Szmulewitz, Russell Z

5005 Background: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) may have distinct central nervous system (CNS) penetration and differential effects on cognition or quality of life (QOL). AFT-47, “ARACOG” is a prospective, randomized open-label phase 2 trial comparing objective and patient-reported cognitive and QOL outcomes between patients with metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) or non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treated with darolutamide (DAR) or enzalutamide (ENZ). Methods: Between 8/17/2021 and 3/11/2025, 111 pts were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to treatment with ENZ or DAR. CANTAB, a validated computer-based platform evaluating 5 cognitive domains (PALFAM-memory recall, SWM- spatial working memory, SSP-short-term visual memory, working memory, RVP-rapid visual processing, and OTSMCC- executive function), was performed at baseline, 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Crossover (Xover) was allowed at 12 or 24 weeks for significant pre-specified decline in cognitive testing or patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), or for CNS-associated adverse events, including falls. The primary endpoint was the percent change in the maximally changed cognitive domain (MCCD) from baseline to 24 weeks and was compared between groups with the Wilcoxon rank sum statistic. Patients crossing over prior to 24 weeks were evaluated at the time of Xover and analyzed with their randomized arm. Secondary endpoints included comparison of Xover rates. Results: Among 111 pts, 55 received DAR and 56 received ENZ; median age was 71, 83% White. 95 pts (48 DAR, 47 ENZ) were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Baseline CANTAB was similar between groups. Median cognitive change in MCCD between baseline and 24 weeks was -15.8% and -36.1% for the DAR and ENZ pts, respectively (p = 0.009) (Table). Individual cognitive domains suggest possible learning effect (increased scores) for DAR and are stable or show mild decline for ENZ treated patients at 24 weeks. 32 DAR (58%) and 33 ENZ (59%) participants were eligible for Xover by 24 weeks, and 23 pts crossed over by 24 weeks. All Xover was pts randomized to ENZ (crossed to DAR), with the most common causes being decline in objective (N = 14) or subjective (N = 11) cognitive testing. Conclusions: In this US randomized trial comparing DAR to ENZ, the primary endpoint of differential cognitive effects was met. ENZ showed significantly greater cognitive score decline than DAR at 24 weeks in the MCCD after treatment initiation. Learning effect was seen with DAR but not ENZ. Longer term follow-up of cognitive change and PROM analyses are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT04335682 . Percent change in maximally changed cognitive domain by treatment. DAR (N=48) ENZ (N=47) Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test Result CANTAB domain PALFAM SWM Degree of change -15.8 (-38.8, -2.6) -36.1 (-59.3, -16.7) P=0.009

10610 Background: The role for genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients (pts) has expanded to find pts with germline pathogenic variants (PV) for therapeutic opportunities given FDA-approvals for PARP inhibitors in metastatic PCa as well as understanding familial cancer risk and opportunities for tailored screening and risk reduction. The PROMISE Registry (NCT04995198) was set up as a genetic registry to partner with PCa pts for rapid access to a new standard of care given insurance coverage and clinical implementation were initially major barriers. A second goal is to characterize disease features and treatment outcomes to inform management and provide updates about novel therapeutic clinical trials, both of which remain important to rare genetic variant carriers. Methods: PROMISE is a US decentralized prospective PCa genetic registry initiated in 2021 with initial phase to enroll and provide clinical-grade germline genetic testing (30 gene cancer-specific panel) to 5,000 PCa pts to identify ~500 PCa pts with variants of interest (pathogenic variants, PV, and variants of uncertain significance, VUS) in DNA repair genes for long-term clinical follow-up of 15 years (LTFU). Here, we report the initial phase testing results and identification of the LTFU cohort. Study design and enrollment strategy have been reported separately. Results: Between 2021-2026, 7,275 pts with any stage PCa across 50 US states self-consented to PROMISE, of which 5,674 (78%) of pts completed genetic testing, indicating feasibility of patient-directed, decentralized enrollment. We have identified 495 (8.7%) pts for LTFU. Baseline data is reported for n=367 (Table 1, will be updated at time of presentation). The most frequently observed PV/LPV variants being in CHEK2 (25%) , BRCA2 (23%) , ATM (12%) , and BRCA1 (4.6%). At the time of PCa diagnosis, the majority of LTFU pts had non-metastatic disease, with 47% of pts with Gleason>7, median PSA of 5 ng/mL, and median time from diagnosis to PROMISE GT of 25 months. Conclusions: PROMISE is a nationwide decentralized PCa genetic registry that has completed initial goal to recruit 5,000 PCa pts to offer germline genetic testing and recruit a cohort of 500 for LTFU. Data about diagnosis characteristics are reported, and analysis of ongoing disease course, treatment response/outcomes and overall survival is being collected. Clinical trial information: NCT04995198 . Long-term follow-up participant demographics. Characteristic Overall, N = 367 Age at Diagnosis (yrs) 63 (57, 69) Race N = 361 (6, nr) Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Multiracial, Other 22 (6.0%) Black or African American 22 (6.0%) White 317 (86%) Disease State at Diagnosis N = 348 (19, nr) Metastatic 46 (13%) Non-metastatic 302 (87%) Time from Diagnosis to PROMISE GT (months) 25 (4, 82) Gleason Score N = 280 (87, nr) </= 7 148 (53%) >7 132 (47%) PSA At Diagnosis (ng/mL) 5 (0, 10) (88, nr) Subjects with baseline data entered. nr=not reported. Median (Q1, Q3); n (%).

