Bryce, Alan H

Abstract Purpose: This multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of cabazitaxel and carboplatin followed by abiraterone, plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), in patients with high-volume metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had high-volume mCSPC and ≤3 months of prior ADT. Patients received six 21-day cycles of cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 4) with continuous ADT, followed by maintenance abiraterone (1,000 mg daily) and prednisone (5 mg daily). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients free of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or radiographic progression at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included complete PSA response (≤0.2 ng/mL), objective response, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Overall survival (OS) was also reported. Results: Sixty-one participants were enrolled at eight sites. The median age was 64 years, median baseline PSA was 6.6 ng/mL (0.07–745.7 ng/mL), 73.3% had Gleason grade group 5, 69.5% had 10 or more metastases, and 19.6% had a homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutation. PSA PFS at 12 months was 84.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 72.5%–91.7%], and OS at 12 months was 94.8% (84.7%–98.3%). Complete PSA response was 66.7%, and complete objective response was 30.7%. Contrary to our hypothesis, relative to HRR wild-type patients, HRR-mutated patients (19.6%) had numerically fewer complete PSA responses (33.3% vs. 70.3%) and inferior PFS (HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 0.93–6.39). Common side effects of this quadruplet regimen included fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea. Conclusions: Cabazitaxel and carboplatin followed by abiraterone, together with ADT, were feasible, safe, and efficacious in patients with high-volume mCSPC and warrant further study in larger randomized trials.

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.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS An Expert Panel including patient representation completed a systematic review of the evidence and made recommendations. RESULTS Depending upon prior treatment received, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs: enzalutamide, abiraterone with prednisone), poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223, 177 Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-617), and sipuleucel-T have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with mCRPC. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI, the combination of PARPi and ARPI (talazoparib + enzalutamide, olaparib and/or niraparib + abiraterone) has shown clinical benefit. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI or ARPI followed by docetaxel, olaparib showed OS benefit. In select patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient, pembrolizumab showed clinical efficacy. RECOMMENDATIONS Prior systemic therapy for castration-sensitive prostate cancer will determine subsequent therapy used for mCRPC. Continue androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with mCRPC indefinitely. Early adoption of somatic genetic testing and palliative care is recommended. Patients with mCRPC and bony metastases should receive a bone-protective agent. The panel recommends the combination of ARPI with PARPi in patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI. For patients who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends docetaxel chemotherapy. The panel recommends 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel chemotherapy for patients who receive prior ARPI and docetaxel chemotherapy. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends PARPi monotherapy. Radium 223 is recommended for patients with symptomatic bone–only disease. Evidence for optimal sequencing for mCRPC regimens is lacking. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

ABSTRACTBackgroundThis study investigates the association between thromboembolic events (TE) and castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients receiving oral androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPi) compared to those undergoing chemotherapy, both with and without a pre‐existing history of cardiovascular disease (CVD).MethodsA total of 2779 men diagnosed with CRPC were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare Linked Database from 2012 to 2016. Patients were stratified based on their CVD history. Within each CVD stratum (pre‐existing CVD vs. no pre‐existing CVD), patients were further categorized into two treatment groups: those receiving oral ARPi and those undergoing chemotherapy. Unadjusted and inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW)‐adjusted proportional hazards models, using Fine and Gray's method, were applied to evaluate the potential association between ARPi treatment and TE.ResultsPatients with pre‐existing CVD treated with ARPi exhibited a significantly lower crude hazard ratio (HR) for TE compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27–0.58, p < 0.001). However, after adjustment using IPTW, this association was no longer significant (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.75–1.32, p = 0.99). For patients without CVD, ARPi use was also associated with a reduced risk of TE in the crude analysis (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.87, p = 0.01), but this effect was not statistically significant after IPTW adjustment (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69–1.41, p = 0.94).ConclusionARPi demonstrated no significant effect on TE risk compared to chemotherapy, regardless of pre‐existing CVD status. Similarly, when excluding patients with a prior history of TE, ARPi use remained non‐significantly associated with new TE in the IPTW‐adjusted competing risk analysis, highlighting the need for further investigation.

