162 Background: Clinical trial conduct in advanced prostate cancer has changed dramatically with the continued development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotypes and genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states. This created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trials. Methods: We convened PCWG4, an international expert committee of multidisciplinary working groups, between 2016 and 2025 to update and expand PCWG2-3 recommendations based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in an innovative biomarker and imaging context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and endpoint assessments. Results: PCWG4 redefines terminology around disease states and prior therapies in a patient-centric context, considering imaging modalities, with a particular focus on PET-defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, imaging and non-imaging-based responses. We define delay/prevent endpoints including responses by pathology, ctDNA, circulating tumor cells, and PSA declines, and specify intervals for re-assessments including imaging, biomarker assessments, and patient reported outcomes. We propose new imaging-specific rPFS criteria including guidance with serial PSMA PET/CT imaging (Table). We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context for the 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. Conclusions: PCWG4 expands guidance on patient and tumor profiling, as well as therapy development, to include both androgen deprivation therapy sensitive and resistant settings, reflecting today’s more heterogeneous and diverse patient population to optimize outcomes. PCWG4-defined radiographic progression by imaging modality for patients with metastatic disease. Pretreatment Scan On-treatment Scan #1(≥week 8) On-treatment Scan #2 All Subsequent Scans Bone scintigraphy Comparator Comparator for subsequent scansPOD never called here POD:PCWG3 criteria (2+2 additional new lesions) POD:≤5 new lesions: PCWG3 criteria 2 new lesions confirmed≥6 new lesions CT/MRI Any measurable disease Comparator PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PSMA PET Bones, and lymph nodes and lung metastases (non-RECIST qualifying by + on PET only) Comparator POD:≤5 new lesions: 2 new lesions confirmed on a subsequent scan≥6 new lesions Same as prior Same as prior Liver and non-pulmonary viscera Comparator POD:Any single new lesion that represents disease Same as prior Same as prior
Trial Design and Objectives for Patients With Prostate Cancer: Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Working Group 4
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.
Association of Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 with the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab with or without Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
Abstract Purpose: The three-arm, phase III KEYNOTE-361 study did not meet its dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma. This prespecified exploratory analysis assessed the association of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) with clinical outcomes. Patients and Methods: TMB and PD-L1 CPS were determined via whole-exome sequencing and PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx, respectively. The association was evaluated in each treatment arm using logistic regression [objective response rate (ORR)] and Cox proportional hazards regression models (PFS and OS); one-sided (pembrolizumab monotherapy; pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy) and two-sided (chemotherapy) nominal P values were calculated. Significance was prespecified at α = 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment. Efficacy was evaluated by prespecified cutoffs of 175 mutations/exome (TMB) and CPS 10 (PD-L1). Results: Of the 993 treated patients, 820 (82.6%) and 993 (100%) had evaluable TMB and CPS data, respectively. Continuous TMB was positively associated with ORR, PFS, and OS for pembrolizumab monotherapy (one-sided P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.007, respectively); PFS and OS for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (one-sided P = 0.007 and P = 0.010, respectively); and OS for chemotherapy alone (two-sided P = 0.040). Continuous PD-L1 CPS showed evidence of anticipated association with ORR and PFS for pembrolizumab monotherapy. The subgroup with TMB ≥175 mutations/exome and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 had the highest PFS and OS improvements with pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Conclusions: These data suggest that TMB may be predictive of the response to pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma.
Tucatinib and trastuzumab for previously treated HER2−mutated metastatic breast cancer (SGNTUC−019): A phase 2 basket study.
1105 Background: Approximately 2-5% of breast cancers harbor HER2 mutations, often occurring in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) disease. There are currently no approved treatment options for patients (pts) with HER2-mutated metastatic breast cancer (HER2-mut MBC). Tucatinib (TUC) is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor highly selective for HER2 and is approved for previously treated HER2+ MBC with or without brain metastases in combination with trastuzumab (Tras) and capecitabine. Here, we report the efficacy and safety results of TUC combined with Tras in pts with previously treated HER2-mut MBC. Methods: SGNTUC-019 (NCT04579380) is an open-label phase 2 basket study evaluating efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TUC and Tras in pts with metastatic HER2-altered solid tumors. Pts in the HER2-mut MBC cohort must have HER2 mutations determined locally by tissue- or blood-based next-generation sequencing, not be HER2+ per local testing, been previously treated with ≥1 systemic therapy in the locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic setting, and if HR+, have received a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Pts were treated in 21-day cycles with TUC (300 mg orally twice a day) and Tras (8 mg/kg IV followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 wks). Pts with HR+ disease also received fulvestrant (F; 500 mg IM once every 4 wks starting from cycle 1 day 1, and cycle 1 day 15). Disease status was determined based on RECIST v1.1 with assessments performed every 6 wks for 24 wks and every 12 wks thereafter. The primary endpoint is cORR per investigator assessment. Secondary endpoints include OS, DCR, DOR, PFS, and safety. Results: As of Nov 1, 2023, 31 pts were enrolled in the HER2-mut MBC cohort. The median duration of follow-up for OS was 15.0 months. Twenty-seven (87%) pts had HR+ disease and 18 (58%) had lobular histology. The pts received a median of 4 prior lines of systemic therapy in any setting. cORR was 41.9% (90% CI, 26.9-58.2) with 13 responses including 2 complete responses. Median DOR was 12.6 months (90% CI, 4.7, not estimable), DCR was 80.6% (n=25; 90% CI, 65.3-91.2), median PFS was 9.5 months (90% CI, 5.4-13.8), and median OS was 20.1 months (90% CI, 15.9 to not estimable). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported were diarrhea (64.5%) and nausea (35.5%). The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs reported were diarrhea (13%), alanine aminotransferase increase (10%), and hypertension (10%). Two (6.5%) pts discontinued TUC due to TEAEs, but these pts continued Tras. No deaths were due to TEAEs. Additional biomarker analyses will be included in the presentation. Conclusions: The investigational combination of TUC and Tras, plus F in pts with HR+ disease, was well tolerated and had clinical activity in pts with previously treated HER2-mut MBC. The results support further evaluation of the combination of TUC and Tras as a potential treatment option for this pt population. Clinical trial information: NCT04579380 .
