Yu, Evan Y.

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.

Purpose This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel monotherapy or docetaxel in combination with ramucirumab (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antibody) or icrucumab (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 antibody) after progression during or within 12 months of platinum-based regimens for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle (arm A), docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV plus ramucirumab 10 mg/kg IV on day 1 of a 3-week cycle (arm B), or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV on day 1 plus icrucumab 12 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle (arm C). Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results A total of 140 patients were randomly assigned and treated in arms A (n = 45), B (n = 46), or C (n = 49). PFS was significantly longer in arm B compared with arm A (median, 5.4 months; 95% CI, 3.1 to 6.9 months v 2.8 months; 95% CI, 1.9 to 3.6 months; stratified hazard ratio, 0.389; 95% CI, 0.235 to 0.643; P = .0002). Arm C did not experience improved PFS compared with arm A (1.6 months; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.9; stratified hazard ratio, 0.863; 95% CI, 0.550 to 1.357; P = .5053). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events (arms A, B, and C) were neutropenia (36%, 33%, and 39%), fatigue (13%, 30%, and 20%), febrile neutropenia (13%, 17%, and 6.1%), and anemia (6.7%, 13%, and 14%, respectively). Conclusion The addition of ramucirumab to docetaxel met the prespecified efficacy end point for prolonging PFS in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma receiving second-line treatment and warrants further investigation in the phase III setting.