Sokolova, Alexandra O

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 Previous studies suggest that SPOP mutations result in increased sensitivity to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) but are limited by lack of granular data. We hypothesize that SPOP mutations are associated with improved outcomes across the spectrum of advanced prostate cancer (PC). METHODS Using the real-world clinicogenomic Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine Multi-Institutional Collaborative Effort database, we analyzed outcomes based on SPOP mutation status. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of metastatic disease. Secondary end points included real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and PSA90 response. RESULTS Among 2,097 patients with metastatic PC, 5.5% (N = 115) had SPOP -mutated tumors. Compared with SPOP wild-type, patients with SPOP mutations were older at diagnosis (median 65 v 63 years; P = .001) and had higher (≥8) Gleason sum (68% v 54%; P = .02), higher incidence of lung metastasis (17% v 6%; P = .001), and increased frequency of intraductal features (13% v 5%; P < .001). SPOP mutations were associated with improved PSA90 response with first ARPI exposure in the castrate-resistant setting (60% v 40.6%; OR, 2.20 [95% CI, 1.15 to 4.19]; P = .02) but not in the castrate-sensitive setting (78.9% v 71.5%; OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.66 to 3.37]; P = .43). Median PFS with first ARPI did not differ in SPOP- mutated versus wild-type group in both the castrate-sensitive (24.2 v 19.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.32]; P = .39) and castrate-resistant settings (15.0 v 12.4 months; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.12]; P = .20). In multivariable analysis, SPOP mutations were associated with improved OS (HR, 0.65, P = .02). CONCLUSION SPOP mutations were associated with longer OS despite the presence of aggressive clinical features. The distinct clinical and molecular features of SPOP -mutated PC support its consideration as a unique molecular subtype with prognostic implications.

PURPOSE Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA 50 responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.