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s discussions on select 2026 updates to the guidelines regarding nonmetastatic disease: the elimination of the very-low-risk group, updates to the Principles of Active Surveillance, and caution in the use of focal therapy in newly diagnosed patients.

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

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.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions for patients with prostate cancer across the disease spectrum. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). For patients with mCSPC, disease characteristics, such as whether metastases arose synchronously or metachronously and the degree of metastatic burden, impact therapy decisions, including how much treatment intensification is appropriate and when prostate-directed and/or metastasis-directed therapy should be considered. In the mCRPC setting, androgen deprivation therapy is continued with the sequential or concurrent addition of certain androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, biomarkers, the extent and location of metastases, symptoms, and potential side effects.

Abstract Introduction: Most people who die from prostate cancer are older than 75 years. However, prostate cancer diagnosed at younger ages is often more aggressive. While epidemiologic studies have examined the association between age and survival in patients with prostate cancer overall, the clinical drivers of this relationship in patients with advanced disease remain unclear. We leveraged the International Registry of Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN, NCT03151629) to (1) quantify the association between age and overall survival and (2) explore whether this association is explained by treatments. Methods: We included 3, 734 patients enrolled from 15 countries with new diagnoses of metastatic hormone sensitive (mHSPC, N=2, 642) or castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC, N=1, 092). Age at enrollment was categorized as &lt;55, 55-59, 60-64 (reference), 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85+ years. We computed age-specific death rates (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) by disease state (mHSPC, CRPC) at enrollment. To explore whether this relationship was explained by treatment, we fitted disease state-stratified Cox models and sequentially adjusted for (1) de novo metastatic status and country, and (2) baseline treatment (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] alone, ADT + androgen receptor pathway inhibitors [ARPI], ADT + chemotherapy, ADT + ARPI + chemotherapy, other). Results: Over 5.5 years of follow-up (median: 3.2 years, IQR: 1.7, 4.8), 995 patients died from any cause. Younger patients were more likely to have de novo metastatic disease. Among those with mHSPC at enrollment, the age-specific death rates per 1, 000 person-years followed a J-shaped pattern: 80 (95% CI: 54, 117) in patients under 55 years, 58 (46, 74) in patients aged 60-64, 102 (78, 133) in patients aged 80-84, and 172 (125, 236) in patients aged 85 and older. The death rates among those with CRPC followed a similar pattern, albeit rates were higher in magnitude: 212 (95% CI: 140, 323) in patients under 55 years, 153 (115, 202) in patients aged 60-64, 200 (155, 258) in patients aged 80-84, and 204 (142, 291) in patients aged 85 and older. After adjusting for disease state, country, and the timing of diagnosis of metastases, death rates were substantially higher for ages 75-79 (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1, 1.7), 80-84 years (HR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2, 2.1), and 85 years and older (HR 2.0; 95% CI: 1.5, 2.7) compared to ages 60-64 years. Patients aged under 55 years had 1.4-fold higher death rates (95% CI: 1.0, 1.9) compared to those 60-64 years. After additionally adjusting for baseline treatment, overall survival remained worse for the older patients and the youngest age group with hazard ratios remaining meaningfully unchanged. Conclusion: Age at enrollment is associated with overall survival in people with advanced prostate cancer enrolled in IRONMAN in a J-shaped pattern. This relationship is not explained by differences in baseline treatment. Citation Format: Hannah E. Guard, Michelle O. Sodipo, Colleen B. McGrath, Anna Siefkas, Lauren E. Howard, Konrad H. Stopsack, Christopher M. Sauer, Robert Dreicer, Emilio Esteban, Hassan M. Dogo, Ademola Popoola, Charles Waihenya, Anders Bjartell, Kim N. Chi, Sebastien Hotte, Richard Cathomas, Deborah Enting, Scott Tagawa, Michael Ong, Michael Kolinsky, Vincent Khoo, Joaquin Mateo, Chidiebere N. Ogo, Rana R. McKay, Stefanie Fischer, Heather H. Cheng, Russell Szmulewitz, Young E. Whang, Anand Sharma, Frédéric Pouliot, Simon Crabb, Monica S. Chatwal, Miguel A. Climent, Raymond McDermott, Ian D. Davis, Camille Ragin, Folakemi T. Odedina, Simon Anderson, Simone Badal, Natalie Greaves, Karen A. Autio, Laurel Cannon, Alyssa Chan-Cuzydlo, Marie Grant, Travis Gerke, Hannah D. McManus, Philip W. Kantoff, Daniel J. George, Lorelei A. Mucci, IRONMAN investigator team. Disentangling the association between age and overall survival in an international cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 4935.