RefAI: a GPT-powered retrieval-augmented generative tool for biomedical literature recommendation and summarization
Abstract Objectives Precise literature recommendation and summarization are crucial for biomedical professionals. While the latest iteration of generative pretrained transformer (GPT) incorporates 2 distinct modes—real-time search and pretrained model utilization—it encounters challenges in dealing with these tasks. Specifically, the real-time search can pinpoint some relevant articles but occasionally provides fabricated papers, whereas the pretrained model excels in generating well-structured summaries but struggles to cite specific sources. In response, this study introduces RefAI, an innovative retrieval-augmented generative tool designed to synergize the strengths of large language models (LLMs) while overcoming their limitations. Materials and Methods RefAI utilized PubMed for systematic literature retrieval, employed a novel multivariable algorithm for article recommendation, and leveraged GPT-4 turbo for summarization. Ten queries under 2 prevalent topics (“cancer immunotherapy and target therapy” and “LLMs in medicine”) were chosen as use cases and 3 established counterparts (ChatGPT-4, ScholarAI, and Gemini) as our baselines. The evaluation was conducted by 10 domain experts through standard statistical analyses for performance comparison. Results The overall performance of RefAI surpassed that of the baselines across 5 evaluated dimensions—relevance and quality for literature recommendation, accuracy, comprehensiveness, and reference integration for summarization, with the majority exhibiting statistically significant improvements (P-values <.05). Discussion RefAI demonstrated substantial improvements in literature recommendation and summarization over existing tools, addressing issues like fabricated papers, metadata inaccuracies, restricted recommendations, and poor reference integration. Conclusion By augmenting LLM with external resources and a novel ranking algorithm, RefAI is uniquely capable of recommending high-quality literature and generating well-structured summaries, holding the potential to meet the critical needs of biomedical professionals in navigating and synthesizing vast amounts of scientific literature.
Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 2
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.
Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 1
Purpose: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. Results: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. Conclusions: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.
SWOG S2210: A phase II study of neoadjuvant carboplatin for localized, high-risk prostate cancer with germline BRCA1/2 mutations.
TPS354 Background: Carriers of germline pathogenic variants or mutations in BRCA2 and BRCA1 (referred to here as gBRCA1/2m) are enriched in metastatic prostate cancer (PrCa), and now have FDA-approved options for PARP inhibitors in late-stage disease. The NCCN guidelines recommends germline genetic testing for PrCa patients with metastatic, node positive and high risk localized prostate cancer. Prior studies have shown that gBRCA1/2m carriers with PrCa are more likely to have high-risk disease (6,7) and to develop lethal disease even after curative intent treatment (8,9). In other gBRCA1/2m-related cancers (breast, ovarian and pancreas), platinum-based regimens are part of neoadjuvant and front-line metastatic therapy options. Carboplatin is a well-tolerated, widely available and inexpensive DNA-damaging alkylating agent that is familiar to oncologists. The study hypothesis is that 4 cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin, followed by radical prostatectomy for patients with localized high/very high risk PrCa and g BRCA1/2m will result in a meaningful pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Methods: S2210 is a single-arm, open label study of 12 wks neoadjuvant carboplatin (4 cycles of AUC 5 every 21 days), followed by radical prostatectomy. Key eligibility criteria include people with high/very high-risk disease: cT3a or Grade Group 4-5 PrCa and/or PSA>20 ng/mL, have no evidence of distant metastases by conventional imaging (PSMA-PET-detected mets permitted if conventional imaging is negative and surgeon deems PSMA-detected sites resectable), who are candidates for radical prostatectomy and carboplatin, and have documented evidence of gBRCA1/2m through testing in a CLIA-certified lab. ADT prior to registration is permitted but must be discontinued on study. The study hypothesis is that the study treatment will result in ³30% rate of pathologic complete response (pCR, primary endpoint). A two-stage design will be used such that if ³1 of first 20 eligible patients achieves pCR, 20 further evaluable patients will be enrolled. This design has a significance level of 4.7%, and a power of 99%. Secondary endpoints include biochemical recurrence-free (at 2-, 3-, 5-yrs), metastasis-free and overall survival. Translational/correlative studies include analysis of 2nd allele inactivation in tumor, HRD signature, and ctDNA signature for monitoring of recurrence. S2210 was activated in August 2023. Clinical trial information: NCT05806515 .
