Cheng, Heather H.

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 (%).

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.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions for patients with prostate cancer across the disease spectrum. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). For patients with mCSPC, disease characteristics, such as whether metastases arose synchronously or metachronously and the degree of metastatic burden, impact therapy decisions, including how much treatment intensification is appropriate and when prostate-directed and/or metastasis-directed therapy should be considered. In the mCRPC setting, androgen deprivation therapy is continued with the sequential or concurrent addition of certain androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, biomarkers, the extent and location of metastases, symptoms, and potential side effects.

Abstract Introduction: Most people who die from prostate cancer are older than 75 years. However, prostate cancer diagnosed at younger ages is often more aggressive. While epidemiologic studies have examined the association between age and survival in patients with prostate cancer overall, the clinical drivers of this relationship in patients with advanced disease remain unclear. We leveraged the International Registry of Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN, NCT03151629) to (1) quantify the association between age and overall survival and (2) explore whether this association is explained by treatments. Methods: We included 3, 734 patients enrolled from 15 countries with new diagnoses of metastatic hormone sensitive (mHSPC, N=2, 642) or castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC, N=1, 092). Age at enrollment was categorized as &lt;55, 55-59, 60-64 (reference), 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85+ years. We computed age-specific death rates (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) by disease state (mHSPC, CRPC) at enrollment. To explore whether this relationship was explained by treatment, we fitted disease state-stratified Cox models and sequentially adjusted for (1) de novo metastatic status and country, and (2) baseline treatment (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] alone, ADT + androgen receptor pathway inhibitors [ARPI], ADT + chemotherapy, ADT + ARPI + chemotherapy, other). Results: Over 5.5 years of follow-up (median: 3.2 years, IQR: 1.7, 4.8), 995 patients died from any cause. Younger patients were more likely to have de novo metastatic disease. Among those with mHSPC at enrollment, the age-specific death rates per 1, 000 person-years followed a J-shaped pattern: 80 (95% CI: 54, 117) in patients under 55 years, 58 (46, 74) in patients aged 60-64, 102 (78, 133) in patients aged 80-84, and 172 (125, 236) in patients aged 85 and older. The death rates among those with CRPC followed a similar pattern, albeit rates were higher in magnitude: 212 (95% CI: 140, 323) in patients under 55 years, 153 (115, 202) in patients aged 60-64, 200 (155, 258) in patients aged 80-84, and 204 (142, 291) in patients aged 85 and older. After adjusting for disease state, country, and the timing of diagnosis of metastases, death rates were substantially higher for ages 75-79 (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1, 1.7), 80-84 years (HR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2, 2.1), and 85 years and older (HR 2.0; 95% CI: 1.5, 2.7) compared to ages 60-64 years. Patients aged under 55 years had 1.4-fold higher death rates (95% CI: 1.0, 1.9) compared to those 60-64 years. After additionally adjusting for baseline treatment, overall survival remained worse for the older patients and the youngest age group with hazard ratios remaining meaningfully unchanged. Conclusion: Age at enrollment is associated with overall survival in people with advanced prostate cancer enrolled in IRONMAN in a J-shaped pattern. This relationship is not explained by differences in baseline treatment. Citation Format: Hannah E. Guard, Michelle O. Sodipo, Colleen B. McGrath, Anna Siefkas, Lauren E. Howard, Konrad H. Stopsack, Christopher M. Sauer, Robert Dreicer, Emilio Esteban, Hassan M. Dogo, Ademola Popoola, Charles Waihenya, Anders Bjartell, Kim N. Chi, Sebastien Hotte, Richard Cathomas, Deborah Enting, Scott Tagawa, Michael Ong, Michael Kolinsky, Vincent Khoo, Joaquin Mateo, Chidiebere N. Ogo, Rana R. McKay, Stefanie Fischer, Heather H. Cheng, Russell Szmulewitz, Young E. Whang, Anand Sharma, Frédéric Pouliot, Simon Crabb, Monica S. Chatwal, Miguel A. Climent, Raymond McDermott, Ian D. Davis, Camille Ragin, Folakemi T. Odedina, Simon Anderson, Simone Badal, Natalie Greaves, Karen A. Autio, Laurel Cannon, Alyssa Chan-Cuzydlo, Marie Grant, Travis Gerke, Hannah D. McManus, Philip W. Kantoff, Daniel J. George, Lorelei A. Mucci, IRONMAN investigator team. Disentangling the association between age and overall survival in an international cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer [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 4935.

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.

Importance Half of all carriers of inherited cancer-predisposing variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are male, but the implications for their health are underrecognized compared to female individuals. Germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (also known as pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, referred to here as BRCA1/2 PVs) are well known to significantly increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancers in female carriers, and knowledge of BRCA1/2 PVs informs established cancer screening and options for risk reduction. While risks to male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs are less characterized, there is convincing evidence of increased risk for prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer in males. There has also been a rapid expansion of US Food and Drug Administration–approved targeted cancer therapies, including poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, for breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers associated with BRCA1/2 PVs. Observations This narrative review summarized the data that inform cancer risks, targeted cancer therapy options, and guidelines for early cancer detection. It also highlighted areas of emerging research and clinical trial opportunities for male BRCA1/2 PV carriers. These developments, along with the continued relevance to family cancer risk and reproductive options, have informed changes to guideline recommendations for genetic testing and strengthened the case for increased genetic testing for males. Conclusions and Relevance Despite increasing clinical actionability for male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs, far fewer males than female individuals undergo cancer genetic testing. Oncologists, internists, and primary care clinicians should be vigilant about offering appropriate genetic testing to males. Identifying more male carriers of BRCA1/2 PVs will maximize opportunities for cancer early detection, targeted risk management, and cancer treatment for males, along with facilitating opportunities for risk reduction and prevention in their family members, thereby decreasing the burden of hereditary cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.