Back to Authors

Nauseef, Jones T

0000-0003-2302-4171

Mayo Clinic

Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.

Citations 3

Trial Design and Objectives for Patients With Prostate Cancer: Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Working Group 4
Armstrong, Andrew J., Morris, M., Abida, Wassim , Aggarwal, Rahul R., Antonarakis, Emmanuel S., Attard, Gerhardt , Beltran, Himisha, Bryce, Alan H. , Carducci, Michael A. , Cheng, Heather H., Dahut, William L. , Emmett, Louise , Fizazi, Karim, Gafita, Andrei, George, Daniel J., Hermann, Ken, Hofman, Michael S., Hope, MD Thomas A., Hussain, Maha, Kelly, W. Kevin, Kuo, Phillip H. , Liu, Glenn X., Morgans, Alicia K., McKay, Rana R., Nanus, David, Nelson, P., Reichert, Zachery R. , Ryan, Charles J. , Sartor, A. Oliver, Schwartz, Lawrence H., Sharifi, Nima , Stadler, Walter M., Stein, M., Sternberg, Cora N., Szmulewitz, Russell Z., Tagawa, Scott T., Sokolova, Alexandra O., Wyatt, Alex, Yu, Evan Y., Halabi, S., Scher, Howard I., Group, for the PCWG4 Writing, Alumkal, Joshi J. , Aparicio, Ana, Barata, Pedro C., Drake, Charles G., Hamid, Anis , Heath, Elisabeth I. , Nauseef, Jones, Lage, Daniel E. , Mallak, Nadine , Patnaik, Akash, Prepelica, Kristofer, Rowe, Steven P., Slovin, Susan F. , Taplin, Mary‐Ellen , Zorko, Nicholas, Carducci, Michael A. , Halabi, Susan , Cheng, Heather H. , Antonarakis, Emmanuel S. , Morris, Michael J. , Armstrong, Andrew J. , Nauseef, Jones T. , Antonarakis, Emmanuel S. , Zorko, Nicholas A. , Armstrong, Andrew J , Morris, Michael J , Aggarwal, Rahul , Antonarakis, Emmanuel S , Beltran, Himisha , Bryce, Alan H , Cheng, Heather H , Chen, Delphine L , Chi, Kim N , Childs, Daniel S , Dahut, William , Emmett, Louise , Fizazi, Karim , Gafita, Andrei , George, Daniel J , Hermann, Ken , Hofman, Michael S , Hope, Thomas A , Hussain, Maha H A , Kelly, W Kevin , Kessler, Elizabeth , Lang, Joshua M , Liu, Glenn , Marshall, Catherine H , Morgans, Alicia K , McKay, Rana R , Nelson, Peter S , Paller, Channing J , Reichert, Zachery R , Sartor, A Oliver , Schöder, Heiko , Sharifi, Nima , Stadler, Walter M , Stein, Mark , Sternberg, Cora N , Szmulewitz, Russell Z , Tagawa, Scott T , Sokolova, Alexandra O , Wyatt, Alexander , Yamoah, Kosj , Yu, Evan Y , Halabi, Susan , Antonarakis, Emmanuel S , Zorko, Nicholas A , Nauseef, Jones T , N., Kim , Childs, Daniel S. , Fizazi, Karim , Gafita, Andrei , George, Daniel J. , Hofman, Michael S. , Lang, Joshua M. , Liu, Glenn , Marshall, Catherine H. , Morgans, Alicia K. , McKay, Rana R. , Paller, Channing J. , Sartor, Oliver , Schöder, Heiko , Schwartz, Lawrence H., Stadler, Walter M. , Tagawa, Scott T. , Scher, Howard I. , Aparicio, Ana, Barata, Pedro C. , Drake, Charles G. , Graff, Julie Nicole , Patnaik, Akash , Rathkopf, Dana E , Rettig, Matthew B.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 26, 2026 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 13 | Pages: 1249-1265

