Orme, Jacob J.

Abstract Enfortumab vedotin (EV), pembrolizumab, and EV plus pembrolizumab (EV/P) have rapidly reshaped the treatment landscape of advanced urothelial carcinoma, but toxicity increasingly determines treatment delivery, treatment continuity, and real-world benefit. As EV/P moves into broader clinical use, clinicians must distinguish adverse events related to antibody-drug conjugate exposure from immune-mediated toxicities and recognize syndromes in which both mechanisms may contribute. In this practical, mechanism-informed review, we synthesize pivotal trials, mature follow-up reports, and representative real-world cohorts describing the safety of EV monotherapy, pembrolizumab monotherapy, and EV/P in urothelial carcinoma. Because adverse-event reporting and ascertainment are heterogeneous across studies, including differences in preferred terms, composite categories, grading frameworks, and treatment-related versus all-cause reporting, we emphasize clinically interpretable patterns rather than pooled estimates. EV monotherapy is characterized by cutaneous toxicity, peripheral neuropathy, hyperglycemia, dysgeusia, and ocular events, including early epithelial/metabolic events and cumulative neuropathy. Pembrolizumab monotherapy has a lower overall high-grade toxicity burden but is defined by immune-mediated endocrinopathies, pneumonitis, hepatitis, colitis, and nephritis. Combination therapy produces a predictable overlap of these toxicity domains, creating diagnostic and management challenges for syndromes such as skin toxicity, diarrhea, fatigue, and pulmonary symptoms. We provide comparative visual toxicity signatures, regimen-specific summary tables, temporal toxicity mapping, and a pragmatic attribution framework that classifies events as EV-predominant, immune-predominant, overlap/indeterminate, or high-risk requiring initial interruption of both agents. This review aims to support bedside recognition, provisional attribution, early management, and safer implementation of EV/P in contemporary urothelial carcinoma practice.

Purpose Radioligand therapy (RLT) with [ 177 Lu] Lu-PSMA-617 has shown significant benefits in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), including prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as improved quality of life. For patients previously treated with [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 who subsequently experience disease progression, retreatment with [ 177 Lu] Lu-PSMA-617 has emerged as a potential approach, yet data on the outcomes of RLT retreatment remains limited. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of retreatment RLT in mCRPC. Methods Clinical and imaging data of patients who underwent at least two cycles of [ 177 Lu] Lu-PSMA-617, followed by a second course of treatment with [ 177 Lu] Lu-PSMA-617 between March 2018 and December 2024, were retrospectively reviewed. Endpoints included biochemical response, imaging response, toxicity, PSA-PFS, rPFS, and OS. Radiologic and biochemical responses were evaluated using RECIST 1.1 criteria and PSA levels, respectively. Results A total of 589 patients underwent [ 177 Lu] Lu-PSMA-617 RLT, of whom 20 (3.4%, 20/589) received RLT retreatment. The median age was 71.3 years (range: 63.7–95.2), and the median follow-up was 73.3 months (95% CI, 35.7–77.2 months) after the initial treatment and 21.7 months (95% CI, 16.9–26.0 months) after retreatment. The initial treatment involved a median of 4.5 cycles (range: 2–6). Following the first course of RLT, 15 patients (75%, 15/20) had exhibited a >50% decline in PSA levels, including 9 who achieved a >90% decrease. Additionally, 12 patients (60%, 12/20) had demonstrated a complete or partial imaging response, while 3 (15%, 3/20) patients had stable disease, and 5 (25%, 5/20) patients had progressive radiologic disease. Patients received a median of 4 retreatment cycles (range, 1–6), and the median interval between initial RLT and retreatment RLT was 33.1 months (IQR, 16.2–48.9 months; range, 10.7–58.8 months). A PSA decline of ≥50% was observed in 9 out of 20 patients (45%, 9/20). An imaging response was observed in 10 patients (50%, 10/20), with 4 achieving a complete response and 6 achieving a partial response, whereas 10 patients (50%, 10/20) showed progression. The median PSA-PFS was 9.8 months (95% CI, 4.1–17.9 months), and the median rPFS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 3.3–17.9 months). Eight deaths occurred during follow-up. The estimated Kaplan Meier OS rates were 83.6% at 12 months (95% CI, 57.3%–94.4%) and 53.7% at 24 months (95% CI, 28.3%–73.7%). Grade 2 renal toxicity was observed in one patient (5%, 1/20). Three patients (15%, 3/20) developed Grade 2 anemia. Notably, no grade 3 or grade 4 adverse events were observed during either treatment period. Conclusion In our cohort, retreatment with [¹ 77 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RLT was associated with biochemical and imaging responses in some patients, with observed survival outcomes that support further investigation. However, given the retrospective single-arm design and small sample size, large prospective studies are needed to more rigorously evaluate the safety, efficacy, and optimal patient selection for retreatment RLT.

