Crawford, E. David

Background: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. Results: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. Conclusions: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

Purpose: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. Results: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. Conclusions: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

Purpose: The advent of new imaging agents offers enhanced sensitivity and specificity in the detection and staging of prostate cancer. A growing array of treatment options and ongoing advancements in imaging technologies allow earlier and more extensive detection of metastatic disease and shifting the boundaries between disease states previously defined by conventional imaging. This review seeks to synthesize existing data and expert opinion to better guide patient management in the new era of targeted precision imaging (TPI). Materials and Methods: The Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence VI Group gathered to develop pathways/recommendations regarding how TPI could best be deployed, given approvals of key radiotracers including 18F-fluciclovine, 68Ga-PSMA, and 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/CT. Results: Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence VI Group members developed consensus pathways/suggestions based on the best available evidence for use of TPI in prostate cancer. Conclusions: Patients with prostate cancer have the potential to benefit from judicious use of TPI. However, additional research is needed to ensure that TPI is used appropriately and provides actionable findings that inform treatment decisions for these patients.

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.

Purpose Palliation of bone pain can be achieved in men with androgen-independent prostate cancer treated with docetaxel and estramustine (DE) or mitoxantrone and prednisone (MP). While Southwest Oncology Group trial 99-16 demonstrated a survival improvement of DE over MP, the study also was designed to compare the palliation of disease-related symptoms. Methods Pain palliation and global quality of life (QOL) were the two primary patient-reported outcomes. Pain was measured with the Present Pain Intensity scale of the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (QLQ-C30) and its Prostate Cancer Module (PR25) measured QOL and symptom status. Pain and analgesic use were measured at random assignment, every cycle for eight cycles, and 1 year from random assignment; the QLQ-C30 and the PR25 were administered at random assignment, before cycle four (week 10) and cycle eight (month 6) and at 1 year. In addition to the primary intent-to-treat, missing at random analysis, sensitivity analyses were performed to assess robustness of global QOL conclusions under alternative informative missing data assumptions. Results Six hundred seventy four eligible patients received DE (n = 338) or MP (n = 336). In an intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival was 17.5 months for the DE arm and 15.6 months for the MP arm (P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences in pain palliation between the treatment arms. The sensitivity analyses showed a consistent lack of statistically significant global QOL differences for the two arms. Conclusion DE had superior clinical efficacy (overall survival, time-to-progression, and prostate-specific antigen declines) with similar global QOL and pain palliation in the MP arm.

Purpose: To evaluate the role of adjuvant interferon alfa after complete resection of locally extensive renal cell carcinoma. Patients and Methods: A total of 283 eligible patients with pT3–4a and/or node-positive disease were randomly assigned after radical nephrectomy and lymphadenectomy to observation or to interferon alfa-NL (Wellferon, Burroughs-Wellcome, Research Park, NC) given daily for 5 days every 3 weeks for up to 12 cycles. Patients were stratified on the basis of pathologic stage. Patients remained on treatment until documented recurrence, excessive toxicity, or patient/physician preference deemed removal appropriate. Results: At median follow-up of 10.4 years, median survival was 7.4 years in the observation arm and 5.1 year in the treatment arm (log-rank P = .09). Median recurrence-free survival was 3.0 years in the observation arm and 2.2 years in the interferon arm (P = .33). Performance status (P = .003), nodal status (N2 v N0, P < .0001), and tumor stage (P = .0002) were significant prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. A proportional hazards model examining the effects of treatment arm and time to recurrence on survival after recurrence among patients who recurred found that random assignment to interferon treatment (P = .009) and shorter time to recurrence (P < .0001) were independent predictors of shorter survival after recurrence. Although no lethal toxicities were observed, severe (grade 4) toxicities including neutropenia, myalgia, fatigue, depression, and other neurologic toxicities occurred in 11.4% of those randomly assigned to interferon treatment. Conclusion: Adjuvant treatment with interferon did not contribute to survival or relapse-free survival in this group of patients.