Beltran, Himisha

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.

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.

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 Enzalutamide and abiraterone both target androgen receptor signaling but via different mechanisms. The mechanism of action of one drug may counteract the resistance pathways of the other. We sought to determine whether the addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) to enzalutamide prolongs overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the first-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with untreated mCRPC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive first-line enzalutamide with or without AAP. The primary end point was OS. Toxicity, prostate-specific antigen declines, pharmacokinetics, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were also examined. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and the stratified log-rank statistic were used to compare OS between treatments. RESULTS In total, 1,311 patients were randomly assigned: 657 to enzalutamide and 654 to enzalutamide plus AAP. OS was not statistically different between the two arms (median, 32.7 [95% CI, 30.5 to 35.4] months for enzalutamide v 34.2 [95% CI, 31.4 to 37.3] months for enzalutamide and AAP; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; one-sided P = .03; boundary nominal significance level = .02). rPFS was longer in the combination arm (median rPFS, 21.3 [95% CI, 19.4 to 22.9] months for enzalutamide v 24.3 [95% CI, 22.3 to 26.7] months for enzalutamide and AAP; HR, 0.86; two-sided P = .02). However, pharmacokinetic clearance of abiraterone was 2.2- to 2.9-fold higher when administered with enzalutamide, compared with clearance values for abiraterone alone. CONCLUSION The addition of AAP to enzalutamide for first-line treatment of mCRPC was not associated with a statistically significant benefit in OS. Drug-drug interactions between the two agents resulting in increased abiraterone clearance may partly account for this result, although these interactions did not prevent the combination regimen from having more nonhematologic toxicity.