Iagaru, Andrei H.

TPS5127 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) ± androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy is a primary treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but is noncurative and has significant toxicities when used long-term. In patients with OMPC for whom delaying ADT is appropriate, metastasis-directed therapy such as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been shown to provide local disease control. However, many patients do not experience a complete prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and develop poly-metastatic disease. [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617) is a prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted radioligand therapy with demonstrated efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the VISION and PSMAfore trials. PSMA-DC (NCT05939414) is an ongoing, international, randomized phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 versus observation after SBRT in delaying castration and disease progression in patients with PSMA-positive OMPC. Methods: Eligible patients have histologically confirmed prostate cancer, biochemical recurrence post-definitive treatment, OMPC with ≤ 5 PSMA-positive metastatic lesions including ≥ 1 distant metastasis on PSMA PET/CT scans (all must be amenable to SBRT), PSA doubling time < 10 months and non-castration testosterone levels (> 100 ng/dL). Exclusion criteria include distant metastasis by conventional imaging (CI; CT/MRI and bone scans) at screening, prior ADT (except adjuvant ADT completed > 12 months before randomization), or other systemic therapy for metastatic prostate cancer. Patients (N = ~450) will be randomized 2:1 to 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or observation and will receive SBRT to all metastatic lesions within 14 days, completed within 3 weeks. Patients will then receive either intravenous 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq/6 weeks; 4 cycles), starting 7–21 days after SBRT, or undergo observation only. Additional SBRT for new lesions is allowed. ADT is allowed after a metastasis-free survival (MFS) event by CI confirmed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Safety follow-up will occur 42 days after the last 177 Lu-PSMA-617 dose and at the week 24 visit for the observational arm. Long-term follow-up for the 177 Lu-PSMA-617 arm will include safety assessments every ~32 weeks. The primary endpoint is MFS by CI as assessed by BIRC using RECIST v1.1, or death. To provide 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6, 187 MFS events are required. The key secondary endpoint is time to next hormonal therapy. Additional secondary endpoints include time to PSA progression, radiographic progression-free survival, symptomatic progression, patient-reported health-related quality of life, overall survival and safety. Shore et al. PSMA-delay castration (DC): an open-label, multicenter, randomized phase 3 study of [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus observation in patients with metachronous PSMA-positive oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC). J Urol 2025;213 (5S2_suppl):e28. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/01.JU.0001110444.53548.eb . Reused with permission; ©American Urological Association, 2025. This abstract previously presented at 2025 AUA Annual Meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT05939414 .

AbstractCurrent US clinical practice guidelines for advanced prostate cancer management contain recommendations based on high‐level evidence from randomized controlled trials; however, these guidelines do not address the nuanced clinical questions that are unanswered by prospective trials but nonetheless encountered in day‐to‐day practice. To address these practical questions, the 2024 US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC 2024) was created to generate US‐focused expert clinical decision‐making guidance for circumstances in which level 1 evidence is lacking. At the second annual USPCC meeting (USPCC 2024), a multidisciplinary panel of experts convened to discuss ongoing clinical challenges related to 5 topic areas: biochemical recurrence; metastatic, castration‐sensitive prostate cancer; poly [ADP‐ribose] polymerase inhibitors; prostate‐specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy; and metastatic, castration‐resistant prostate cancer. Through a modified Delphi process, 34 consensus recommendations were developed and are intended to provide clinicians who manage prostate cancer with guidance related to the implementation of novel treatments and technologies. In this report, the authors review the areas of consensus identified by the USPCC 2024 experts and evaluate ongoing unmet needs regarding translational application of the current clinical evidence.

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.

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.

Differentiated thyroid carcinomas is associated with an excellent prognosis. The treatment of choice for differentiated thyroid carcinoma is surgery, followed by radioactive iodine ablation (iodine-131) in select patients and thyroxine therapy in most patients. Surgery is also the main treatment for medullary thyroid carcinoma, and kinase inhibitors may be appropriate for select patients with recurrent or persistent disease that is not resectable. Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma is almost uniformly lethal, and iodine-131 imaging and radioactive iodine cannot be used. When systemic therapy is indicated, targeted therapy options are preferred. This article describes NCCN recommendations regarding management of medullary thyroid carcinoma and anaplastic thyroid carcinoma, and surgical management of differentiated thyroid carcinoma (papillary, follicular, Hürthle cell carcinoma).

4020 Background: High grade (G3) GEPNENs are a rare and heterogeneous disease entity for which there is little prospective treatment data. EP chemotherapy is the treatment standard but this may not be appropriate for all G3 GEPNEN pts. CAPTEM has demonstrated activity in G3 GEPNENs and may be a promising alternative. EA2142 aimed to determine if CAPTEM was superior to EP in pts with G3 GEPNENs. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized (1:1) phase II trial for pts with a locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic well differentiated G3 neuroendocrine tumor (NET) or a poorly differentiated, non-small cell G3 neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of suspected gastrointestinal origin and an ECOG PS of 0-2. Pathology must have demonstrated a Ki-67 of 20-100% or at least 10 mitoses/10 high powered field. Pts were randomized to receive capecitabine 750 mg/m2 orally every 12 hours on days 1-14 and temozolomide 200 mg/m2 orally once daily on days 10-14 of a 28-day treatment cycle (Arm A) or etoposide 100 mg/m2 daily on days 1-3 with either cisplatin 25 mg/m2 daily on days 1-3 or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 of a 21-day treatment cycle (Arm B). Restaging scans were performed every 8 weeks and toxicity monitored per CTCAEv4. Final statistical plan was to accrue 80 pts to detect a 67% improvement in progression free survival (PFS) (primary endpoint) with CAPTEM as compared to EP, 80% power and one-sided significance level of 0.10. A planned interim analysis for efficacy and futility was conducted. Results: A total of 67 pts were enrolled (Arm A, n=32; Arm B, n=35). Male 58%, African American 4%, Asian 3%. Mean age 61. Among 63 eligible pts, primary tumor site pancreatic 56%, non-pancreatic 43%. Poorly differentiated 57%, well differentiated 33%, unknown 10%. Mean Ki-67 48% (Arm A), 60% (Arm B). The study was closed prior to full accrual due to futility at 57.7% information time. In the interim analysis, among 62 eligible pts, PFS, overall survival and response rate with CAPTEM were 2.43 months (mos) (95% CI 2.04, 7.72), 12.6 mos, 9% respectively vs 5.36 mos (95% CI 2.14, 7.23), 13.6 mos and 10% with EP. Toxicity was evaluable in 57 pts with Grade (G) 3/4 events occurring in 29% of pts on Arm A, 66% of pts on Arm B. G3/4 events occurring in more than 5% of pts on Arm A—febrile neutropenia (n=2); abdominal pain (n=2); diarrhea (n=2); nausea (n=2); neutropenia (n=2); dehydration (n=2) and on Arm B—anemia (n=8); febrile neutropenia (n=2); fatigue (n=2); lymphopenia (n=2); neutropenia (n=12); thrombocytopenia (n=4); leukopenia (n=6). There was one G5 event on Arm A due to sepsis. Conclusions: CAPTEM does not appear to be superior to EP chemotherapy as front-line treatment for pts with G3 NENs but does demonstrate a more favorable toxicity profile. Studies assessing G3 NET independently of G3 NEC are needed. Clinical trial information: NCT02595424.