Indications for and implications of germline genetic testing (GGT) in patients with prostate cancer have expanded over the past decade, particularly related to precision therapies and management. GGT has become the standard of care for many cancers such as breast, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and metastatic prostate cancer, and it is imperative that patients be offered timely and equitable access to testing as it can inform patient-physician shared decision making for management of the current cancer as well as anticipatory guidance for disease progression. Additionally, GGT guides screening for and prevention of secondary malignancies for the patient and cascade testing for at-risk family members. Here, we present data supporting the notion that clinicians should offer all patients with prostate cancer the opportunity to undergo comprehensive GGT for pathogenic germline variants known to be associated with familial cancer and/or known to have implications for treatment and management.

AbstractCurrent US clinical practice guidelines for advanced prostate cancer management contain recommendations based on high‐level evidence from randomized controlled trials; however, these guidelines do not address the nuanced clinical questions that are unanswered by prospective trials but nonetheless encountered in day‐to‐day practice. To address these practical questions, the 2024 US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC 2024) was created to generate US‐focused expert clinical decision‐making guidance for circumstances in which level 1 evidence is lacking. At the second annual USPCC meeting (USPCC 2024), a multidisciplinary panel of experts convened to discuss ongoing clinical challenges related to 5 topic areas: biochemical recurrence; metastatic, castration‐sensitive prostate cancer; poly [ADP‐ribose] polymerase inhibitors; prostate‐specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy; and metastatic, castration‐resistant prostate cancer. Through a modified Delphi process, 34 consensus recommendations were developed and are intended to provide clinicians who manage prostate cancer with guidance related to the implementation of novel treatments and technologies. In this report, the authors review the areas of consensus identified by the USPCC 2024 experts and evaluate ongoing unmet needs regarding translational application of the current clinical evidence.

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 of review Low-volume prostate cancer is an established prognostic category of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. However, the term is often loosely used to reflect the low burden of disease across different prostate cancer states. This review explores the definitions of low-volume prostate cancer, biology, and current evidence for treatment. We also explore future directions, including the impact of advanced imaging modalities, particularly prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) scans, on refining patient subgroups and treatment strategies for patients with low-volume prostate cancer. Recent findings Recent investigations have attempted to redefine low-volume disease, incorporating factors beyond metastatic burden. Advanced imaging, especially PSMA PET, offers enhanced accuracy in detecting metastases, potentially challenging the conventional definition of low volume. The prognosis and treatment of low-volume prostate cancer may vary by the timing of metastatic presentation. Biomarker-directed consolidative therapy, metastases-directed therapy, and de-escalation of systemic therapies will be increasingly important, especially in patients with metachronous low-volume disease. Summary In the absence of validated biomarkers, the management of low-volume prostate cancer as defined by CHAARTED criteria may be guided by the timing of metastatic presentation. For metachronous low-volume disease, we recommend novel hormonal therapy (NHT) doublets with or without consolidative metastasis-directed therapy (MDT), and for synchronous low-volume disease, NHT doublets with or without consolidative MDT and prostate-directed radiation. Docetaxel triplets may be a reasonable alternative in some patients with synchronous presentation. There is no clear role of docetaxel doublets in patients with low-volume disease. In the future, a small subset of low-volume diseases with oligometastases selected by genomics and advanced imaging like PSMA PET may achieve long-term remission with MDT with no systemic therapy.

PURPOSE Patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) after radical prostatectomy and a short PSA doubling time are at risk for distant metastases. Apalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) prolong survival in the metastatic setting. We evaluated whether intensification of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in BRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS PRESTO is a randomized phase III, open-label trial in patients with BRPC and PSA doubling time ≤9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03009981 ). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT control, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + apalutamide + AAP. The primary end point was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), defined as serum PSA >0.2 ng/mL after treatment completion. RESULTS Five hundred three patients were enrolled. The median PSA was 1.8 ng/mL (IQR, 1.0-3.6). At the first planned interim analysis, both experimental arms significantly prolonged PSA-PFS compared with the control arm (median, 24.9 months for ADT + apalutamide v 20.3 months for ADT; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.77]; P = .00047; median, 26.0 months for ADT + apalutamide + AAP v 20.0 months for ADT; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.71]; P = .00008). Median time to testosterone recovery did not differ across treatment arms. The most common grade ≥3 adverse event was hypertension (7.5%, 7.4%, and 18% in ADT, ADT + apalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide + AAP arms, respectively). CONCLUSION Intensified AR blockade for a finite duration prolongs PSA-PFS with a manageable safety profile, without adversely affecting time to testosterone recovery. The addition of apalutamide to ADT should be considered in patients with high-risk BRPC.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, 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, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.