Beer, Tomasz M

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.

Abstract Cancer is a significant burden worldwide that adversely impacts life expectancy, quality of life, health care costs, and workforce productivity. Although currently recommended screening tests for individual cancers reduce mortality, they detect only a minority of all cancers and sacrifice specificity for high sensitivity, resulting in a high cumulative rate of false positives. Blood-based multicancer early detection tests (MCED) based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) and other technologies hold promise for broadening the number of cancer types detected in screened populations and hope for reducing cancer mortality. The promise of this new technology to improve cancer detection rates and make screening more efficient at the population level demands the development of novel trial designs that accelerate clinical adoption. Carefully designed clinical trials are needed to address these issues.

To examine the extent of the evaluation required to achieve diagnostic resolution and the test performance characteristics of a targeted methylation cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test, ~6200 participants ≥50 years with (cohort A) or without (cohort B) ≥1 of 3 additional specific cancer risk factors will be enrolled in PATHFINDER (NCT04241796), a prospective, longitudinal, interventional, multi-center study. Plasma cfDNA from blood samples will be analyzed to detect abnormally methylated DNA associated with cancer (i.e., cancer “signal”) and a cancer signal origin (i.e., tissue of origin). Participants with a “signal detected” will undergo further diagnostic evaluation per guiding physician discretion; those with a “signal not detected” will be advised to continue guideline-recommended screening. The primary objective will be to assess the number and types of subsequent diagnostic tests needed for diagnostic resolution. Based on microsimulations (using estimates of cancer incidence and dwell times) of the typical risk profiles of anticipated participants, the median (95% CI) number of participants with a “signal detected” result is expected to be 106 (87–128). Subsequent diagnostic evaluation is expected to detect 52 (39–67) cancers. The positive predictive value of the MCED test is expected to be 49% (39–58%). PATHFINDER will evaluate the integration of a cfDNA-based MCED test into existing clinical cancer diagnostic pathways. The study design of PATHFINDER is described here.

Purpose Ipilimumab increases antitumor T-cell responses by binding to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. We evaluated treatment with ipilimumab in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without visceral metastases. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo maintenance therapy was administered to nonprogressing patients every 3 months. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to ipilimumab and 202 to placebo; 399 were treated with ipilimumab and 199 with placebo. Median OS was 28.7 months (95% CI, 24.5 to 32.5 months) in the ipilimumab arm versus 29.7 months (95% CI, 26.1 to 34.2 months) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95.87% CI, 0.88 to 1.39; P = .3667). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the ipilimumab arm versus 3.8 with placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95.87% CI, 0.55 to 0.81). Exploratory analyses showed a higher prostate-specific antigen response rate with ipilimumab (23%) than with placebo (8%). Diarrhea (15%) was the only grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE) reported in ≥ 10% of ipilimumab-treated patients. Nine (2%) deaths occurred in the ipilimumab arm due to treatment-related AEs; no deaths occurred in the placebo arm. Immune-related grade 3 to 4 AEs occurred in 31% and 2% of patients, respectively. Conclusion Ipilimumab did not improve OS in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The observed increases in progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response rates suggest antitumor activity in a patient subset.