Tucatinib and Trastuzumab for Previously Treated Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer (SGNTUC-019): A Phase II Basket Study
PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tucatinib and trastuzumab in patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) metastatic biliary tract cancer (mBTC). METHODS SGNTUC-019 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04579380 ) is an open-label phase II basket study evaluating the efficacy and safety of tucatinib and trastuzumab in patients with HER2-altered solid tumors. In the biliary tract cancer cohort, patients had previously treated HER2 overexpressing or amplified (HER2+) tumors (identified with local testing) with no prior HER2-directed therapy. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per investigator assessment. Patients were treated on a 21-day cycle with tucatinib (300 mg orally twice daily) and trastuzumab (8 mg/kg intravenously followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks). RESULTS Thirty patients were enrolled. As of data cutoff (January 30, 2023), the median duration of follow-up was 10.8 months. The cORR was 46.7% (90% CI, 30.8 to 63.0), with a disease control rate of 76.7% (90% CI, 60.6 to 88.5). The median duration of response and progression-free survival were 6.0 months (90% CI, 5.5 to 6.9) and 5.5 months (90% CI, 3.9 to 8.1), respectively. At data cutoff, 15 patients (50.0%) had died, and the estimated 12-month overall survival rate was 53.6% (90% CI, 36.8 to 67.8). The two most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were pyrexia (43.3%) and diarrhea (40.0%). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were reported in 18 patients (60.0%), with the most common being cholangitis, decreased appetite, and nausea (all 10.0%), which were generally not treatment related. TEAEs led to treatment regimen discontinuation in one patient, and there were no deaths due to TEAEs. CONCLUSION Tucatinib combined with trastuzumab had clinically significant antitumor activity and was well tolerated in patients with previously treated HER2+ mBTC.
Tucatinib and trastuzumab for previously treated HER2-positive metastatic biliary tract cancer (SGNTUC-019): A phase 2 basket study.
4007 Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is an aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis, and current treatment options for advanced BTC are limited, with second-line therapy, FOLFOX and S-1 offering an objective response rate (ORR) of 5.0% and 7.5%, respectively. Up to 20% of BTCs overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Tucatinib (TUC) is a highly selective HER2-directed TKI approved for HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast and colorectal cancer. Discussed here are the efficacy and safety results of TUC combined with Trastuzumab (Tras) in pts with previously treated HER2+ metastatic BTC. Methods: SGNTUC-019 (NCT04579380) is an open-label phase 2 basket study evaluating efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TUC and Tras in pts with HER2-altered solid tumors. Pts in the BTC cohort had been previously treated with and progressed after ≥1 line of systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Eligible pts had locally determined HER2+ (defined as HER2 overexpression determined by immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+ or HER2 amplification determined by in situ hybridization assay or next-generation sequencing) metastatic BTC. Pts were treated on a 21-day cycle with TUC (300 mg orally twice a day) and Tras (8 mg/kg IV followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 wks). Disease status was determined based on RECIST v1.1 with assessments performed every 6 wks for 24 wks and every 12 wks thereafter. The primary endpoint is confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per investigator assessment. Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Results: Thirty pts were enrolled in the BTC cohort as of data cutoff date of 30 Nov 2022. The median duration of follow-up was 8.3 months. cORR was 46.7% (90% CI, 30.8, 63.0), with 14 responses including 1 complete and 13 partial responses. Median DOR was 6.0 months (90% CI, 5.5, not estimable). DCR was 76.7% (n=23; 90% CI, 60.6, 88.5), and median PFS was 5.5 months (90% CI, 3.9, 8.1). At data cutoff, 13 (43.3%) patients had died, and the 12-months OS rate was 53.8% (90% CI, 35.2, 69.1%). Overall, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported were pyrexia (43.3%) and diarrhea (40.0%). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were reported in 18 (60.0%) of 30 pts; however, only 6 (20.0%) and 2 (6.7%) of these pts had Grade ≥3 TEAEs related to TUC and Tras, respectively. Two (6.7%) pts discontinued TUC due to TEAEs, cholangitis and liver disorder. No deaths were due to TEAEs. Conclusions: The combination of TUC and Tras was well tolerated in pts with previously treated HER2+ metastatic BTC. The observed antitumor activity supports the combination of TUC and Tras as a future chemotherapy-free treatment option for this population with historically poor outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT04579380 .