Abstract BACKGROUND [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 improves survival and quality of life in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but requires substantial healthcare involvement. Our analysis evaluated the time toxicity associated with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617, representing the first dedicated radioligand time toxicity assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective study of patients initiating [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 between April 2022 and March 2023. Patients were followed from first [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 administration until 3 months after the final cycle, initiation of new systemic therapy, or death. Time toxicity was quantified as healthcare contact days during the at-risk interval. Associations with baseline characteristics were evaluated using negative binomial regression models. Univariate and multivariable models were performed. RESULTS Among 135 patients, median age was 69 years and median prior systemic therapies was 4. Patients completed a median of 5 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 cycles over 7.6 months. Median healthcare contact days were 20 (IQR, 15–28), representing 9.5% (IQR, 6.4–13.9) of at-risk days. Fifteen patients (11%) experienced high time toxicity (>1 contact day per 5 days), while 42 (31%) had low time toxicity (≤1 contact day per 14 days). Among the 57 patients who received both cycle 1 and cycle 6, mean per cycle healthcare contact days were 4 and 3.6, respectively (paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p = 0.04). Routine oncology visits comprised 32.7% of contact days, compared with 8.8% from hospitalizations. Lower baseline hemoglobin was independently associated with greater time toxicity (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79–0.96; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION In heavily pretreated patients, [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 demonstrated relatively low time toxicity, supporting it as a time-efficient therapy.

ABSTRACT Management of prostate cancer has improved over the past two decades, driven by innovations in detection of metastatic disease, biomarker characterization, and treatment. This review summarizes the latest progress in managing advanced states of this disease, spanning high risk biochemical recurrence, metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), and metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Improved outcomes for patients have been seen with earlier use of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors in the setting of high risk biochemical recurrence and mHSPC. Meanwhile, individuals with mCRPC now represent a more diverse population, differentiated by both their previous treatments and other biological features. Advanced imaging and genomic biomarkers improve patient selection and permit more personalized therapy. Landmark clinical trials and meta-analyses have established and/or refined the role of chemotherapy, poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, and 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in this disease space. Finally, as patients with prostate cancer are living longer, the review focuses on understanding and managing potential adverse events, including cardiac and hematologic toxicity and bone health.

Background The optimal management of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial, particularly in the absence of clinical or radiographic evidence of disease. Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) remains standard of care, but it is unclear whether SRT benefits patients when modern imaging with a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and prostate‐specific membrane antigen‐positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA‐PET/CT) are negative for local recurrence. Retrospective data comparing SRT to observation for such patients is fraught with selection bias, underscoring the need for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Study Design and Methods The Biochemical Recurrence Irradiation or Observation (BRIO) is a randomised study under the DIVINE trial framework (NCT06378866) enrolling men with BCR (prostate‐specific antigen [PSA] level ≥0.2, up to 1.5 ng/mL) after RP with no radiographic evidence of recurrence on mpMRI and PSMA‐PET/CT. Major inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after RP with a PSA level between 0.2 and 1.5 ng/mL, and no local or metastatic recurrence on imaging. A total of 312 patients will be enrolled. Participants are randomised 1:1 to standard‐of‐care SRT followed by surveillance (Group A), or initial observation with subsequent image‐guided therapy at radiographic progression (Group B). Based on historical analysis, a total of 30 metastasis events provides 80% power to detect a significant improvement (hazard ratio 0.5 corresponding to a 5‐year metastasis‐free proportion of 80.7% in the control group and 89.8% in the experimental group with one‐sided type I error rate of 0.15). All participants undergo baseline blood collection to measure prostate cancer‐extracellular vesicles and cell‐free DNA for biomarker development. Participants are followed in a 16‐week cycle with serial PSA measurements, repeat imaging if PSA doubles, safety assessment, and patient‐reported outcomes. Endpoints The primary endpoint is distant recurrence‐free survival at 5‐years using a 12‐month landmark to mitigate bias arising from differing assessment schedules for patients receiving optional 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. Key secondary outcomes include time to hormone therapy, quality of life measures, adverse effects, and novel blood and urine biomarkers. Conclusion The BRIO study will clarify the clinical benefit of immediate SRT vs observation with image‐guided intervention in mpMRI and PET‐negative BCR after RP.