5010 Background: hK2 (encoded by the KLK2gene) is a novel target expressed on the cell surface of prostate cancer cells with restricted expression elsewhere. JNJ-6420 is a first-in-class anti-hK2 antibody–based targeted radiotherapy delivering 225Ac, a high-energy short-range alpha-particle emitter, to prostate cancer cells. Here we report the first-in-human study evaluating JNJ-6420 in heavily pretreated biomarker-unselected participants (pts) with mCRPC who received ≥1 prior androgen receptor pathway inhibitor. Methods: Intravenous JNJ-6420 was escalated from 50 μCi to 400 μCi every 8-12 weeks in the outpatient setting with no residential radioprotective restrictions. Prior radioisotopic therapy was an exclusion criterion. Primary objectives were safety and defining a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included preliminary assessment of clinical activity. Results: As of January 5, 2024, 67 pts received ≥1 JNJ-6420 dose. Exposure and clinical activity for the 57 pts in the ≥150 μCi JNJ-6420 cohorts are summarized (see Table); 35/57 (61.4%) experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, and 21 (36.8%) had a serious TEAE. TEAEs of note included thrombocytopenia (63.2%) and interstitial lung disease (ILD, 9%). All instances of ILD occurred at cumulative doses ≥500 μCi and prior to implementation of pulmonary function surveillance. Grade ≥3 TEAEs (≥10%) included anemia (26.3%), thrombocytopenia (17.5%), lymphopenia (10.5%), and leukopenia (10.5%). 9/57 (15.8%) pts discontinued treatment due to TRAEs; 4 TRAEs resulted in death. At doses ≥150 μCi, the PSA50 rate was 45.6%. To date, across all dose cohorts, 31 pts (46%) remained on treatment for ≥24 weeks. Prolonged clinical, biochemical, and radiographic responses were noted in pts receiving doses of 150 μCi and higher. Durable responses included pts on treatment for 112 weeks (96 weeks since last dose), 88 weeks (13 weeks since last dose), and 46 weeks (after a single dose). Conclusions: In this first-in-human study, key TEAEs of JNJ-6420 were thrombocytopenia and ILD, both associated with repeated dosing. At ≥150 μCi, 1-2 doses of JNJ-6420 elicited profound and durable biochemical and radiographic responses. Evaluation of the RP2D is ongoing. These data highlight hK2 as a novel target for targeted alpha-particle therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT04644770 . [Table: see text]

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

Prostate cancer is a disease of older adults that has undergone a significant therapeutic paradigm shift in the last decade with the emergence of novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPis). One of the more commonly used ARPis is enzalutamide. This drug, along with darolutamide and apalutamide, initially received approvals in the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer setting but is now utilized frequently in the metastatic castrate-sensitive and non-metastatic castration-resistant settings. Landmark phase III data illustrating ARPi efficacy in older adults are limited to those with excellent performance status. However, its role in unfit older prostate cancer patients remains to be explored in the context of a narrative review. This first-of-its-kind drug review aims to shed light on the most up-to-date evidence behind the unique toxicity profile of ARPis in the context of geriatric vulnerabilities such as cognitive and functional impairment, along with potential solutions and supporting evidence that exists to circumvent these issues in the vulnerable older adult.