10.1200/jco-25-02834 Get It

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.
Alliance A222001: Oxybutynin Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Hot Flashes in Patients Receiving Androgen-Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer
Stish, Bradley J. , Mazza, Gina L. , Nauseef, Jones T. , Humeniuk, Michael, Smith, Thomas J. , Tofthagen, Cindy, Pardo, D.A. Diaz, Chay, Christopher H., Huang, Andrew Jonathan, Naha, Kushal , Tagawa, Scott T., Chow, Selina , Ruddy, Kathryn, Lustberg, Maryam B. , Adams-Campbell, Lucile L., Novotny, Paul J. , Loprinzi, Charles L. , Tofthagen, Cindy , Diaz, Dayssy A. , Tofthagen, Cindy S , Sebastian, Nikhil T , Huang, Andrew J , Tagawa, Scott T , Ruddy, Kathryn J , Smith, Thomas J , Mazza, Gina L , Nauseef, Jones T , Lustberg, Maryam , Tagawa, Scott T. , Ruddy, Kathryn J. , Adams-Campbell, Lucile L.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | January 26, 2026 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 13 | Pages: 1198-1205

10.1200/jco-25-01486 Get It

PURPOSE Hot flashes are a common side effect reported by men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. We sought to determine whether oxybutynin could improve hot flash symptoms in men with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with prostate cancer receiving a stable regimen of ADT with at least 28 hot flashes per week were randomly assigned to receive either oxybutynin 2.5 mg twice daily, oxybutynin 5 mg twice daily, or matching placebo for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the change in patient-reported hot flash scores since baseline at 6 weeks. Additional outcomes included incidence of adverse events (AEs), changes since baseline in Hot Flash–Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS) scores, and patient-reported symptoms. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients were enrolled, with the 81 participants eligible for final analysis reporting an average of 10.1 (standard deviation [SD], 5.55) hot flashes per day and an average daily hot flash score of 18.2 (SD, 13.5) included in final analysis. On average, patients on the placebo arm, 2.5 mg oxybutynin arm, and 5 mg oxybutynin arm had reductions in hot flashes/day of 2.15, 4.77 ( P = .02), and 6.89 ( P < .001), respectively. Daily hot flash scores for placebo, 2.5 mg oxybutynin, and 5 mg oxybutynin reduced by an average of 4.85, 9.94 ( P = .07), and 13.95 ( P = .002) points, respectively. No treatment-related grade 3+ AEs occurred. HFRDIS total scores improved by 14.2 and 20.7 points in the 2.5 mg ( P = .042) and 5 mg ( P < .01) oxybutynin arms, respectively, compared with a 3.1-point improvement with placebo. CONCLUSION Oxybutynin is superior to a placebo for the management of ADT-associated hot flashes in men with prostate cancer.
Impact of SPOP Mutations on Clinical Outcomes in Metastatic Prostate Cancer
Kilari, Deepak , Henderson, Nicholas , Yamamoto, Kyra, Yao, Ye , Hwang, Clara , Barata, Pedro C. , Bilen, Mehmet Asım , Graham, Laura , Garje, Rohan , Rothstein, Shoshana, Haider, Shabi , Pilling, Amanda , Chin, Erica, Koshkin, Vadim S. , Tripathi, Abhishek , Cackowski, Frank C. , Nauseef, Jones T. , Sokolova, Alexandra , Ayanambakkam, Adanma , Schweizer, Michael T. , Armstrong, Andrew J. , Dorff, Tanya B. , Reichert, Zachery R. , McKay, Rana R. , Henderson, Nicholas C , Park, Joseph J , Raychaudhuri, Ruben , Pilling, Amanda , Koshkin, Vadim S , Tripathi, Abhishek , Cackowski, Frank C , Nauseef, Jones T , Sokolova, Alexandra O , Ayanambakkam, Adanma , Zakharia, Yousef , Armstrong, Andrew J , Dorff, Tanya , Reichert, Zachery R , McKay, Rana R , Barata, Pedro , Garje, Rohan , Hwang, Clara , Kilari, Deepak , Chin, Erica

JCO Precision Oncology | December 5, 2025 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: 9 | Pages: No page available

10.1200/po-25-00590 Get It

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.