Pomper, Martin G.

e17061 Background: ThePhase 3 VISION trial demonstrated that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged overall survival (OS) in metastatic-castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy and androgen receptor-signaling inhibitors (ARSi). The expanded access program (EAP) (NCT04825652) was opened to provide access to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for eligible patients until regulatory approval was obtained. The VISION trial required strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, which may not represent the patient population encountered in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in a real-world setting within the EAP and compare the results with those from the VISION trial. Methods: Patients enrolled in the EAP between May 2021 and March 2022 at four institutions in the United States with available toxicity and outcome data were included. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS), ≥50% PSA decline rates (PSA-RR), and incidences of toxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Differences in baseline characteristics, toxicity, and PSA-RR between the EAP and VISION were evaluated using a t-test of proportions. Results: 117 patients with mCRPC were eligible and included. Patients enrolled in the EAP were similarly pretreated with taxane-based chemotherapy regimens (>1 taxane: 47% vs 40%; p=0.16) and more heavily pretreated with ARSi (>1 ARSi: 70% vs 46%; p<0.001). EAP patients had similar levels of ≥3 grade anemia (18% vs 13%; p=0.15), thrombocytopenia (13% vs 8%; p=0.13), and neutropenia (3% vs 3%; p=0.85) and higher levels of ≥3 grade lymphopenia (34% vs 8%; p<0.001). Patients treated within the EAP experienced numerically shorter OS (median OS: 13.7 vs 15.3 months) and similar PSA-RR (40% vs 46%; p=0.29). Median follow-up was numerically shorter in the EAP compared with VISION (14.7 mo vs 20.3 mo). Conclusions: mCRPC patients treated with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in a real-world setting were more heavily pretreated with ARSi, had a similar safety profile, and experienced numerically shorter OS and similar PSA-RR compared with VISION trial patients. A major limitation of this study is that we did not have access to individual patient data from the VISION trial, so we were not able to assess whether differences in OS between VISION and the EAP were statistically significant.

5011 Background: Emerging data suggest metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) improves outcomes in patients with oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (omCSPC). Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) can detect occult metastatic disease and has been proposed as a biomarker for treatment response. Herein we identify and validate a PSMA-PET biomarker for clinical outcomes following MDT in omCSPC. Methods: This was an international multi-institutional retrospective study of two completely independent cohorts of men with omCSPC, defined as ≤3 lesions, treated with metastasis-directed stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) who underwent PSMA-PET/CT prior to and 3-6 months after treatment. Pre- and post-SABR PSMA-PET/CT standardized uptake value (SUV) was measured for all lesions and PSMA response defined discretely using a cutpoint of ≥ 30% decrease in SUVmax. PSMA-PET response was correlated with lesion local control (LLC), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) defined using conventional and PET imaging, and metastasis-free survival (MFS) defined by conventional imaging alone. Results: A total of 131 patients with 261 treated metastases were included in the analysis, with median follow-up of 29 months (IQR 18.5-41.3). Following SABR, 78.4% of lesions experienced a partial or complete PSMA response. Multivariable analysis demonstrated SUV response significantly associated with improved LLC (HR = 9.97, 95%CI 3.92-25.4; p < 0.01). Patients with PSMA response in all lesions experienced significantly better rPFS (HR = 0.49, 95%CI 0.26-0.92; p = 0.03) compared to their counterparts and this maintained significance within both the discovery (p < 0.01) and validation (p = 0.01) cohorts. Within the discovery cohort, patients with PSMA response in all lesions also experienced significantly improved MFS (HR = 0.24, 95%CI 0.07-0.85; p = 0.03); analysis of the independent validation cohort is ongoing. Conclusions: Following SABR, PSMA-PET response is a robust and externally validated radiographic biomarker for rPFS and appears to be associated with MFS pending validation. This approach holds promise for guiding clinical management of omCSPC.

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.