negative models. In addition, patient-derived fusion-positive xenografts displayed enhanced sensitivity to combined GR and AR inhibitors. Collectively, these findings highlight TMPRSS2-ERG as a new biomarker and propose that simultaneous inhibition of GR and AR may specifically benefit tERG -positine patients. However, GR stimulatory corticosteroid therapies may not be advisable for this patient subgroup.

Abstract Telemedicine has routinely been used in cancer care delivery for the past 3 years. The current state of digital health provides convenience and efficiency for both health-care professional and patient, but challenges exist in equitable access to virtual services. As increasingly newer technologies are added to telehealth platforms, it is essential to eliminate barriers to access through technical, procedural, and legislative improvements. Moving forward, implementation of new strategies can help eliminate disparities in virtual cancer care, facilitate delivery of treatment in the home, and improve real-time data collection for patient safety and clinical trial participation. The ultimate goal will be to extend high-quality survival for all patients with cancer through improved digital delivery of cancer care.

PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.